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

[AvTvM]

yes, totally agree. it is Canon and Nikon's undeserved good luck, that

• Sony f*cked up its choice of FF mirrorless lens mount.
• Fuji stupidly decided to go for 44X33mm "pseudo middle-format" (GFX) rather thn launching a kick-ass FF-sensored mirrorless product line
• Olympus and Panasonic settled for dwarf-sized mFT sensor format without being able to deliver proportionally smaller gear
• Ricoh/Pentax has no clue at all and f*cked up so badly with its long FDD K-mount mirrorless camera (K-01)
• Leica charges moon prices and made its SL system way too large and heavy

and it is CaNikon customers' bad luck, that
• all other makers fail to provide enough "competitive impetus" for CaNikon re. great mirrorless FF gear

sigh ...

 

[Mikehit]

So I will rephrase my question - where is the threat to Canon's dominance (let alone survival) if they do not introduce the new mount on a FF mirrorless camera in the timelines you claim are necessary? Why is it so urgent?

 

[Loswr]

yes, sony FE lenses are longer/larger than desirabl. This is solely due to Sony's poor choice of lens mount - they decided to use E-mount - originally designed for APS-C sensored cameras only (NEX series, then A####) - also for their FF-sensor cameras (A7 / II series).

too large, complex and expensive lenses are the price Sony users are asked to pay for Sony's wrong lens mount decision.

And you know this because of your expertise in optical physics and lens design?

 

[moreorless]

yes, sony FE lenses are longer/larger than desirabl. This is solely due to Sony's poor choice of lens mount - they decided to use E-mount - originally designed for APS-C sensored cameras only (NEX series, then A####) - also for their FF-sensor cameras (A7 / II series).

too large, complex and expensive lenses are the price Sony users are asked to pay for Sony's wrong lens mount decision.

And you know this because of your expertise in optical physics and lens design?

Honestly this does seem like an attempt to hang onto the "dream" of smaller mirrorless lenses doesn't it? that dream ultimately came from comparing film era manual M lenses to modern AF SLR lenses, even the M mount with its relatively long flange distance for a non SLR has seen the redesign of a lot of lens to optimise performance for digital and this has resulted in considerable size increases.

Honestly I wonder as well whether we might finally see Sigma style multi layer sensor tech start to catch on in the coming years, if we do then that's likely to case even bigger performance issues with small flange distances.

That's why my feeling is if Canon do put on a mirrorless mount FF camera it will likely look to follow the EF-M, not as a rival to EOS but rather a smaller system that focuses on a handful of lenses that do give a relatively small package. As with the APSC sensor size I do think there's a vulnerability here with Sony who seem to have taken the route of compromised cheaper lenses to drive higher end sales. That does I'd say heavily compromise a system sold on size since often lenses like the kit zoom are the only option if you want a relatively small package.

 

[rrcphoto]

why do we even need a small mirrorless full frame ecosystem?

canon will / should go mirrorless for the EF mount. period. there's too much legacy glass out there, and the world resists adapters. Moving off the EF mount simply will add too much consumer confusion in a marketplace where that is completely unnecessary.

the only real reason mirrorless is necessary now for full frame is simply to have a consistent hybrid view of the world for video and stills shooting and for those that prefer EVF over OVF. for the vast majority of people, an EF full frame mirrorless camera body system would be no difference in size and weight from a mirrorless one with a shorter registration distance. Why? because the body ergonomics dictate the size more than the registration distance.

if canon figures out a compact and inexpensive way of doing a hybrid viewfinder - the need for a total mirrorless solution even moreso becomes an non entity.

clamoring for yet another mount system is absurd - and then we have on top of that, the challenges that canon will have to fix doing a full frame sensor in a small registration distance camera ecosystem. Canon as of now has no BSI technology implemented. that in itself is both a fabrication and patent issue.

there's a ton of technical hurdles that need to be jumped for a shorter registration distance mirrorless option that everyone is simply glossing over - from the sensor all the way to the battery.

an EF mount mirrorless doesn't have near as many issues - since it's already implemented for both EF lenses and also EF cameras out there today in the 5D Mark IV - we see that the proof of concept for a mirrorless EF mount camera is pretty much already here.

The market is shrinking, canon is going to fight hard to maintain it's volume of sales and profitability, which means stealing from others - however, they also can't afford to spend their entire R&D budget on a new ecosystem either. there's no bang for the buck there. the bang of the buck would be to take existing ecosystems and technology and implement a new camera body within the existing ecosystems.

Canon is already dead f'king slow implementing EF-M .. how slow will they be implementing a 5th mount ecosystem on top of that? (EF-S, EF-M, EF, EF-CINI and now some want EF-Mx)

then we have the fact to how canon is stretched out...

M10, M6, M5
SL1, T6, T7i, 77D, 80D, 7D mark II, 6D, 5D mark IV, 5Ds/r, 1Dx Mark II
C100, C300, C500, C700

and we're going to add a whole new line to that?

 

[GHPhotography]

If Canon could make smaller/lighter/cheaper EF mount lenses that matched the L series quality they would. Without a breakthrough in new lens materials or technology we are limited to the physics of optical design. Adding in other features like IS complicates the design and adds weight/size to the lens.

The way I see it the future is only smaller/lighter if Canon can master DO lenses or if a new lens material is developed. AvTvM, what makes you think smaller and lighter but higher quality lenses are designable in the first place? Just hopes and dreams or actual optic knowledge? I ask in part because I am about to teach an optics unit to my physics class and if you know something revolutionary I would love to include it.

 

[Don Haines]

If Canon could make smaller/lighter/cheaper EF mount lenses that matched the L series quality they would. Without a breakthrough in new lens materials or technology we are limited to the physics of optical design. Adding in other features like IS complicates the design and adds weight/size to the lens.

The way I see it the future is only smaller/lighter if Canon can master DO lenses or if a new lens material is developed. AvTvM, what makes you think smaller and lighter but higher quality lenses are designable in the first place? Just hopes and dreams or actual optic knowledge? I ask in part because I am about to teach an optics unit to my physics class and if you know something revolutionary I would love to include it.

There have been lots of improvements over the last 20 years......

Optical glass compositions have changed and new materials like fluorite elements have emerged.....
Coatings have been improved.....
The software used to design lenses has allowed very complex designs to be simulated.....
The accuracy to which a lens can be ground and polished has improved dramatically.....
The mechanical construction of lenses has become more accurate....

All of those advances did not result in smaller lenses (with the exception of pancakes where image quality was sacrificed for size), they went into image quality and lenses seem to have become larger! The result is that new lenses are far superior to the glass that I shot with 20 years ago. The market seems to value image quality over size!

 

[GHPhotography]

There have been lots of improvements over the last 20 years......

Optical glass compositions have changed and new materials like fluorite elements have emerged.....
Coatings have been improved.....
The software used to design lenses has allowed very complex designs to be simulated.....
The accuracy to which a lens can be ground and polished has improved dramatically.....
The mechanical construction of lenses has become more accurate....

All of those advances did not result in smaller lenses (with the exception of pancakes where image quality was sacrificed for size), they went into image quality and lenses seem to have become larger! The result is that new lenses are far superior to the glass that I shot with 20 years ago. The market seems to value image quality over size!

Right, that is my point. If Canon could make small/light/cheap lenses that were of the highest quality they would, it just makes sense as a major manufacturer in the market. If pancake L series lenses were doable Canon would make them. I think we are nearing the limit for what can be done with the current lens materials, unless they develop new ones (like the blue goo the 35 f/1.4 has) or master new technology (like diffractive optics) we are going to see relatively big and heavy L series lenses and only see small lenses that take an IQ hit. Askin Canon to make Leries quality for pancake price and materials is a pipe dream that will never happen unless major breakthroughs occur.

 

[ahsanford]

then we have the fact to how canon is stretched out...

M10, M6, M5
SL1, T6, T7i, 77D, 80D, 7D mark II, 6D, 5D mark IV, 5Ds/r, 1Dx Mark II
C100, C300, C500, C700

and we're going to add a whole new line to that?

If trust fund kids, one-percenters and rabid enthusiasts will drop $3k on a body and another $1-2k on lenses, YES. If this generates incremental units -- especially from higher-paying users -- Canon will find a way to make it happen.

That said, I agree with all your other points. Full EF makes the most sense.

But while a new mount may still happen, it does not signal the end of EF. A new mount and a well-contained offering of new small thin-mount lenses (say the 4-6 staples: 24-70 f/4, 16-35 f/4 (perhaps slower to keep it small), 24 f/2, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, perhaps a macro) is absolutely possible. Canon simply needs to state "We'll only make a few new lenses for the new mount because there are so many EF lenses you can use with an adaptor. [Wipe hands.] We're done here."

- A

 

[GHPhotography]

If trust fund kids, one-percenters and rabid enthusiasts will drop $3k on a body and another $1-2k on lenses, YES. If this generates incremental units -- especially from higher-paying users -- Canon will find a way to make it happen.

That said, I agree with all your other points. Full EF makes the most sense.

But while a new mount may still happen, it does not signal the end of EF. A new mount and a well-contained offering of new small thin-mount lenses (say the 4-6 staples: 24-70 f/4, 16-35 f/4 (perhaps slower to keep it small), 24 f/2, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, perhaps a macro) is absolutely possible. Canon simply needs to state "We'll only make a few new lenses for the new mount because there are so many EF lenses you can use with an adaptor. [Wipe hands.] We're done here."

- A

I would argue that trust fund kids and 1% spend their coin on Canon gear because the pros use it, not because of any tech advancements or weight savings. I shoot prep sports to make extra cash and I get the "your camera looks like the ones on TV" or "Oh my god, I want your camera so bad" from parents and athletes all the time.

Canon likely attracts more enthusiasts and 1% by dominating the Olympics and Super Bowl than by making mount changes. I still think the smartest advertising Canon has ever done is painting their big lenses white.

 

[ahsanford]

I would argue that trust fund kids and 1% spend their coin on Canon gear because the pros use it, not because of any tech advancements or weight savings. I shoot prep sports to make extra cash and I get the "your camera looks like the ones on TV" or "Oh my god, I want your camera so bad" from parents and athletes all the time.

Canon likely attracts more enthusiasts and 1% by dominating the Olympics and Super Bowl than by making mount changes. I still think the smartest advertising Canon has ever done is painting their big lenses white.

Think more present day for a second: the young people who take lifestyle photos of their swag.

People who obsess about their possessions belonging to a pretty set of things. The ones who buy absurdly expense leather showpiece bags for their gear.

Those people. (See pics below.)

They don't fit into any pre-made buckets of photographers, have a lot of coin in their pocket, and want something small and sexy for their exciting lives. Canon and Nikon would give their left nut for such a crowd of not-premium-pricing-averse shoppers, and that might come in the form of a new mount and a handful of lenses.

The RX1 rigs, X100 rigs and Nikon Df were 100% aimed at that audience. Screw specs -- give me sexy.

- A

 

[GHPhotography]

Think more present day for a second: the young people who take lifestyle photos of their swag.

People who obsess about their possessions belonging to a pretty set of things. The ones who buy absurdly expense leather showpiece bags for their gear.

Those people. (See pics below.)

They don't fit into any pre-made buckets of photographers, have a lot of coin in their pocket, and want something small and sexy for their exciting lives. Canon and Nikon would give their left nut for such a crowd of not-premium-pricing-averse shoppers, and that might come in the form of a new mount and a handful of lenses.

The RX1 rigs, X100 rigs and Nikon Df were 100% aimed at that audience. Screw specs -- give me sexy.

- A

Point well taken. Though the few friends of mine that DO fit that category all take the picture of their "swag" gear using Canon bodies and lenses because they asked me what to buy. My current second shooter for weddings often posts pictures OF his rangefinder camera that his grandfather left him, but most of his social posts are shot WITH a Canon XXD body.

EDIT- This is the crowd that I think Canon is actively courting with the M5/M6 bodies, hip and mirrorless and the silver accents on the M6 make it look more retro style

 

[rrcphoto]

then we have the fact to how canon is stretched out...

M10, M6, M5
SL1, T6, T7i, 77D, 80D, 7D mark II, 6D, 5D mark IV, 5Ds/r, 1Dx Mark II
C100, C300, C500, C700

and we're going to add a whole new line to that?

If trust fund kids, one-percenters and rabid enthusiasts will drop $3k on a body and another $1-2k on lenses, YES. If this generates incremental units -- especially from higher-paying users -- Canon will find a way to make it happen.

trust fund kids would already have options to purchase. I see / saw so many tourists sporting 5D's and L's in mexico .. it was rediculous how many. just a few mirrorless.

The RX1, X100,etc are not ILC's so that's a different take and yes, canon needs premium on there. however I don't really see the need for a premium FF mirrorless when canon has full frame options to handle the vast majority of the market.

and they do already - while there's some leakage to Sony, people tend to forget the massive amount of users that use canon that can possibly upgrade to those 5D's and 6D's.

there's also nothing saying that canon can't make an EF rangefinder / hip camera either. the FD mount was a long haul registration distance and some of the cameras such as the F-1 and AE-1 are small for today's cameras.

btw, it's canon's 80th anniversary this year, I wonder if they will do something cool for it such as an EF mount AE-1

 

[AvTvM]

Canon pancake lenses sacrificing IQ? ridiculous. EF 40/2.8 is one stop söower than 35/2.0 IS, but not at all vehind in IQ. EF-S 24/2.8 is definitely not behind in IQ compatrd to sny ither Canon EF-S lens. Pentax Limited pancakes are full frame and definitely not behind in IQ compared to comparable FL regular-size K-mount lenses.

Canon EF-M 22/2.0 is tiny, dirt cheap and has stellar IQ. it beats any other canon EF-M, EF-S and Nikon DX crop lens, no matter what size. it is inly matched in IQ by Fuji XF 23/2.0 which is also very compact, but comes at 4 tomes the price.

lens design starts with a properly chosen lens mount. Canon FD was an excellent choice (back then for manual focus), Canon EF eas an excellent choice with its oversize width, EF-M like Sony E was a good choice for mirrorless APS-C image circle ... but not for 36x24 sensors.

market wants smaller, yet still fully capable gear. not inly hipsters, but many enthusiasts who are sick and tited of having to lug around massive, heavy imaging gear. neuro considering more compact EOS M6 rather than bigger M5 is a good example...

mirrorless FF has the potential for fully capable imaging gear in a smaller package than DSLRs. Sony has tapped it with A7 series, but blew it with lens mount choice. FE lenses are NOT "cheaper in exchange for lower IQ", but "way longer, bigger and more expensive than would have been necessary for excellent IQ with a properly chosen lens mount". Even Zeiss is severely limited in their lens design aid for Sony ... simply because choice of E-mount for FF Mirrorless does not allow for high IQ lenses that are also compact and affordable.

i am convinced, Canon will not repeat Sony's mistake. and they know they'll sell many more brand new EX-? lenses over many years to come than only upgraded versions of EF lenses. no matter, what "lens design experts" on this forum may think.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon pancake lenses sacrificing IQ? ridiculous. EF 40/2.8 is one stop söower than 35/2.0 IS, but not at all vehind in IQ. EF-S 24/2.8 is definitely not behind in IQ compatrd to sny ither Canon EF-S lens. Pentax Limited pancakes are full frame and definitely not behind in IQ compared to comparable FL regular-size K-mount lenses.

IQ is not the only consideration, though. Lenses have features other than being sharp, and the Canon pancakes forego almost all of them!

Canon's pancakes:

• Lack IS
• Lack USM focusing speed
• Lack distance scales
• Lack a proper focusing ring
• Are focus by wire and have a poor, laggy feel when manually focusing
• Have cheap and questionably effective hoods
• Are externally focusing (an inner lens tube projects out front while focusing) -- that's a pathway for dust/moisture to get in

That seems a ton to give up to keep things small. In that light, Canon shouldn't build a platform around pancakes. Offer a few, sure -- they are quite sharp -- but don't build a system around them.

There's a good reason why my 28 f/2.8 IS USM and 35mm f/2 IS USM get used much much more than my 40mm EF pancake does.

- A

 

[Loswr]

i am convinced

While that may be a critical factor in the AvTvM Universe, it doesn't mean anything out here in the real world.

 

[slclick]

Yeah the 40 certainly has a lot of shortcomings when you compare it to other lenses but when you just use it it can truly surprise you with great micro contrast and color rendition. For me it replaced a Voigtlander and I gained both AF and better vignetting.

I'm usually using it when I have time to shoot, time to focus and recompose, time to look for subtle interesting moods in a scene. My favorite shots with it have been at sunset in Orlando at Epcot.

But all in all this has nothing to do with the internals of a rumored Canon FF ML camera. Except you could probably fit 2 of them in the body.

 

[Mikehit]

market wants smaller, who says? It would be stupid to say people would not welcome a lighter, smaller lens came up that did not sacrifice quality, but that is very different ot say that people are clamouring for ityet still fully capable gear. not inly hipsters, but many enthusiasts who are sick and tited of having to lug around massive, heavy imaging gear. neuro considering more compact EOS M6 rather than bigger M5 is a good example... which proves my point - they will welcome it when it arrives, but that is not the same as saying they are demanding it

mirrorless FF has the potential for fully capable imaging gear in a smaller package than DSLRs. you really are a genius, aren't you Sony has tapped it with A7 series, but blew it with lens mount choice so have they 'tapped it' or haven't they? it is one or the other. You are arguing both sides at the same time . FE lenses are NOT "cheaper in exchange for lower IQ", but "way longer, bigger and more expensive than would have been necessary for excellent IQ with a properly chosen lens mount". Even Zeiss is severely limited in their lens design aid for Sony ... simply because choice of E-mount for FF Mirrorless does not allow for high IQ lenses that are also compact and affordable. you still haven't proved that 'high IQ' is compatible with either 'compact' or 'affordable'. You are living in la-la-land

i am convinced, Canon will not repeat Sony's mistake so why are they 'dumb'?. and they know they'll sell many more brand new EX-? lenses over many years to come than only upgraded versions of EF lenses. no matter, what "lens design experts" on this forum may think. you mean, unlike 'lens designers' who think it is perfectly reasonable to expect high IQ, affordable, compact lenses to fit a totally new ficticious lens mount that will be released in the next 2 years?????

 

[AvTvM]

wow so much red ink, drama queen.

sony has tapped smaller size in FF *mirrorless bodies*. they missed the boat with their wrong choice of lens mount and the compromised lens design caused by it. just look at their big, fat, grissly overpriced zeiss-badged FE-lenses and those obacenely big GM "Girth Master" lenses. Would you really want Canon to repeat that mistake? ;-)

 

[slclick]

Ok ok, this is all rinse and repeat here. Anyone with something relevant and/or new? Yawn.