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

[YellowJersey]

There seems little point to a mirrorless camera that has the same form factor, You could put any recent DSLR into live view and have a effectively mirrorless camera. So they take out the mirror and gut the autofocus system, and then add $500 to the price. How many would go for that? I expect that many would, but if they just called that switch a Mirrorless Mode switch rather than Liveview, many would figure it out.

Canon has been sitting in a quandary. The Asian Market likes smaller cameras, the US and European markets like larger cameras. As noted, a new body and mirrorless mount requires a large investment, both for manufacturing, but also for the customer. Its taken years to come out with just a handful of M lenses.

Form factor: agreed. It makes no sense.

You can basically use a DSLR as a mirrorless camera using liveview, and DPAF makes that quite nice. It makes me wonder if a hybrid viewfinder where you could alternate between OVF and EVF would be worth the trouble when you can just use liveview instead.

 

[jolyonralph]

Don, I happen to agree with you (as does about 2/3 of the forum based on polling), but I also think there's enormous room for a devil's advocate position on this in which Canon goes with a new, thin 4th mount.

Again, there is no need for a 4th mount. The EF-M mount is perfectly capable of handling full-frame lenses, and unlike EF/EF-S there doesn't need to be any physical mount differences, existing EF-M lenses will fit and work fine on a full-frame EF-M body - albeit in crop mode (although you'll probably find that many of the existing lenses could work fine at 1.3 crop as well as 1.6 crop.)

To make a FF mirrorless camera compete with others on the market size and weight are a significant factor (and this includes the bundled lens).

You wouldn't need a huge range of FF EF-M lenses in order to launch such a product. Two or three reasonably compact primes (35mm f/2.5 or 2.8 would be nice) and an inexpensive lightweight zoom - the Sony FE 28-70 is a super lens for the money & weight for example. All specialist lenses, fast zooms, fast primes, etc, can be handled by the EF-M -> EF adaptor.

Otherwise, what would be the point? The EOS M5 is such a great camera because it is compact. It is the one big advantage of the 80D. Essentially, the M5 (and the mirrorless range in general) are the replacement for the 100D - so why would Canon go backwards by producing a mirrorless camera that only took EF lenses?


A smarter move, if Canon didn't want to create a real FF camera with the EF-M mount, would be either

a) Add a dual optical/electronic viewfinder for the 6D II and have a single camera
b) Add optional external EVF connectivity to the 6D II hotshoe.

 

[rrcphoto]

There seems little point to a mirrorless camera that has the same form factor, You could put any recent DSLR into live view and have a effectively mirrorless camera. So they take out the mirror and gut the autofocus system, and then add $500 to the price. How many would go for that? I expect that many would, but if they just called that switch a Mirrorless Mode switch rather than Liveview, many would figure it out.

Those that want an EVF and also a better video experience would. they could also accomplish this by allowing the EVF-DC1 to be used with the 6D, but it'd be a little more cumbersome.

Canon has been sitting in a quandary. The Asian Market likes smaller cameras, the US and European markets like larger cameras. As noted, a new body and mirrorless mount requires a large investment, both for manufacturing, but also for the customer. Its taken years to come out with just a handful of M lenses.

the beauty is that canon doesn't have to please everyone with one camera line. the M5 is there if you want small and light with small and light lenses to boot. you want something better to handle the size and balance of the EF lens portfolio, they would have that too.

in the end with a full frame camera, mirror or not, your lens kit will determine the size and weight of what you are travelling with, not necessarily the camera body.

they don't have to have this large investment if they roll with an EF mount camera.

a full frame EF mount camera can be as small or smaller then the SL1 if you are willing to forgo the ergonomics of the larger cameras.

 

[rrcphoto]

Otherwise, what would be the point? The EOS M5 is such a great camera because it is compact. It is the one big advantage of the 80D. Essentially, the M5 (and the mirrorless range in general) are the replacement for the 100D - so why would Canon go backwards by producing a mirrorless camera that only took EF lenses?

people comment like this tend to forget the ergonomic differences between the camera systems.
an 80D has a top plate LCD, far more manual haptic controls a better grip, a larger battery, a fully articulating LCD, AF joystick,etc,etc than the M5.

Canon still sells the SL1, it's hard to say it's the replacement for it, when it came out after the M line was released.

the M5 is smaller, because it forgoes alot of the tactile and single handle operational characteristics of the 80D.

Take a look at the top view of any canon DSLR, the EF mount is not as deep as the grip itself. While shrinking the mirrorbox depth would save some internal volume, not spectacularly so.

you get more volume savings removing the pentaprism, viewfinder assembly and AF assembly.

 

[ahsanford]

I have often found the rear LCD to be almost useless in bright sunlight. Then there is the whole holding the camera at arms length (certainly away from the normal position) to use the rear LCD as the viewfinder.

^^ This ^^. I didn't pay goodness knows how much money for a FF rig to have to wield it like a (3 lb) mobile phone.

I want to hold it up to my eye unless I need to shoot at ground level or over the top of a crowd. I'm not going to use a loupe on the LCD either. The solution is an EVF.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

I have often found the rear LCD to be almost useless in bright sunlight. Then there is the whole holding the camera at arms length (certainly away from the normal position) to use the rear LCD as the viewfinder.

^^ This ^^. I didn't pay goodness knows how much money for a FF rig to have to wield it like a (3 lb) mobile phone.

I want to hold it up to my eye unless I need to shoot at ground level or over the top of a crowd. I'm not going to use a loupe on the LCD either. The solution is an EVF.

- A

I have an M, M2 and smartphone. none of them I looked like a complete moron with and shot with at arms length.

seriously, this is so overused as an arguement and it's pretty silly.

I tuck my left elbow into my side, support the camera with my left hand, and control it with my right. the camera lcd is around 18 inches away from me.

 

[jolyonralph]

People concentrate too much on whether the EVF will help them take their photos properly. In reality the one HUGE advantage the EVF has over using the rear screen is being able to more accurately review your existing photos when you're shooting in daylight.

Even on the 5D III and 5DSR, which have pretty good screens, trying to review an image to even figure out if things are in focus can be a real pain in daylight.

With the EVF, it is simple and easy. I'll happily use the screen for composing my shots and use the EVF every time to review them.

 

[slclick]

I have often found the rear LCD to be almost useless in bright sunlight. Then there is the whole holding the camera at arms length (certainly away from the normal position) to use the rear LCD as the viewfinder.

^^ This ^^. I didn't pay goodness knows how much money for a FF rig to have to wield it like a (3 lb) mobile phone.

I want to hold it up to my eye unless I need to shoot at ground level or over the top of a crowd. I'm not going to use a loupe on the LCD either. The solution is an EVF.

- A

I have an M, M2 and smartphone. none of them I looked like a complete moron with and shot with at arms length.

seriously, this is so overused as an arguement and it's pretty silly.

I tuck my left elbow into my side, support the camera with my left hand, and control it with my right. the camera lcd is around 18 inches away from me.

Overused as an argument can be read as 'Many people have this problem/situation'. I read it as an issue not as something to deny or alternative facts.

 

[ahsanford]

I have an M, M2 and smartphone. none of them I looked like a complete moron with and shot with at arms length.

seriously, this is so overused as an arguement and it's pretty silly.

I tuck my left elbow into my side, support the camera with my left hand, and control it with my right. the camera lcd is around 18 inches away from me.

This isn't about not looking like a moron, it's about a more satisfying photography experience. With handheld shooting, holding the camera to your eye is more stable and more comfortable as you don't need to hold heavy FF glass away from your body.

Show of hands: Who wants to bolt a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on a mirrorless rig only to hold it 12-18" away from your face while panning, zooming, changing focus points, etc.? That sounds like a nightmare to me.

In fairness, no one's saying LiveView shooting doesn't work. But it's laughable to imply that FF mirrorless doesn't need an EVF or FF mirrorless won't ever happen 'because LiveView is the same thing'. It's the same technological means to render an image, yes, but it's a fundamentally different photography experience for the user.

Canon will (eventually) field a FF mirrorless setup with an EVF. Does anyone honestly doubt that?

Keep in mind I'm no mirrorless fanboy -- I prefer SLRs and likely will for some time. I just feel that FF glass + handheld use necessitates a chunky grip and a viewfinder.

- A

 

[Loswr]

People concentrate too much on whether the EVF will help them take their photos properly. In reality the one HUGE advantage the EVF has over using the rear screen is being able to more accurately review your existing photos when you're shooting in daylight.

Even on the 5D III and 5DSR, which have pretty good screens, trying to review an image to even figure out if things are in focus can be a real pain in daylight.

With the EVF, it is simple and easy. I'll happily use the screen for composing my shots and use the EVF every time to review them.

Hard enough to judge critical focus on a 3" LCD, much less a little EVF. Much more useful is checking overall composition and the histogram, and I've not ever had issues doing so on the rear LCD.

 

[rrcphoto]

I have an M, M2 and smartphone. none of them I looked like a complete moron with and shot with at arms length.

seriously, this is so overused as an arguement and it's pretty silly.

I tuck my left elbow into my side, support the camera with my left hand, and control it with my right. the camera lcd is around 18 inches away from me.

This isn't about not looking like a moron, it's about a more satisfying photography experience. With handheld shooting, holding the camera to your eye is more stable and more comfortable as you don't need to hold heavy FF glass away from your body.

Show of hands: Who wants to bolt a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on a mirrorless rig only to hold it 12-18" away from your face while panning, zooming, changing focus points, etc.? That sounds like a nightmare to me.

In fairness, no one's saying LiveView shooting doesn't work. But it's laughable to imply that FF mirrorless doesn't need an EVF or FF mirrorless won't ever happen 'because LiveView is the same thing'. It's the same technological means to render an image, yes, but it's a fundamentally different photography experience for the user.

Canon will (eventually) field a FF mirrorless setup with an EVF. Does anyone honestly doubt that?

Keep in mind I'm no mirrorless fanboy -- I prefer SLRs and likely will for some time. I just feel that FF glass + handheld use necessitates a chunky grip and a viewfinder.

- A

to be honest, I wear glasses, so the eyepiece barely makes things more stable. I don't have the eyepiece rubbing over my glasses for a multitude of reasons. With an DSLR and with a mirrorless my arm support is the same.

a long lens, my left elbow rests on my chest, and left hand supports the balance of the lens. That is the same regardless of LCD or EVF. there is no reason your left hand can't act like a monopod.

I'm for a 6D Mirrorless with an EVF, but the concept that you can't stabilize a LCD based camera, and have to hold it out at arms length is completely false.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm for a 6D Mirrorless with an EVF, but the concept that you can't stabilize a LCD based camera, and have to hold it out at arms length is completely false.

Again, for emphasis:

In fairness, no one's saying LiveView shooting doesn't work.

I'm saying it's less fun, less comfortable, and (certainly in my hands) less stable. Can you take sharp shots with it? Absolutely, but I personally might have to goose my shutter speed a bit in that case.

But consider: why does every single FF rig these days (leaving rangefinders out) have an integral TTL OVF or liveview from the sensor (EVF) viewfinder? It's because people prefer them, regardless of how slick liveview becomes.

I believe that's because it's a more satisfying / immersive shooting experience that is more stable and more comfortable. But I could certainly be wrong. Others might find (totally speculating here) that focus peaking or DOF preview is more accurate / better appreciated with your eyes up close.

But I simply can't see Canon's first FF mirrorless offering going the first EOS M route and forcing LiveView shooting. They might make the EVF a separate component you bolt on for size reasons (I really hope not), but I have to believe that an EVF of some sort will be available on day one.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)

 

[Don Haines]

if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)

personal preference....

For me, If it involved a new mount and new lenses, I wouldn't buy it

I see a need for a compact mirrorless camera, and also for a full sized mirrorless camera...

Don

 

[slclick]

if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)

personal preference....

For me, If it involved a new mount and new lenses, I wouldn't buy it

I see a need for a compact mirrorless camera, and also for a full sized mirrorless camera...

Don

Another mount, wouldn't buy it either. That's my personal preference. Also, I do not expect Canon to make anything just because I want them to because I do not have gravitational pull.

 

[ahsanford]

if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)

personal preference....

For me, If it involved a new mount and new lenses, I wouldn't buy it

I see a need for a compact mirrorless camera, and also for a full sized mirrorless camera...

Don

Zero chance it mandates new lenses. Zero. It will be a native EF mount or it will be a skinnier mount with an EF adaptor (possibly even in the box with the body, given the price they surely will ask for) -- in either case, your EF lenses will be good to go.

The billion dollar question on this front is / has been / will be until the day it's announced: go skinny with FF mirrorless or go EF?

There is a large list of pros and cons both ways, but broadly:

Going skinny reels in the small crowd and the adapt-other-mounts'-lenses crowd. This is the best move for the smaller-is-better crowd, the street shooters, travel/vacation shooting, people who like vintage glass, etc. Downside: if you want to maximize size savings, you'll need to buy new lenses (possibly smaller mount versions of EF glass your already own). Also, you could leave your house with a bag full of EF glass and a small FF mount lens attached to your body and accidentally leave that adaptor at home -- that could ruin an entire shoot.

Going full EF is a seamless move for existing FF SLR users (use all your existing lenses without added expense) and in this instance, you can never accidentally leave an EF adaptor at home if it doesn't exist. This is the best move for the bigger lens crowd, who want a sturdy / less modular pieces / chunky grip setup. But we would realize zero space savings from pulling the mirror out, which is blasphemy to the mirrorless market.

Canon could redefine the FF mirrorless market with a big professional setup, but Japan loves them tiny little cameras, don't they?

I'm truly torn on this. I want full EF, but I'd completely understand Canon going small (at least at first).

- A

 

[dak723]

I have often found the rear LCD to be almost useless in bright sunlight. Then there is the whole holding the camera at arms length (certainly away from the normal position) to use the rear LCD as the viewfinder.

^^ This ^^. I didn't pay goodness knows how much money for a FF rig to have to wield it like a (3 lb) mobile phone.

I want to hold it up to my eye unless I need to shoot at ground level or over the top of a crowd. I'm not going to use a loupe on the LCD either. The solution is an EVF.

- A

I have an M, M2 and smartphone. none of them I looked like a complete moron with and shot with at arms length.

seriously, this is so overused as an arguement and it's pretty silly.

It would be pretty sill except for the fact that in sunlight - especially when the sun is at certain angles to the rear screen - it is difficult to impossible to use the rear screen.

It would be silly aside from the fact that is is much easier to hold a camera still when up against your face.

It has nothing to do with how you look. It is about getting the shot. I could not get most of the shots I do without an OVF or EVF. I doubt I am alone.

 

[slclick]

I have often found the rear LCD to be almost useless in bright sunlight. Then there is the whole holding the camera at arms length (certainly away from the normal position) to use the rear LCD as the viewfinder.

^^ This ^^. I didn't pay goodness knows how much money for a FF rig to have to wield it like a (3 lb) mobile phone.

I want to hold it up to my eye unless I need to shoot at ground level or over the top of a crowd. I'm not going to use a loupe on the LCD either. The solution is an EVF.

- A

I have an M, M2 and smartphone. none of them I looked like a complete moron with and shot with at arms length.

seriously, this is so overused as an arguement and it's pretty silly.

It would be pretty sill except for the fact that in sunlight - especially when the sun is at certain angles to the rear screen - it is difficult to impossible to use the rear screen.

It would be silly aside from the fact that is is much easier to hold a camera still when up against your face.

It has nothing to do with how you look. It is about getting the shot. I could not get most of the shots I do without an OVF or EVF. I doubt I am alone.

It may not be about how you look but it is about how you feel ergonomically and what you are conditioned to. Decades of looking through a VF on film and digital camera bodies as opposed to years of using a smartphone or a camera w/out a VF for someone much younger is a fine analogy. I tried the OG M series and nope, couldn't do it. Just doesn't work for me, like holding a phone in my right hand. YMMV

 

[ahsanford]

It has nothing to do with how you look. It is about getting the shot. I could not get most of the shots I do without an OVF or EVF. I doubt I am alone.

No, you are not.

Just checking -- I wasn't sure -- here are the digital full frame mirrorless rigs released to date (that I am aware of):

Sony RX1/RX1R: Nothing onboard, but modular OVF and EVF were offered (both optional, I believe)
Sony RX1R II: EVF built-in
Sony a7 (6x models to date): EVF built-in
Leica Q: EVF built-in
Leica SL: EVF built-in
Leica M (not sure of the hard figure, but it's a number of designs): those have been 100% OVF over the years, correct?

Unless I've forgotten one, I am not aware of a single FF mirrorless rig that didn't have a VF of some sort.

Medium format are deeper waters for me that I am not well-read on. But I believe the Fuji and HBlad MF mirrorless setups have EVFs. There's also the nutty Alpa 'body' (more of a properly spaced out frame and mount) + MF digital back 'mirrorless' frankenstein rig. That one might be VF optional.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

It may not be about how you look but it is about how you feel ergonomically and what you are conditioned to. Decades of looking through a VF on film and digital camera bodies as opposed to years of using a smartphone or a camera w/out a VF for someone much younger is a fine analogy. I tried the OG M series and nope, couldn't do it. Just doesn't work for me, like holding a phone in my right hand. YMMV

Good point. If camera bodies + lenses got dramatically lighter and took on a different ergonomic approach (two small handles like with underwater housings, handles moved forward for better balance with the lens), a full time liveview camera could 100% work.

The Lytro Illum -- much like the first-gen Honda Insight some 20 years ago -- may not have set the world alight, but may been ahead of its time in some respects. No EVF, longer lens and it still clocked in under 1 kg. Granted, it wasn't a FF rig by any stretch, but its concept-car-like design might be a roadmap for VF-less higher end rigs.

- A