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

[rrcphoto]

Olympus has larger PRO lenses now, Panasonic has larger lenses now, and the GM series is anything but small.

if they were meant to be used with smaller lenses, than why are manfacturer's making bigger cameras and even bigger lenses for mirrorless?

a 6D mirrorless *would* be smaller than it's OVF cousin.

If that is what you want to buy, then go for it.

Yes - I can understand your point about switching primes in these extreme conditions. In this case, I'd stick with my favorite focal lenght prime and be creative. You can do a lot with just one prime lens. A 50mm can also be a 28mm for example when you do a short panorama with proper technique to avoid most parallax errors.

why would canon build such a camera, and invest in a entirely new lens system?

Repeat the sony mistake? the one in which saw their marketshare plummet and still not recover?

and again, it's usefulness degrades as soon as you have to carry more than one prime, or a faster zoom.

so for most use cases, it's entirely unnecessary to keep it as compact as possible at the expense of ergonomics.

 

[Crosswind]

I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.

I can carry easily 2-3 small Canon EF primes in my small Mantona sling bag for a whole day without fatigue, plus camera - if it is not the size of a 6D. And I don't see any problems in terms of ergonomics with a Sony A7-sized MILC. Canon has always been praised not only because of their superior ergonomics, no matter what camera, small or big. They can certainly pull this off without repeating the "Sony mistake".

 

[Loswr]

I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.

Not misunderstood, you've just fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. Not the most famous one (concerning land wars and Asia), nor the slightly less well known one (concerning Sicilians and death), but the one where you assume your needs/wants/usage are representative of the broader market.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.

I can carry easily 2-3 small Canon EF primes in my small Mantona sling bag for a whole day without fatigue, plus camera - if it is not the size of a 6D. And I don't see any problems in terms of ergonomics with a Sony A7-sized MILC. Canon has always been praised not only because of their superior ergonomics, no matter what camera, small or big. They can certainly pull this off without repeating the "Sony mistake".

As much I don't think they should do it, I think Canon could offer new FF mirrorless lenses and get away with it. They are in a decidedly different boat than Sony:

• Canon has put out 120 million EF lenses. Disregarding mobile phones, Sony hasn't put out even a fraction of that. That gives Canon considerable cover to offer a new line of lenses but with a clear reassurance that EF is here to stay.
  
  
• Canon users are accustomed to multiple mounts with different levels of love from the mothership. Everyone knows EF-S and EF-M are distant 2nd and 3rd priorities for Canon, and the same would be true of a FF mirrorless lineup.
  
  
• Since Canon has all the pros largely covered with other gear, I expect that Canon might try the Leica SL approach and market their FF mirrorless as a luxury / premium offering. I'm not saying it will be as big/pricey as the SL, but as the only of the two majors in the FF mirrorless space, I could see them charging a good 30% over the equivalent SLR rig. Sony, greedy for units once it had the photography world's attention with the A7, immediately 'system-ed up' the A7 and flooded the market with offerings to court new users. I doubt Canon will do the same -- I see this product as a very pricey show horse for the first 1-2 years, and in that light I could see 2-3 high quality standalone lenses materializing to support it.

Again, I don't want them to do this and I'm not convinced they should. But Canon is the 800 pound gorilla in this market, and they may choose to go after new business or higher margins with a sexy/pricey/small system with its own lenses. "It's not a Leica M10, but you're a s--- photographer and this has autofocus that you need. And it nicely fits in your distressed leather $5,000 travel satchel that you bought after the IPO."

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.

Not misunderstood, you've just fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. Not the most famous one (concerning land wars and Asia), nor the slightly less well known one (concerning Sicilians and death), but the one where you assume your needs/wants/usage are representative of the broader market.

 

[Crosswind]

Whatever they will come up with (except if it's a 5D or even 1D sized MILC), I will definitely have a closer look at it. Right now, I'm well served with the M5.

Of course, I know that everyone has a bit different idea of the "ideal" camera for his/her own purposes, but I'm sure you know what I - and probably some other people - would prefer. That of course doesn't mean that I am on the side of the "broader" market, at least not in the US.

 

[AvTvM]

• AFMA = RIP. There is no secondary mirror for AF that you need to calibrate your lens to

that's a fallacy, you still really need it for focus shift.

Definitely no.
AF in the sensor plane - be it PD-AF, CD-AF or hybrid - is always precise. [provided algorithms, firmware, CPU power are up to the task].

 

[Loswr]

• AFMA = RIP. There is no secondary mirror for AF that you need to calibrate your lens to

that's a fallacy, you still really need it for focus shift.

Definitely no.
AF in the sensor plane - be it PD-AF, CD-AF or hybrid - is always precise. [provided algorithms, firmware, CPU power are up to the task].

"Focus shift." I do not think it means what you think it means.

In fairness, correcting for it isn't currently turnkey with AFMA, but it could be made so.

 

[Don Haines]

I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.

Not misunderstood, you've just fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. Not the most famous one (concerning land wars and Asia), nor the slightly less well known one (concerning Sicilians and death), but the one where you assume your needs/wants/usage are representative of the broader market.

inconceivable.... INCONCEIVABLE!!!!

 

[rrcphoto]

• AFMA = RIP. There is no secondary mirror for AF that you need to calibrate your lens to

that's a fallacy, you still really need it for focus shift.

Definitely no.
AF in the sensor plane - be it PD-AF, CD-AF or hybrid - is always precise. [provided algorithms, firmware, CPU power are up to the task].

definately yes.

with sensor AF even more so than PDAF the lens focuses wide open, and then stops down to shoot. with spherical aberrations this causes problems with focus shift.

Sony "got around it" by AF'ing stopped down for most of their lenses on the A7RII and I think the A7II now. however that gimps the lenses ability to focus in lower light and with smaller apertures.

 

[AvTvM]

with 99% of lenses focus shift is no issue. None of my lenses suffers from it. if f/1.2 lens buyers accept such a flaw, it is their problem as far as i am concerned.

So in practical terms, on-sensor AF does away with any need for AFMA.

 

[rrcphoto]

with 99% of lenses focus shift is no issue. None of my lenses suffers from it. if f/1.2 lens buyers accept such a flaw, it is their problem as far as i am concerned.

So in practical terms, on-sensor AF does away with any need for AFMA.

with 99% of the lenses AFMA is not required. so in practical terms PDAF doesn't need AFMA.

 

[AvTvM]

with 99% of lenses focus shift is no issue. None of my lenses suffers from it. if f/1.2 lens buyers accept such a flaw, it is their problem as far as i am concerned.

So in practical terms, on-sensor AF does away with any need for AFMA.

with 99% of the lenses AFMA is not required. so in practical terms PDAF doesn't need AFMA.

I don't have a number for that. But there seems to be a much higher percentage of lens/body combinations in need of AFMA. Whether their owners know it or not ...

 

[cayenne]

I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.

Not misunderstood, you've just fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. Not the most famous one (concerning land wars and Asia), nor the slightly less well known one (concerning Sicilians and death), but the one where you assume your needs/wants/usage are representative of the broader market.

Inconceivable!!!


Cayenne

 

[Aussie shooter]

I think canon should forget about a FF mirrorless and embrace medium format which is where the real benefits of mirrorless are to be found.

 

[ahsanford]

I think canon should forget about a FF mirrorless and embrace medium format which is where the real benefits of mirrorless are to be found.

Canon has a mountain of FF glass. Do they sell a single medium format lens?

Sorry, I can't see Canon offering a new mirrorless system that doesn't leverage it's #1 competitive advantage. They will go to FF mirrorless offer EF lens compatibility. You can take that to the bank.

- A

 

[Aussie shooter]

I think canon should forget about a FF mirrorless and embrace medium format which is where the real benefits of mirrorless are to be found.

Canon has a mountain of FF glass. Do they sell a single medium format lens?

Sorry, I can't see Canon offering a new mirrorless system that doesn't leverage it's #1 competitive advantage. They will go to FF mirrorless offer EF lens compatibility. You can take that to the bank.

- A

You are probably right. I didn't say what I think they will do. I said what think they should do. The full frame glass they already have just so happens to work perfectly with not surprisingly, their full frame DSLR cameras. Mirrorless however offers a real advantage when it comes to reducing camera size. Unfortunately any real benefits it has is lost when using big glass. MF on the other hand. Portable and affordable MF is something canon could really own if they decided to go for it. A lot of landscape photographers will in the near future be considering the fuji, pentax etc offerings in this area. It is a far bigger threat than FF mirrorless to canons sales.

 

[uri.raz]

A lot of landscape photographers will in the near future be considering the fuji, pentax etc offerings in this area. It is a far bigger threat than FF mirrorless to canons sales.

I doubt that for several reasons:

1. Landscape photographers are just a small fraction of Canon's customers, who include wedding photographers, sports, etc as well.

2. The Pentax 645Z and Fuji's new digital medium format cost almost twice as much as the 5DS R, and MF lenses are more expensive as well. That gives the 5DS R a certain edge.

3. New MF camera & lenses would require big investment in R&D and manufacturing facilities. With the small market for the equipment (pro high end landscape & portraits, ads printed to cover a large building's wall, and... did I miss anything?), that's a risk.

And by risk, that's not just losing money, but getting a lower ROI than it would get on other products as well.

 

[Aussie shooter]

A lot of landscape photographers will in the near future be considering the fuji, pentax etc offerings in this area. It is a far bigger threat than FF mirrorless to canons sales.

I doubt that for several reasons:

1. Landscape photographers are just a small fraction of Canon's customers, who include wedding photographers, sports, etc as well.

2. The Pentax 645Z and Fuji's new digital medium format cost almost twice as much as the 5DS R, and MF lenses are more expensive as well. That gives the 5DS R a certain edge.

3. New MF camera & lenses would require big investment in R&D and manufacturing facilities. With the small market for the equipment (pro high end landscape & portraits, ads printed to cover a large building's wall, and... did I miss anything?), that's a risk.

And by risk, that's not just losing money, but getting a lower ROI than it would get on other products as well.

Actually. I would think lanscape phtographers make up a larger portion of canons customersa than you think. Especially in the cashed up enthusiast segment.

Yes. The current mirrorless FF cameras are more expensive than a 5 series but no more expensive than a 1 series. And they will get a bit cheaper yet.

As for Rnd. Any new camera and lens requires investment but with canons size it would be very managable at a fair price. And finally it would be a better long term investment IMHO than FF mirrorless which doesn't offer any tangible difference from FF DSLR.
Size is the real benifit of mirrorless. That is why MFT is currently its best offering. MF would be just as good

 

[Loswr]

Actually. I would think lanscape phtographers make up a larger portion of canons customersa than you think. Especially in the cashed up enthusiast segment.

Actually, I think you're wrong. But more importantly, what you and I think is irrelevant – Canon has actual data.

Size is the real benifit of mirrorless. That is why MFT is currently its best offering. MF would be just as good

That's just nonsensical.