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

[uri.raz]

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.

The 1 series targets sports photographers (higher fps at the cost of lower resolution), why would a landscape photographer prefer it over a 5DS?

 

[ahsanford]

Size is the real benifit of mirrorless.

You should speak to your optometrist. I believe they can treat myopia these days.

Size is the real benefit of mirrorless ...to you.

To others, being able to use LiveView, histo, focus peaking, etc. through the VF, use the AF over much more of the frame than with an SLR, etc. is an opportunity to expand what a camera can do.

I fully admit that the tech isn't there yet on some fronts and may never be (responsiveness, battery life, etc.), and I still solely shoot SLRs today because of that. But there will come a time where mirrorless' drawbacks are sufficiently small that its upsides -- even if it was the same size as an SLR -- would be worth pursuing.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

The 1 series targets sports photographers (higher fps at the cost of lower resolution), why would a landscape photographer prefer it over a 5DS?

The 1 series targets sports/wildlife photographers today. That was not always so. There is a contingent of studio and landscape photographers that want the highest resolution but also want that sexy 1 series feature set. Right now they have a choice of high-res or a flagship-level feature set, and they aren't particularly happy about it.

So I 100% agree with Aussie shooter there's a place for a super-pricey landscape rig, but MF mirrorless isn't it. Canon simply needs to slap that 5DS R sensor (or more practically the next high res sensor they develop) into a 1DX2-like form factor, and send a "Baby, come back" bouquet of flowers to the 1Ds Mk III crowd.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Size is the real benifit of mirrorless.

You should speak to your optometrist. I believe they can treat myopia these days.

Size is the real benefit of mirrorless ...to you.

To others, being able to use LiveView, histo, focus peaking, etc. through the VF, use the AF over much more of the frame than with an SLR, etc. is an opportunity to expand what a camera can do.

I fully admit that the tech isn't there yet on some fronts and may never be (responsiveness, battery life, etc.), and I still solely shoot SLRs today because of that. But there will come a time where mirrorless' drawbacks are sufficiently small that its upsides -- even if it was the same size as an SLR -- would be worth pursuing.

- A

Personally, I like the ergonomics of the 5D series bodies best. There are enough controls to get the job done and placed where their use is easy without mashing several tiny buttons at the same time... There is a trade-off between size and ergonomics.... you can't have both. My personal feeling is that if size is so important to one, get an M.....

 

[scyrene]

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.

I can't picture that. I can't get my elbows to touch my chest :/ Can you illustrate?

Clearly you've found a method that works for you, and that's great, but many of us prefer looking through the viewfinder. And I doubt your style of shooting could work with the bigger lenses.

 

[scyrene]

You don't need to use big lenses - but you can, if you desire their advantages over the smaller lens options. It's not like they are producing bigger lenses because they think it is better to use bigger lenses on mirrorless cameras, but because to offer some variety. I still think that size/weight saving is one main factor as to why someone would use a MILC in combination with smaller, but still high quality lenses. Canon did everything right with their EF-M portfolio, they're just lacking some good primes there.

For some types of shooting, long lenses are essential. Some such users (it seems, judging by these forums) enjoy the ergonomics of a DSLR-style body with such lenses.

If your thesis is that DSLRs won't be replaced by mirrorless cameras, then fine. But many do believe that, and if they are correct, a larger mirrorless body would cater to that market. Small size (as others have explained) can be a hindrance, as well as a help.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Size is the real benifit of mirrorless.

You should speak to your optometrist. I believe they can treat myopia these days.

Size is the real benefit of mirrorless ...to you.

To others, being able to use LiveView, histo, focus peaking, etc. through the VF, use the AF over much more of the frame than with an SLR, etc. is an opportunity to expand what a camera can do.

I fully admit that the tech isn't there yet on some fronts and may never be (responsiveness, battery life, etc.), and I still solely shoot SLRs today because of that. But there will come a time where mirrorless' drawbacks are sufficiently small that its upsides -- even if it was the same size as an SLR -- would be worth pursuing.

- A

I would say size is the real benefit to the majority of photographers. All the other bits and peices are or could be considered handy but for most people wanting to take photos the reason they would consider mirrorless is the size benefits. And I agree that when ALL the drawbacks are dealt with that everyone will adopt mirrorless. Ask yourself. Why do you so desperately want FF mirrorless? Is it because of the advantage it offers over smaller sensors? Well. That advantage can be found in FF DSLR's already and if there is no size advantage to be found(which will be the case if we use current canon FF glass) then the advantages are not THAT big. So not that many people would adopt. If however they go the MF format taking advantage of the fact an MF camera can be produced at basically the same portable size as a FF DSLR then one can get the benefits of a larger sensor. The exact same benefits you desire over APS-c. The real benefits.

 

[AvTvM]

SIZE, SIZE, SIZE. Yes.
It is so easy to make a small camera larger. Just add a grip - OEM or third party. Or put it on a tripod, to make it really big and stable - whenever needed or desired.
It is not advisable to make a large camera smaller by chopping off bits.

I want as small as possible a camera body. Sony RX1-R II would be exactly my thign, if it had a lens mount uüp front. I could go small with pancakes/small primes and I could go big with long teles. Not problem. With a large camera you can only go BIG, FAT, HEAVY and NERDILY CONSPICUOS.

 

[Mikehit]

SIZE, SIZE, SIZE. Yes.
It is so easy to make a small camera larger. Just add a grip - OEM or third party. Or put it on a tripod, to make it really big and stable - whenever needed or desired.
It is not advisable to make a large camera smaller by chopping off bits.

I want as small as possible a camera body. Sony RX1-R II would be exactly my thign, if it had a lens mount uüp front. I could go small with pancakes/small primes and I could go big with long teles. Not problem. With a large camera you can only go BIG, FAT, HEAVY and NERDILY CONSPICUOS.

It's not the body that makes a camera 'nerdily conspicuous' but the lens.

 

[AvTvM]

It's not the body that makes a camera 'nerdily conspicuous' but the lens.

It is the body as well. Even using my 5D3 + 40 pancake draws more unwanted attention than I want. And looking through viewfinder. That makes anybody around either nervous/disapproving or - even worse - striking some silly pose.

Small camera with small lens = goes anywhere, no prob.
Big camera = big problems in lots of places.

 

[Loswr]

It's not the body that makes a camera 'nerdily conspicuous' but the lens.

It is the body as well. Even using my 5D3 + 40 pancake draws more unwanted attention than I want. And looking through viewfinder. That makes anybody around either nervous/disapproving or - even worse - striking some silly pose.

Small camera with small lens = goes anywhere, no prob.
Big camera = big problems in lots of places.

Small camera + big lens = big. Period.

Well, not quite period...it's also an ergonomic PITA.

 

[Loswr]

Ask yourself. Why do you so desperately want FF mirrorless? Is it because of the advantage it offers over smaller sensors? Well. That advantage can be found in FF DSLR's already and if there is no size advantage to be found(which will be the case if we use current canon FF glass) then the advantages are not THAT big.

Good to know. Remind me, which FF dSLRs have an EVF, no mirror shock, etc.

:

 

[Aussie shooter]

Ask yourself. Why do you so desperately want FF mirrorless? Is it because of the advantage it offers over smaller sensors? Well. That advantage can be found in FF DSLR's already and if there is no size advantage to be found(which will be the case if we use current canon FF glass) then the advantages are not THAT big.

Good to know. Remind me, which FF dSLRs have an EVF, no mirror shock, etc.

:

I think you missed my point. You already have APS-C mirrorless with those advantages. So why do you want FF? Is it because of the improvements in sensor performance? If that is the case then that improvement will be even more pronounced in MF won't it?

 

[kphoto99]

This whole argument about size of the camera assumes that Canon would produce only one FF mirrorless body. Currently Canon has (if I'm not mistaken) 3 different sizes of FF DSLR (1D, 5D, 6D) and in APS-C even more variety of sizes. So why not a small and one large mirrorless FF body.

 

[Loswr]

You already have APS-C mirrorless with those advantages. So why do you want FF? Is it because of the improvements in sensor performance? If that is the case then that improvement will be even more pronounced in MF won't it?

Sure...but at what cost in size, weight, and expense?

 

[takesome1]

This whole argument about size of the camera assumes that Canon would produce only one FF mirrorless body. Currently Canon has (if I'm not mistaken) 3 different sizes of FF DSLR (1D, 5D, 6D) and in APS-C even more variety of sizes. So why not a small and one large mirrorless FF body.

Late to this thread, but if Canon makes a FF mirorless with a battery drain like the 5M then it will need to be 1D size just for the extra battery capacity.

 

[Aussie shooter]

You already have APS-C mirrorless with those advantages. So why do you want FF? Is it because of the improvements in sensor performance? If that is the case then that improvement will be even more pronounced in MF won't it?

Sure...but at what cost in size, weight, and expense?

Size and weight of a current FF DSLR with a cost somewhere between a 5 and a 1 series camera. ie affordable for a serious enthusiast and portable enough for a serious landscape photographer. Size benefits are relative of course and the new mirrorless MF offering from Fuji is looking to be a corker. If I had the money to spend on a camera for lanscapes i would take that over a similarly priced FF. But I do concede it will be a very specific tool.

 

[ahsanford]

This whole argument about size of the camera assumes that Canon would produce only one FF mirrorless body. Currently Canon has (if I'm not mistaken) 3 different sizes of FF DSLR (1D, 5D, 6D) and in APS-C even more variety of sizes. So why not a small and one large mirrorless FF body.

This could happen for the basic footprint of the body size (height and width from the back view, how chunky it is, etc.), but I don't think anyone believes they'll have a full EF mount mirrorless body and a skinny new mount for FF mirrorless being sold side by side. That would be like what Sony is suffering through with the A99 II vs. the A7 line -- Sony has users' mouths to feed in both the A mount and E mount.

I think Canon will make one decision on the FF mirrorless mount and stick with it for all the various models they sell.

- A

 

[Loswr]

You already have APS-C mirrorless with those advantages. So why do you want FF? Is it because of the improvements in sensor performance? If that is the case then that improvement will be even more pronounced in MF won't it?

Sure...but at what cost in size, weight, and expense?

Size and weight of a current FF DSLR with a cost somewhere between a 5 and a 1 series camera. ie affordable for a serious enthusiast and portable enough for a serious landscape photographer. Size benefits are relative of course and the new mirrorless MF offering from Fuji is looking to be a corker. If I had the money to spend on a camera for lanscapes i would take that over a similarly priced FF. But I do concede it will be a very specific tool.

Well, that makes sense. Except for the fact that you'll also need lenses for that MF MILC. Big lenses. Heavy lenses. Expensive lenses.

 

[kphoto99]

This whole argument about size of the camera assumes that Canon would produce only one FF mirrorless body. Currently Canon has (if I'm not mistaken) 3 different sizes of FF DSLR (1D, 5D, 6D) and in APS-C even more variety of sizes. So why not a small and one large mirrorless FF body.

This could happen for the basic footprint of the body size (height and width from the back view, how chunky it is, etc.), but I don't think anyone believes they'll have a full EF mount mirrorless body and a skinny new mount for FF mirrorless being sold side by side. That would be like what Sony is suffering through with the A99 II vs. the A7 line -- Sony has users' mouths to feed in both the A mount and E mount.

I think Canon will make one decision on the FF mirrorless mount and stick with it for all the various models they sell.

- A

Actually I think they could have 2 mounts, a 44mm EF mount and a 19mm EF-short mount. Just add a 25mm extension tube to the EF-short and you can use all existing EF lenses.

I really hope that they do a EF-short, it is much more flexible then having a standard EF mount. With EF-short you don't lose anything. And before somebody chimes in that they don't like an adapter because they may forget the adapter when they go out with a EF-short lens on the body, so they can't use EF lenses. It is no different they going out with an almost empty battery and not taking a spare.