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

[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.

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

Not questioning the need for lenses. But as a MF camera it won't need a huge lineup and won't need massive super teles. They would be managable and not all that costly in comparison to FF glass

 

[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.

Not questioning the need for lenses. But as a MF camera it won't need a huge lineup and won't need massive super teles. They would be managable and not all that costly in comparison to FF glass

Lol. The cheapest MF lens on B&H is a Pentax 75mm f/2.8 – that's the nifty-fifty of MF, and it's $700. The closest I could find to the popular landscape FF UWA 16-35mm range is the MF Pentax 28-45mm f/4.5 (21-34mm FFeq)...at double the weight of the EF 16-35/2.8 III (or the same weight as the EF 70-200/2.8 IS II, if you prefer, but without a tripod collar), 'manageable' is a stretch. And at $5,000 (close to 2.5x the cost of the 16-35 III), calling it 'not all that costly in comparison' defies logic and good sense. Oh, and please don't argue it would be cheaper if Canon made it, as you already admitted it's a niche market, so economies of scale belie that argument.

But hey, keep on living your MFantasy.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Gonna lay off the quotes for a while but re the above cost estimate. The fuji is going for 6500US(body only with the 32-65? coming in at 1500US. Don't tell me that isn't managable for someone serious about their gear.

 

[uri.raz]

Gonna lay off the quotes for a while but re the above cost estimate. The fuji is going for 6500US(body only with the 32-65? coming in at 1500US. Don't tell me that isn't managable for someone serious about their gear.

Manageable? Yes.

Reasonable? When I can spend those US$8K on a 5DS R, TS-E 17mm, and 16-35mm f/2.8 III that would work with my existing 5DmkIII? Hell no.

 

[Loswr]

Gonna lay off the quotes for a while but re the above cost estimate. The fuji is going for 6500US(body only with the 32-65? coming in at 1500US. Don't tell me that isn't managable for someone serious about their gear.

I think you mean the 63mm f/2.8 prime (FFeq 50mm f/2.2 = nifty fifty) is $1500. Their 120mm f/4 OIS macro is $2700, a 'very reasonable' 3x the cost of the equivalent Canon 100/2.8 IS macro. On the bright side, their standard zoom, the 32-64mm f/4 (=25-51mm f/2.8 FFeq) is only $2300, so quite similar to the EF 24-70/2.8 (at launch) even though it's not quite as wide and not tele at all. It's all 'managable for someone serious about their gear', but the part you didn't quote was your prior statement that they are 'not all that costly in comparison to FF glass' which applies to one of three lenses for one brand so far.

Want ultrawide? Wait for it. A prime, that is. UWA zoom? Who knows if or when. Sounds great. :

 

[AvTvM]

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.

+100

This is a message, many people on this forum do not want to hear.

Of course, Canon will have to go in this direction. Ever since the first Sony A7, the genie has escaped the bottle .. short flange distance lens mount and native lenses for FF-mirrorless system is going to happen, we just don't know when Canon will finally announce it. It may however, not be 19mm flange distance [EF-M] but rather 22 or 24mm [EF -?] ;-)

For some transitional period, there will be 4 Canon lens series for DLSRs and mirrorless, each with FF and APS-C sensor. Over time, only the 2 mirrorless mounts for crop and FF will remain. EF and EF-S will become legacy. Just like FL and FD did.

 

[hendrik-sg]

What is gone fogotten in all this discussion about the benefits of MF vs FF:

2 aequivalent lenses for example 75mm 2.8 (MF) and 50 2.0 (FF) should produce the same picture, habe the same diffraction limit (in the meaning of max useful MPix of the sensor), the same field of view, same amount of bokeh etc.

The MF version is better only if the sensor has more resolution, is of better quality or if the Lens is of better quality.

For the lens, the question is which one is easier to design/produce, but for a fair comparision similar priced lenses should be compared. As high as the prices for MF lenses are, for FF Otus (or at least L) lenses sould be used for comparision.

For the sensors, yes typical MF systems have a higher MPix count. But Givn the pixel density of MFT or even compact cameras, 100MPix FF sensors should be producable easily, and the resulting cameras would be a compromise in speed and handling, as the MF cameras are all. If Canon would have used a state of the Art sensor for their 5ds the MF systems would be even more close to beeing obsolete.

It is true, that a Phase One system produces much higher resolution than any FF system, but the question is, what could be done in FF for this price. This we do not know.

FF is not a physically evaluated optimum, it's a traditional format from old film days, but the huge numbers of systems produced keeps them comparatively affordable. We do not know, what mass produced MF systems would cost and what sensor size the optimal system for 10k$ (for example) would have. "Optimal" is meant with a big weighting of IQ and a small weighting of handling, speed, compactness etc.

 

[sigh]

For those debating whether Canon will create a new mount for their first FF mirrorless, I think the answer is probably no. People seem to make a lot of the fact that the EF-M mount is APS-C only (or at least I don't think anyone has proved conclusively that you can fit a FF sensor in there) and so if Canon wanted to create a FF mirrorless, they'd also create a new mount to get a smaller flange distance. But this ignores the fact that Canon already has a range of mirrorless cameras with an EF mount, its Cinema range.

I'm aware the Cinema cameras all have Super 35 sized sensors, but I wouldn't have thought that means it is impossible to get a FF sensor behind there.

 

[ahsanford]

Recall the October CR post that Canon won't have a new mount for FF mirrorless:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31147.0

Which led to the following poll:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31154.0

2/3 of us (myself included) thought 'no new mount' = it would be a full EF mount for FF mirroless. But there was a decent-sized bunch that believed EF-M can support the FF image circle, and that's what we'd get for FF mirrorless.

Keep in mind, 10% didn't believe that CR post and were convinced an altogether new FF mount was still coming.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

+100

This is a message, many people on this forum do not want to hear.

Of course, Canon will have to go in this direction. Ever since the first Sony A7, the genie has escaped the bottle .. short flange distance lens mount and native lenses for FF-mirrorless system is going to happen, we just don't know when Canon will finally announce it. It may however, not be 19mm flange distance [EF-M] but rather 22 or 24mm [EF -?] ;-)

For some transitional period, there will be 4 Canon lens series for DLSRs and mirrorless, each with FF and APS-C sensor. Over time, only the 2 mirrorless mounts for crop and FF will remain. EF and EF-S will become legacy. Just like FL and FD did.

So you honestly believe Canon will 'A-Mount' the EF mount -- that it will be a dead man walking in parallel with the new mirrorless mount? You realize the transitional period of the FF side of the market you refer to above could be 10-20 years, right? And that some shooters -- the 1DX camp comes to mind -- may never transition?

I think a thin FF mount is possible (others have said straight EF-M would cover it), but if they go this route I would seem them keeping EF alive ad infinitum. They'd just offer a 5-7 standard EF-M lenses offering for a 'smaller' FF system where the space savings would be appreciated by the customer:

A 24-70 zoom
A few wide & standard primes
Macro
Perhaps an UWA zoom

To offer more lenses than that is to reproduce EF glass just for the convenience -- no space savings would occur. At that point, an EF adapter makes much more sense.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

yes, I believe Canon will maintain the EF-mount for some years. Not many new lenses though. Mk. III for all super-teles or so ... for the die-hard mirrorslapper types. And that was it then.

There is no problem with that, since all EF lenses will be fully functional on the new FF mirrorless EF-? mount via a simple and inexpensive extension tube adapter [just like today with EF-/EF-M adapter].

Communication is simple and straightforward, even "stupid Canon" might be able to pull it off ... as oposed to stupid Sony, who were not capable to get the message across. Anyways, here goes:

"Dear valued Canon customers and all of you folks keenly interested in photography, what do you prefer:

• 1) DSLR camera or 2) Mirrorless camera
• A) Full Frame sensor or B) APS-C sensor

depending on your indicated preference, here is the optimal Canon system solution for you:

• 1A) Canon 1D series, EF lenses
• 1B) Canon 7D II, III and EF or EF-S lenses
• 2A) Canon EOS ? mirrorless FF bodies and EF-? glass and EF lenses (with adapter)
• 2B) Canon EOS M bodies and EF-M, EF-? lenses and EF plus EF-S lenses (with adapter)

If this is too complex for some forum inhabitants and Canon fanboys, I will offer to program that extremely complex decision tree into an APP called CSCS : "Canon System Choice for Stupids"

 

[Jopa]

People seem to make a lot of the fact that the EF-M mount is APS-C only (or at least I don't think anyone has proved conclusively that you can fit a FF sensor in there).

Why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount

Canon EF-M 18 mm APS-C 47 mm
Sony E 18 mm APS-C and 35 mm 46.1 mm (1.815 inch)

Same flange distance as the E-mount, ~1mm wider throat.

 

[AvTvM]

ff on EF-M mount would prob work, but be as compromised as it is for Sony FE: lenses too big, too complex, too expensive. i don't think Canon will take that route. they have demonstratef with EF and EF-S, that 2 separate lens lineups work well: one full lineup for FF and a limited lineup for APS-C, focused on compact size and consumer-grade lenses. i expect them to take the same approach for Mirrorless. my giess would be 49mm throat width and 22-24mm flange distance for EF-? mount.

 

[Loswr]

ff on EF-M mount would prob work, but be as compromised as it is for Sony FE: lenses too big, too complex, too expensive. i don't think Canon will take that route. they have demonstratef with EF and EF-S, that 2 separate lens lineups work well: one full lineup for FF and a limited lineup for APS-C, focused on compact size and consumer-grade lenses. i expect them to take the same approach for Mirrorless. my giess would be 49mm throat width and 22-24mm flange distance for EF-? mount.

I disagree. Rather, I think parallel with EF/EF-S will be direct – a main line and a sub-line, both with the throat diameter and flange focal distance of the current EF-M line, but differing in image circle diameter. The EF-? mount bodies will take both EF-? lenses only (and EF via an adapter, of course), and the EF-M mount bodies will take both EF-? and EF-M lenses (and EF/EF-S with the same adapter as for the EF-?).

They already have the 'limited lineup for APS-C, focused on compact size and consumer-grade lenses' – the current EF-M lineup (which will continue to expand slowly). I agree with ahsanford that for the EF-?, they'll develop only a limited series of lenses – standard and ultrawide zoom, a few primes, a macro, and for other needs they'll promote adapted EF lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

I disagree. Rather, I think parallel with EF/EF-S will be direct – a main line and a sub-line, both with the throat diameter and flange focal distance of the current EF-M line, but differing in image circle diameter. The EF-? mount bodies will take both EF-? lenses only (and EF via an adapter, of course), and the EF-M mount bodies will take both EF-? and EF-M lenses (and EF/EF-S with the same adapter as for the EF-?).

They already have the 'limited lineup for APS-C, focused on compact size and consumer-grade lenses' – the current EF-M lineup (which will continue to expand slowly). I agree with ahsanford that for the EF-?, they'll develop only a limited series of lenses – standard and ultrawide zoom, a few primes, a macro, and for other needs they'll promote adapted EF lenses.

Probably a stupid question, but will crop factor work the same way if both the FF and APS-C mirrorless mounts have the same flange distance? I appreciate a crop sensor would be considerably smaller than a FF image circle, but I was wondering if the classic 1.6x Canon crop usage consideration was strictly a function of sensor size or if it also affected by flange distance. Please educate me, thx.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Probably a stupid question, but will crop factor work the same way if both the FF and APS-C mirrorless mounts have the same flange distance? I appreciate a crop sensor would be considerably smaller than a FF image circle, but I was wondering if the classic 1.6x Canon crop usage consideration was strictly a function of sensor size or if it also affected by flange distance. Please educate me, thx.

Yes, it would work the same way. AFAIK, the 1.6x crop factor was an arbitrary decision (vs. say the ~1.52x for Nikon/Sony/Fuji/etc. APS-C), although Canon's 1.6x is closest to the dimensions of a 35mm cinema film frame. If I had to guess, it's economics – the slightly smaller sensor allows Canon to eke out a few more sensors from a 300mm silicon wafer.

Given that Canon uses the same size sensor with both 44mm and 18mm flange focal distances (FFD), and Sony has a full frame sensor with an 18mm FFD, the FFD would not seem to be a limiting factor.

 

[ahsanford]

Probably a stupid question, but will crop factor work the same way if both the FF and APS-C mirrorless mounts have the same flange distance? I appreciate a crop sensor would be considerably smaller than a FF image circle, but I was wondering if the classic 1.6x Canon crop usage consideration was strictly a function of sensor size or if it also affected by flange distance. Please educate me, thx.

Yes, it would work the same way. AFAIK, the 1.6x crop factor was an arbitrary decision (vs. say the ~1.52x for Nikon/Sony/Fuji/etc. APS-C), although Canon's 1.6x is closest to the dimensions of a 35mm cinema film frame. If I had to guess, it's economics – the slightly smaller sensor allows Canon to eke out a few more sensors from a 300mm silicon wafer.

Given that Canon uses the same size sensor with both 44mm and 18mm flange focal distances (FFD), and Sony has a full frame sensor with an 18mm FFD, the FFD would not seem to be a limiting factor.

Thx. Appreciated, Neuro.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

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.

there's nothing stopping them - other than the stupidity of doing so.

the EF-M mount is nothing other then a smaller EF mount with a shorter registration distance, so why a third?

 

[rrcphoto]

People seem to make a lot of the fact that the EF-M mount is APS-C only (or at least I don't think anyone has proved conclusively that you can fit a FF sensor in there).

Why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount

Canon EF-M 18 mm APS-C 47 mm
Sony E 18 mm APS-C and 35 mm 46.1 mm (1.815 inch)

Same flange distance as the E-mount, ~1mm wider throat.

one problem with that is that canon has shifted the electrical contacts to one side more, making it bloody hindering awkward to fit a full frame sensor in there. it's a real tight squeeze.

however, why would they repeat the mistakes of sony?

sony had at one time around a 15-18% marketshare in SLT's.. now they don't even have that combined.

 

[AvTvM]

one problem with that is that canon has shifted the electrical contacts to one side more, making it bloody hindering awkward to fit a full frame sensor in there. it's a real tight squeeze.

however, why would they repeat the mistakes of sony?

+1 ... exactly!

That's one of the reasons why i strongly believe in a separate, new native EF-? mount for Canon mirrorless FF.