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

[AvTvM]

No, of course you don't have the numbers.

you don't either.

 

[Loswr]

No, of course you don't have the numbers.

you don't either.

Revenues from ILC + lens sales last fiscal quarter were ~18 B¥ for Fuji, and ~180 B¥ for Canon.

Your subjective observations are meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[AvTvM]

No, of course you don't have the numbers.

you don't either.

Revenues from ILC + lens sales last fiscal quarter were ~18 B¥ for Fuji, and ~180 B¥ for Canon.

Your subjective observations are meaningless and irrelevant.

maybe to you. Not to me.

up to 10% of Canon's sales is not too shabby ... considering Fuji was basically at zero in ILCs only 4 years ago or so. And no mirrorslappers, only mirrorless. 8)

 

[Don Haines]

We are all guessing what will come, so here is my prediction.

I predict that before a mirrorless FF camera appears, there will be a new mirrorless crop camera.....

I think the 20D 30D 40D 50D 60D 70D 80D progression is about to end and will be taken over with an enthusiast MIRRORLESS camera with the same form factor as the current line, similar ergonomics, similar tilt/swivel touchscreen, similar knobs, and similar buttons.... and using the EF-S mount.

 

[Mikehit]

2) How do you define Fuji succeeding? They are not even in the top 3 mirrorless sales in their home country.

due to price. Oly mFT stills sells in JP, because they have a lot of older models on clear-out sale.
In Europe Fuji seems to be doing rather well. Don't have numbers, just "personal, first hand observations". Judging from my photo buddies ... more than half of them have bought Fuji stuff over the last 2 years - mostly in addition to Ca/Nikon gear, but also some "switches for good" from Nikon, some from Canon.

You seem to be conflating two things:
Canon's move to mirrorless and whether this will come with a different mount. The former is highly likely, the latter is less so (signficantly so IM)).

Who will the mirrorless be aimed at?
If cameraphones did not exist then the drive for a smaller body/ens combination would probably necessitate a different mount. But cameraphones do exist which means that if someone wants to go really compact then they have a phone. Or they have MFT.
But once someone buys APS-C or 35mm sensor, they are de facto accepting a larger size and the difference in body/lens combination that the A7RII offers over something like the 1100D does not matter. I think you are obsessed with the idea of 'smaller' that you are losing sight of the fact that the real time saving is in practice not that much. So the real question is "does the size of the market justify all that expense of developing a new mount" - I have my doubts.

 

[AvTvM]

So the real question is "does the size of the market justify all that expense of developing a new mount" - I have my doubts.

Development cost is nearly irrelevant. As soon as Canon stops production of EF lenses and offers new EF-? glass, they will sell another 150 million lenses over the next 10 years or so ... people will bitch a bit, but then they will migrate, just as they did from FD to EF. Not many customers lost. And many new ones gained. Bitching will be far less this time, because people will not be forced to migrate [EF will remain compatible], but can do so at their own leisure - whenever they are convinced a new [hopefully smaller and or better] lens is a worthwhile upgrade for their money.

 

[Mikehit]

And you totally voided the point.

So the real question is "does the size of the market justify all that expense of developing a new mount" - I have my doubts.

You say people will bitch if they make a new lens mount that is compatible with EF lenses.
Any sensible company looks at it from the other side - will people bitch if they don't produce a new mount. You still haven't made a compelling argument for them to do so.

 

[AvTvM]

mirrorless camera systems do not need a compelling point from me. They've long made that point for themselves.

In terms of business smarts, if you were Canon: would you rather just continue selling EF/EF-S kit lenses and upgraded + a few new EF lenses [forever?] or would you introduce a new lens mount and an entire range of all new lenses and have existing and new customers buying/upgrading all of their lenses ... over a number of years? Which one is more mones for Canon?

If not sure, think about the tranision in music business: first consumers paid for music on shellack disks, then they paid again for music on vinyl singls and LPs, then they bought music again on CD, then they downloaded, now they pay for streamed audio. I consider myself a fairly astute buyer ... but (even) I have paid for many pieces of music 3 to 4 times already.

The same holds true for any such transition. Horse cart - car - better car - better car - "newer car", marginally improved - iterated car - ... - .... - electric car

 

[Mikehit]

mirrorless camera systems do not need a compelling point from me. They've long made that point for themselves.

I was not talking about a compelling argument for mirrorless, I was talking about a compelling argument for a new mount (what were your scores in English comprehension at school?)

Then you seem to have a mental block on realising no-one (as far as I can tell) is saying mirrorless does not have advantages and it will not happen. The questions are:
- is there a compelling argument that Canon must release a 6D-level mirrorless right now
- Does Canon (not you, not I, but Canon) believe the technology is robust and mature enough to meet the demands of current 6D users. You can see from countless fora that the merest smidgeon of a step backwards is mercilessly trashed and the excuse 'ah, but this is mirrorless' will not wash

 

[AvTvM]

mirrorless camera systems do not need a compelling point from me. They've long made that point for themselves.

I was not talking about a compelling argument for mirrorless, I was talking about a compelling argument for a new mount (what were your scores in English comprehension at school?)

Then you seem to have a mental block on realising no-one (as far as I can tell) is saying mirrorless does not have advantages and it will not happen. The questions are:
- is there a compelling argument that Canon must release a 6D-level mirrorless right now
- Does Canon (not you, not I, but Canon) believe the technology is robust and mature enough to meet the demands of current 6D users. You can see from countless fora that the merest smidgeon of a step backwards is mercilessly trashed and the excuse 'ah, but this is mirrorless' will not wash

... paid poster for Canon or unpaid fanboy? Why so defensive? Canon Defense League. I see that almost all of your postings are in defense of Canon.

Mirrorless technology or "being stable" is not the issue. Even "stupid Canon" should be able to get an FF MILC to market that is better than a 6D. Maybe even a match for Sony A7/R/S Mk. II and maybe even before Sony introduces Mk. III. gen

 

[Mikehit]

mirrorless camera systems do not need a compelling point from me. They've long made that point for themselves.

I was not talking about a compelling argument for mirrorless, I was talking about a compelling argument for a new mount (what were your scores in English comprehension at school?)

Then you seem to have a mental block on realising no-one (as far as I can tell) is saying mirrorless does not have advantages and it will not happen. The questions are:
- is there a compelling argument that Canon must release a 6D-level mirrorless right now
- Does Canon (not you, not I, but Canon) believe the technology is robust and mature enough to meet the demands of current 6D users. You can see from countless fora that the merest smidgeon of a step backwards is mercilessly trashed and the excuse 'ah, but this is mirrorless' will not wash

... paid poster for Canon or unpaid fanboy? Why so defensive? Canon Defense League. I see that almost all of your postings are in defense of Canon.

Mirrorless technology or "being stable" is not the issue. Even "stupid Canon" should be able to get an FF MILC to market that is better than a 6D. Maybe even a match for Sony A7/R/S Mk. II and maybe even before Sony introduces Mk. III. gen

er....I asked a question, I did not defend Canon at all - I merely posted a proposal as to why your sometimes ridiculous statements have not been met by Canon.
Are you unable to comprehend someone can have a view of "I can understand why, but it doesn't mean I have to agree...'

Why so sensitive that anyone who does so is immediately a Canon shill?

Even "stupid Canon" should be able to get an FF MILC to market that is better than a 6D.

And what evidence do you have for that? A mirrorless better than a 6D? In what respect?
Does this definition of 'better' mean a new mount?

 

[slclick]

mirrorless camera systems do not need a compelling point from me. They've long made that point for themselves.

I was not talking about a compelling argument for mirrorless, I was talking about a compelling argument for a new mount (what were your scores in English comprehension at school?)

Then you seem to have a mental block on realising no-one (as far as I can tell) is saying mirrorless does not have advantages and it will not happen. The questions are:
- is there a compelling argument that Canon must release a 6D-level mirrorless right now
- Does Canon (not you, not I, but Canon) believe the technology is robust and mature enough to meet the demands of current 6D users. You can see from countless fora that the merest smidgeon of a step backwards is mercilessly trashed and the excuse 'ah, but this is mirrorless' will not wash

... paid poster for Canon or unpaid fanboy? Why so defensive? Canon Defense League. I see that almost all of your postings are in defense of Canon.

Mirrorless technology or "being stable" is not the issue. Even "stupid Canon" should be able to get an FF MILC to market that is better than a 6D. Maybe even a match for Sony A7/R/S Mk. II and maybe even before Sony introduces Mk. III. gen

er....I asked a question, I did not defend Canon at all - I merely posted a proposal as to why your sometimes ridiculous statements have not been met by Canon.
Are you unable to comprehend someone can have a view of "I can understand why, but it doesn't mean I have to agree...'

Why so sensitive that anyone who does so is immediately a Canon shill?

Even "stupid Canon" should be able to get an FF MILC to market that is better than a 6D.

And what evidence do you have for that? A mirrorless better than a 6D? In what respect?
Does this definition of 'better' mean a new mount?

#1 reason why the ignore button is sorely missed

 

[Don Haines]

I have another question to ask here.....

Why, as you move up in the Canon ecosystem, do the cameras get physically larger?

Canon demonstrated with the SL-1 that they can pack a DSLR into a smaller body, yet the sales were pathetic. Yes, it was smaller and to some people smaller was better, but for the majority the ergonomics sucked! Let's say Canon released the 6D2 as a compact sized mirrorless camera..... Where do the controls go? Does it still fit people's hands? Do the fingers comfortably operate the controls? Is it the shape that they are expecting? If compact size is so important to them, are they going to forget about the 6D2 and go straight to an M camera?

You can not forget ergonomics!

 

[slclick]

I have another question to ask here.....

Why, as you move up in the Canon ecosystem, do the cameras get physically larger?

Canon demonstrated with the SL-1 that they can pack a DSLR into a smaller body, yet the sales were pathetic. Yes, it was smaller and to some people smaller was better, but for the majority the ergonomics sucked! Let's say Canon released the 6D2 as a compact sized mirrorless camera..... Where do the controls go? Does it still fit people's hands? Do the fingers comfortably operate the controls? Is it the shape that they are expecting? If compact size is so important to them, are they going to forget about the 6D2 and go straight to an M camera?

You can not forget ergonomics!

Size is a relative factor. I find the 6D series to be small. The 1D Series too large and the 5D just right. The Goldilocks factor. Then there's the global aspect with the new evolution of larger Murican hands...

 

[AvTvM]

with a good user interface things don't have to be big.
While I have not done foramal research into the matter, I'd think EOS M5 size and grip (both front and back) would be sufficiently chunky for most [not for all!] people.

And now imagine, if Canon would bring a new FF MILC with a fabulous Eye Control AF v2.0 system. No more need for a physical AF-point selector. Other than that, what is needed? 1 shutter button, on-off, 1 wheel front, 1 back and 4 well-placed, fully user-customizable buttons and a good touch-screen. Fits easily.

 

[Mikehit]

with a good user interface things don't have to be big.
While I have not done foramal research into the matter, I'd think EOS M5 size and grip (both front and back) would be sufficiently chunky for most [not for all!] people.

And now imagine, if Canon would bring a new FF MILC with a fabulous Eye Control AF v2.0 system. No more need for a physical AF-point selector. Other than that, what is needed? 1 shutter button, on-off, 1 wheel front, 1 back and 4 well-placed, fully user-customizable buttons and a good touch-screen. Fits easily.

So you are back to saying they should put a FF sensor in the m5? And keep the same outer dimensions including flange distance?

 

[Don Haines]

I have another question to ask here.....

Why, as you move up in the Canon ecosystem, do the cameras get physically larger?

Canon demonstrated with the SL-1 that they can pack a DSLR into a smaller body, yet the sales were pathetic. Yes, it was smaller and to some people smaller was better, but for the majority the ergonomics sucked! Let's say Canon released the 6D2 as a compact sized mirrorless camera..... Where do the controls go? Does it still fit people's hands? Do the fingers comfortably operate the controls? Is it the shape that they are expecting? If compact size is so important to them, are they going to forget about the 6D2 and go straight to an M camera?

You can not forget ergonomics!

Size is a relative factor. I find the 6D series to be small. The 1D Series too large and the 5D just right. The Goldilocks factor. Then there's the global aspect with the new evolution of larger Murican hands...

I agree that it is relative.... but Canon has a lot of design latitude as to how big or how small they make their cameras, and we must ask ourselves why they have decided on the physical sizes that they have? With APS-C DSLRs you have the range from the SL-1 to the 7D2... Rebels could be made SL-1 size or 7D2 size, or if they wanted to 1DX2 sized, yet they chose the current form factor. The question is why? It is obviously more than just technical factors. It includes ergonomics, public perception of what a camera looks like, and lots of stuff that we are most likely not aware of. Canon has dedicated people looking at this question.... people with access to REAL data from all over the world. There is a series of reasons and regardless of how much we pontificate, we don't know!

 

[Loswr]

So the real question is "does the size of the market justify all that expense of developing a new mount" - I have my doubts.

Development cost is nearly irrelevant. As soon as Canon stops production of EF lenses and offers new EF-? glass, they will sell another 150 million lenses over the next 10 years or so ... people will bitch a bit, but then they will migrate, just as they did from FD to EF. Not many customers lost. And many new ones gained. Bitching will be far less this time, because people will not be forced to migrate [EF will remain compatible], but can do so at their own leisure - whenever they are convinced a new [hopefully smaller and or better] lens is a worthwhile upgrade for their money.

Your argument for a switch to a new mount is predicated on mirrorless supplanting dSLRs in global market share before Canon launches a FF MILC. All available data show that's many (many!!) years away. So, are you willing to wait a decade or more for your Canon FF MILC, or would you rather just admit that you're wrong and that a Canon FF MILC will come sooner...with an EF-M or (non-compact) EF mount?

Here's the thing...Canon knows how many M bodies and EF mount adapters they've sold. They know how many EF/EF-S lenses they've sold to people with only an M body. They know how many EF lenses they've sold to people with only an APS-C body. They have ample data to support the choice of EF vs. EF-M as a mount for their FF MILC. What they don't have are data to support dropping EF in favor of a new mount.

Oh, I know you'll cite the FD-EF switch (in fact, you already have)...but in that case, people's financial sacrifice meant they were getting a major improvement in exchange, one which included a logical reason for purchasing new lenses – autofocus. In this case, you're suggesting people would pay to replace all of their lenses, for essentially the same lens but a few millimeters shorter. The "improvement" of a slightly more compact camera body is something that current sales figures suggest the majority of buyers don't find compelling.

 

[ahsanford]

with a good user interface things don't have to be big.
While I have not done foramal research into the matter, I'd think EOS M5 size and grip (both front and back) would be sufficiently chunky for most [not for all!] people.

And now imagine, if Canon would bring a new FF MILC with a fabulous Eye Control AF v2.0 system. No more need for a physical AF-point selector. Other than that, what is needed? 1 shutter button, on-off, 1 wheel front, 1 back and 4 well-placed, fully user-customizable buttons and a good touch-screen. Fits easily.

The grip has to be chunky enough to wield a 70-200 f/2.8 because it's a staple lens affixed to many of our cameras. An M5 grip with a 70-200 would be really uncomfortable to shoot all day with.

I'd argue the 6D is the smallest the grip should be. Besides, only the 1 or 2 pancakes they'd offer with a new mount would be shorter than a big grip, so an unnecessarily small grip would only save you space a very small fraction of the time --> Canon should go with a chunky grip.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Oh, I know you'll cite the FD-EF switch (in fact, you already have)...but in that case, people's financial sacrifice meant they were getting a major improvement in exchange, one which included a logical reason for purchasing new lenses – autofocus. In this case, you're suggesting people would pay to replace all of their lenses, for essentially the same lens but a few millimeters shorter. The "improvement" of a slightly more compact camera body is something that current sales figures suggest the majority of buyers don't find compelling.

+100. This is the heart of it. People made the EF migration because it was a huge upgrade. A migration to new mirrorless lenses' biggest ace in the hole would be... what, 5% optical improvement every 10 years and a few tiny lenses to make a tiny system? That's going to get people replacing all their glass? Never going to happen.

There are (to my understanding) only three ways Canon could pull off another FD-EF migration for mirrorless, and none are probable or reasonable:

• Mirrorless vastly outperforms SLRs somehow and only so with that new mount's glass. If the latter part wasn't true, people would just enjoy that new mirrorless functionality with EF glass and migration would never occur. One way would be to nerf adapting EF -- cripple the AF or something like that. Or perhaps IBIS that only works with mirrorless lenses (deliberate Canon firmware nerfing) could do this, but I'm inventing an asinine reason, honestly. This isn't going to happen.
  
  
• Canon offers industry-game-changing lenses only for mirrorless that are a huge step better than what are sold today. APO lenses, f/2 zooms, f/1 primes, tilt-shifts with AF, lenses that can see through time, etc.
  
  
• Canon only puts its best sensors in FF mirrorless -- that's right, they withhold them from FF SLRs -- and they don't offer an EF adaptor and go to great lengths to prevent third parties from successfully making one. The odds of that happening are nil. Sony actually did the first part and put a big lag time between their best sensors making mirrorless versus the A99 rig getting updated, but they had an adaptor, so folks weren't forced to switch from A to E.

Sorry. If it's a new mount, I still only see a small bolus of 4-6 lenses and that will be that.

- A