What how? If people shooting Canon switch to Nikon, they will have to buy new lenses. No real way around that.
Upvote
0
Canon's FF Mirrorless Camera Will Have Same Internals as EOS 6D Mark II
- Thread starter pedro
- Start date
What how? If people shooting Canon switch to Nikon, they will have to buy new lenses. No real way around that.
Who knows what the future will bring.
If Canon was a small company it could keep doing what it's doing making mainly mirrored cameras to a high standard and robustness backed up by a long line of excellent lens.
I assume Canon like most entreprises wants to continue to grow. You won't continue to grow if you keep making the products you are making now. You have to make them "better" in the eyes of the consumer.
As Canon are making very good cameras they are limited in how they can make them even better.
They could make/use better sensors. - Mirrorless not required
They can improve their autofocus systems and low light performance - Mirrorless not required
They can improve their range of lens - Mirrorless not required
It could improve the video on the camera - Mirrorless not required.
They can improve their frame rate - Mirrorless may be required. I assume it tops out at <20 FPS with a mirror
They can make their cameras smaller - Mirrorless may be required to do this. It would certainly help.
I think Canon realise themselves they have to put some bet on Mirrorless in case they get left behind.
They have this dilemma of changing the mount or not.
Changing the mount probably would improve the mirrorless camera but gradually (if mirrorless comes dominant) obsolete their customers expensive lens (but I assume will come up with an adapter to circumvent this).
Keeping the mount might mean Canon not building the optimal full frame mirrorless camera. If they are not going to build a camera to compete they shouldn't build one at all.
If I were Canon I'd gamble on making a mirrorless Medium Format camera with the same footprint size as a 5DIV. This would be a new mount and new lens and new sensors but a desirable product. One that would keep inspiring Canon customers to buy the cheaper range of cameras. If I were Canon I start with a small range of brilliant primes and work from there. People buy Canon for different reasons but seeing the big whites at the world cup or Olympics or the Superbowl attracts alot of people to the brand. Having a super premium range is important, even one with prices unattainable for most people. I think Canon need to keep creating levels above us that we want or it will gradually fade away like a Nokia.
If Canon was a small company it could keep doing what it's doing making mainly mirrored cameras to a high standard and robustness backed up by a long line of excellent lens.
I assume Canon like most entreprises wants to continue to grow. You won't continue to grow if you keep making the products you are making now. You have to make them "better" in the eyes of the consumer.
As Canon are making very good cameras they are limited in how they can make them even better.
They could make/use better sensors. - Mirrorless not required
They can improve their autofocus systems and low light performance - Mirrorless not required
They can improve their range of lens - Mirrorless not required
It could improve the video on the camera - Mirrorless not required.
They can improve their frame rate - Mirrorless may be required. I assume it tops out at <20 FPS with a mirror
They can make their cameras smaller - Mirrorless may be required to do this. It would certainly help.
I think Canon realise themselves they have to put some bet on Mirrorless in case they get left behind.
They have this dilemma of changing the mount or not.
Changing the mount probably would improve the mirrorless camera but gradually (if mirrorless comes dominant) obsolete their customers expensive lens (but I assume will come up with an adapter to circumvent this).
Keeping the mount might mean Canon not building the optimal full frame mirrorless camera. If they are not going to build a camera to compete they shouldn't build one at all.
If I were Canon I'd gamble on making a mirrorless Medium Format camera with the same footprint size as a 5DIV. This would be a new mount and new lens and new sensors but a desirable product. One that would keep inspiring Canon customers to buy the cheaper range of cameras. If I were Canon I start with a small range of brilliant primes and work from there. People buy Canon for different reasons but seeing the big whites at the world cup or Olympics or the Superbowl attracts alot of people to the brand. Having a super premium range is important, even one with prices unattainable for most people. I think Canon need to keep creating levels above us that we want or it will gradually fade away like a Nokia.
Upvote
0
slclick said:
That's the unspoken wildcard with a thin mount FF mirrorless -- you can adapt other glass.
I've pretty consistently flagged it as a fun tool for the retro shooter, the yard sale old lens collector, someone breathing new life into FD glass, etc. but it's also a chance for more traditional modern-day folks to try another company's current generation lenses out.
There are a number of people on this forum that would love to try out the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8, 105mm f/1.4, or might like a 50-ish prime that doesn't have a focusing quirk or capture blurry clouds in the corners :
. On top of that, viewfinder-based focus peaking on mirroress is a huge opportunity for Canonites to try out manual Zeiss lenses in longer FLs, not just for landscapes in LiveView, etc.So Canon won't build it's business FF mirrorless mount decision around retrofitting non-Canon glass, but going thin does have upsides for us other than 'to be smaller'.
- A
Upvote
0
-1 said:
The EF-M can theoretically support FF glass, but there is zero chance the M6 is FF in an M5 form factor.
1) Branding would be a nightmare as M6 as you'd have crop on either side of that 6 number. Why would 6 be a logical identifier for FF? I'd see a new brand name/level altogether for FF mirrorless, perhaps EOS 5DM or 6DM (if highly based on a current FF SLR body design), EOS X (if not), etc.
2) Canon would make a HUGE deal about their first FF mirrorless rig. Huge, I say. No chance this would be lumped in with two other major releases like the Rebel refresh, the 6D2, etc. I'd see the first mirrorless FF rig getting an open 3-6 months of no other Canon releases adjacent to it to make it Canon's sole message / focus over that time.
3) If they crammed a FF sensor into such a tiny (M5-like) body, it would have to be terribly nerfed feature-wise as there wouldn't be room for larger buffer, second DIGIC chip, standalone metering chip, all the I/O connections, etc. Controls and ergonomics would also suffer -- no room for FF expectations of buttons/wheels and the tiny grip would suffer with larger FF lenses. And heaven help the battery given that the FF internals are larger than crop internals due to sensor size. So cramming an FF rig into that tiny setup would look unbelievably sexy (read: RX1R like) but would have underwhelming performance.
- A
Upvote
0
slclick said:
We've been obsessed about will they / won't they 'go thin' with the FF mirrorless mount in this very thread (and 20 others) and I don't intend to re-litigate that here.
But a small height and width (i.e. the back / LCD view of the camera) for FF mirrorless makes next to zero sense. IMHO, the number of people that would be delighted with a diminutive SL1 / M5 sort of body for an FF rig pales in comparison to the number of people who'd skip it altogether as a big step away from the 5-series ergonomics they love.
I'm not saying the height/width of a future FF mirrorless will be the same as the 5D, but I think it will be much closer to the 5D than to the M5 for more reasons than I can count.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Well they could use the EF-M mount in a mirror less 1D too.
) Nikon have a less generous diameter in the F-Mount:Sony E 18 mm APS-C and 35 mm 46.1 mm (1.815 inch) Bayonet Still (Digital) Sony Alpha NEX
Canon EF-M 18 mm APS-C 47 mm Bayonet Still (Digital) Canon EOS M
Nikon F 46.5 mm 35 mm 44 mm Bayonet Still
More at WikiPedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount#List_of_lens_mounts
Upvote
0
-1 said:
Which is exactly why they shouldn't....
https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
http://ilovehatephoto.com/2015/02/23/3-detailed-reasons-not-to-switch-to-sony-full-frame-mirrorless-system/
Upvote
0
it is the combination of FDD and throat width ... combination of those 2 parametrs makes or breaks a mount. sony E is ok for aps-c, but a very foul compromise for FF image circle.
i'd expect something like 49 to 50 mm (net) throat width plus 22 to 24mm FDD as best combination for a *really right* FF mirrorless system. canon has always shown very good jugdement in choice of generously dimensioned lens mouns. i fully expect canon to bring a great new EF-? lens mount eith their upcomibg mirrorless FF system. it will allow for big, fast glass including f/1.2 lenses as well as for a set of ultra-compact moderately fast primes and zooms in the most frequently used focal length range. and for slim bodies as well as for some big-grip, chunkier bodies.
this is one area in which not even i consider Canon to be *stupid*, but rather *brilliant*.
but - we shall see. hopefully soon! and: i will not buy yet another mirrorslapper. done with those.
i'd expect something like 49 to 50 mm (net) throat width plus 22 to 24mm FDD as best combination for a *really right* FF mirrorless system. canon has always shown very good jugdement in choice of generously dimensioned lens mouns. i fully expect canon to bring a great new EF-? lens mount eith their upcomibg mirrorless FF system. it will allow for big, fast glass including f/1.2 lenses as well as for a set of ultra-compact moderately fast primes and zooms in the most frequently used focal length range. and for slim bodies as well as for some big-grip, chunkier bodies.
this is one area in which not even i consider Canon to be *stupid*, but rather *brilliant*.
but - we shall see. hopefully soon! and: i will not buy yet another mirrorslapper. done with those.
Upvote
0
So in the quest of making the body smaller (and ruining ergonomics to do so) you have just made all the lenses larger and for those of us with more than one lens, made the system larger.....-1 said:
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
-1 said:
One possible reason is IQ. Look at Sony's G series, they all have what appears to be a 'fixed adapter' on the mount side of the lens.
In my Canon 24-70/2.8L II, the rear element is right at the back of the mount. In the Sony 24-70/2.8G, it's in about the same place relative to the sensor...with some extra empty lens barrel as a spacer.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:-1 said:
One possible reason is IQ. Look at Sony's G series, they all have what appears to be a 'fixed adapter' on the mount side of the lens.
In my Canon 24-70/2.8L II, the rear element is right at the back of the mount. In the Sony 24-70/2.8G, it's in about the same place relative to the sensor...with some extra empty lens barrel as a spacer.
There's always more than one way to skin a cat...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
