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

[rrcphoto]

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.....

Yeah, but only in the real world, not where it really matters...inside the AvTvM Universe.

that's trademarked you know

 

[AvTvM]

sony FE lenses are too long, too larger, too complex and way too expensive ... simply because stupid Sony decided to use their crop E-mount also for FF.

with a properly designed mount lenses will be smaller, lighter, simpler, lower cost to build. of course a 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 will still be "sizeable". but in addition to big/"pro-grade" lenses a series of moderately fast smaller zooms (f/4) and primes (f/2.0-2.8) is possible.

mirrorless offers all possibilities: big and small. it just needs to be done right, startibg from a no-compromise lens mount.

 

[Mikehit]

with a properly designed mount lenses will be smaller, lighter, simpler, lower cost to build.

Can you remind me what your proposal is?

 

[Loswr]

with a properly designed mount lenses will be smaller, lighter, simpler, lower cost to build.

Can you remind me what your proposal is?

IIRC, his proposal was to sacrifice lens IQ for a modest savings in lens length, to sacrifice good body ergonomics for a modest savings in camera size, and to replace the full EF lineup with a smaller selection of native Canon FF MILC lenses that are incompatible with Canon's popular APS-C MILCs, severely limiting the typical upgrade path and ensuring commercial failure for Canon's FF MILC line.

I think that about sums it up.

 

[Etienne]

Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987. That was a big risk at the time, but Canon did it to pursue the best possible AF system. Nikon stayed with AF in the camera body for a long time, and paid a price for that while Canon rose on the back of their unbeatable AF system. The rest is history and EF lenses obviously became massively popular.

There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. They could easily provide an adapter for the transition period, and in fact Canon would probably sell even more lenses as people switched to the mirrorless lens line up.

 

[Mikehit]

Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987. That was a big risk at the time, but Canon did it to pursue the best possible AF system. Nikon stayed with AF in the camera body for a long time, and paid a price for that while Canon rose on the back of their unbeatable AF system. The rest is history and EF lenses obviously became massively popular.

There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. They could easily provide an adapter for the transition period, and in fact Canon would probably sell even more lenses as people switched to the mirrorless lens line up.

The question is when that new mount appears. AvTvM argument is that the new mount should be part of the 6D-type mirrorless about to be released. Let us accept they release a new mount - economics would say that there has to be reason for the Canon crowd to dive in immediately. With no lenses designed specifically for the mount, you would need an EF adapter. You then have two issues: first, this increases the size and weight of the mirrorless camera which offers a professional/enthusiast no reason to switch. Second, you would be asking new customers to buy a camera plus an adapter looks like a half-assed ill thought-out system (at least Sony had a decent number of lenses in existence which is probably why they stuck with their old mount) that will be a marketing nightmare. You are also trying to sell the idea to jump on the bandwagon on the promise that dedicated lenses will appear at some point in the future.

The only way a new mount can work is by developing a new mount and new lenses at the same time, and much as Canon have in the past been able to keep development products under wraps I fail to see how such a drastic shift would be kept quiet and we would get loads of warning, making AvTvM's musing as little more than fantasy.

So when you say "There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. " let me know your thoughts on when. If your answer is a vague 'sometime in the future' then it is little better than saying "it is possible".

 

[Etienne]

Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987. That was a big risk at the time, but Canon did it to pursue the best possible AF system. Nikon stayed with AF in the camera body for a long time, and paid a price for that while Canon rose on the back of their unbeatable AF system. The rest is history and EF lenses obviously became massively popular.

There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. They could easily provide an adapter for the transition period, and in fact Canon would probably sell even more lenses as people switched to the mirrorless lens line up.

The question is when that new mount appears. AvTvM argument is that the new mount should be part of the 6D-type mirrorless about to be released. Let us accept they release a new mount - economics would say that there has to be reason for the Canon crowd to dive in immediately. With no lenses designed specifically for the mount, you would need an EF adapter. You then have two issues: first, this increases the size and weight of the mirrorless camera which offers a professional/enthusiast no reason to switch. Second, you would be asking new customers to buy a camera plus an adapter looks like a half-assed ill thought-out system (at least Sony had a decent number of lenses in existence which is probably why they stuck with their old mount) that will be a marketing nightmare. You are also trying to sell the idea to jump on the bandwagon on the promise that dedicated lenses will appear at some point in the future.

The only way a new mount can work is by developing a new mount and new lenses at the same time, and much as Canon have in the past been able to keep development products under wraps I fail to see how such a drastic shift would be kept quiet and we would get loads of warning, making AvTvM's musing as little more than fantasy.

So when you say "There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. " let me know your thoughts on when. If your answer is a vague 'sometime in the future' then it is little better than saying "it is possible".

Obviously I can't predict the timing. I merely point out that there is a precedent for abandoning a lens mount at Canon in order to push forward with the very best technology. Given that mirror-cameras will likely fade away, Canon will have to decide if there's a technical advantage to a complete redesign of their lenses in order take full advantage of future mirrorless body designs, and I suspect there is. Canon will most likely commit to the best technical path forward (and I certainly hope they do), even if that means abandoning the EF mount (which I suspect it does mean).

I agree that they would likely release a few new lenses at the very same time as they introduce a new mount. Can they keep development secret? Probably up until the last few months before announcements.

 

[Mikehit]

Canon will have to decide if there's a technical advantage to a complete redesign of their lenses in order take full advantage of future mirrorless body designs, and I suspect there is.

What are your thoughts on the 'Technical advantage'? The only ones touted so far are ergonomics i.e. size, and it seems to be agreed (even by AvTvM) that this will only really apply to short focal lengths. I am pretty sure there will not be a price advantage - if the lenses are (in theory) smaller and therefore cheaper to make the economies of scale will not apply so either mirrorless lenses are more expensive (which is prohibitive to the success of the new mount) or the price of the EF lenses are kept high to subsidise them which annoys the core market.

I suspect that the first real occasion for a new mount will be a proven curved sensor because this will enable simpler lens designs and they could then double any size benefit offered by mirrorless by changing the mount as well.
I would be mildly surprised if Canon are not researching possible alternatives to the EF/EF-S mount if only as ongoing blue-sky research, but that will be some way in the future and far from the 'necessity' that AvTvM pretends is vital for Canon to keep up with the competition.

 

[slclick]

Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987. That was a big risk at the time, but Canon did it to pursue the best possible AF system. Nikon stayed with AF in the camera body for a long time, and paid a price for that while Canon rose on the back of their unbeatable AF system. The rest is history and EF lenses obviously became massively popular.

There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. They could easily provide an adapter for the transition period, and in fact Canon would probably sell even more lenses as people switched to the mirrorless lens line up.

The question is when that new mount appears. AvTvM argument is that the new mount should be part of the 6D-type mirrorless about to be released. Let us accept they release a new mount - economics would say that there has to be reason for the Canon crowd to dive in immediately. With no lenses designed specifically for the mount, you would need an EF adapter. You then have two issues: first, this increases the size and weight of the mirrorless camera which offers a professional/enthusiast no reason to switch. Second, you would be asking new customers to buy a camera plus an adapter looks like a half-assed ill thought-out system (at least Sony had a decent number of lenses in existence which is probably why they stuck with their old mount) that will be a marketing nightmare. You are also trying to sell the idea to jump on the bandwagon on the promise that dedicated lenses will appear at some point in the future.

The only way a new mount can work is by developing a new mount and new lenses at the same time, and much as Canon have in the past been able to keep development products under wraps I fail to see how such a drastic shift would be kept quiet and we would get loads of warning, making AvTvM's musing as little more than fantasy.

So when you say "There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. " let me know your thoughts on when. If your answer is a vague 'sometime in the future' then it is little better than saying "it is possible".

Obviously I can't predict the timing. I merely point out that there is a precedent for abandoning a lens mount at Canon in order to push forward with the very best technology. Given that mirror-cameras will likely fade away, Canon will have to decide if there's a technical advantage to a complete redesign of their lenses in order take full advantage of future mirrorless body designs, and I suspect there is. Canon will most likely commit to the best technical path forward (and I certainly hope they do), even if that means abandoning the EF mount (which I suspect it does mean).

I agree that they would likely release a few new lenses at the very same time as they introduce a new mount. Can they keep development secret? Probably up until the last few months before announcements.

I have issue with the 'given' part of how mirror based cameras will fade away. Sales-wise there is not any evidence and currently the tech isn't there to support the premise either. It's inching closer every year but not in the whiz bang 'this is the future' way enthusiasts are hoping. And I say enthusiasts because pro shooters aren't clamoring for it.

Sure there are pundits on this forum who suggest it must be as they predict but there is no hard evidence to back it up. I'm all for better, smaller (to an extent) less expensive all that jazz but we know how those hopes work. Plus there's the you can have two but not all three rule.

 

[Loswr]

Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987.

There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount.

You provided (well, restated) an excellent reason for the switch from FD to EF – a technically and functionally compelling reason.

Are you suggesting there is a similar technically and functionally compelling reason for a switch to a new lens mount for FF MILCs? In particular, for a switch to a mount that precludes use of those lenses on Canon's APS-C MILC cameras? If so, please share it...because it's sure not evident to me.

I merely point out that there is a precedent for abandoning a lens mount at Canon in order to push forward with the very best technology. Given that mirror-cameras will likely fade away, Canon will have to decide if there's a technical advantage to a complete redesign of their lenses in order take full advantage of future mirrorless body designs, and I suspect there is. Canon will most likely commit to the best technical path forward (and I certainly hope they do), even if that means abandoning the EF mount (which I suspect it does mean).

I agree that they would likely release a few new lenses at the very same time as they introduce a new mount. Can they keep development secret? Probably up until the last few months before announcements.

I have issue with the 'given' part of how mirror based cameras will fade away. Sales-wise there is not any evidence and currently the tech isn't there to support the premise either. It's inching closer every year but not in the whiz bang 'this is the future' way enthusiasts are hoping. And I say enthusiasts because pro shooters aren't clamoring for it.

Sure there are pundits on this forum who suggest it must be as they predict but there is no hard evidence to back it up. I'm all for better, smaller (to an extent) less expensive all that jazz but we know how those hopes work. Plus there's the you can have two but not all three rule.

+1

'Everyone' is predicting the demise of dSLRs in favor of MILCs. But...'everyone' doesn't seem to include the people actually buying cameras, who have a strong and manifest preference for dSLRs.

Is it it just a matter of time? Sure. So is the sun becoming a red giant and destroying the earth. You have been warned.

More seriously, though, the rate for market share shifting from dSLRs to MILCs (very slow), coupled with the lack of growth of the MILC market (which still hasn't even managed to regain 2012 levels) suggests that rather than MILCs replacing dSLRs, something paradigm shifting will come along (Canon's Wondercamera?) and wipe out the entire ILC market before MILCs come to dominate it.

 

[mb66energy]

with a properly designed mount lenses will be smaller, lighter, simpler, lower cost to build.

Can you remind me what your proposal is?

IIRC, his proposal was to sacrifice lens IQ for a modest savings in lens length, to sacrifice good body ergonomics for a modest savings in camera size, and to replace the full EF lineup with a smaller selection of native Canon FF MILC lenses that are incompatible with Canon's popular APS-C MILCs, severely limiting the typical upgrade path and ensuring commercial failure for Canon's FF MILC line.

I think that about sums it up.

Mirrorless opens up new optical formulae: More freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor. You have to avoid confusion with the standard EF mount - so a new mount is mandatory IMO.

Size of lens+cam is a minor argument for mirrorless while ergonomics isn't compromised by a new lens mount and the need for an EF-lens adaptor to use standard EF lenses.

Not to forget using older lenses with shorter flange distance and some optical speciality lenses/optical arrangements. FOR ME the possibility to use some FD lenses I own is an important reason for a FF mirrorless.

I am shure there will be a small selection of native EF-X-mount (or whatever it name will be) lenses of shorter focal lengths and an adaptor to adapt EF lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

I have issue with the 'given' part of how mirror based cameras will fade away. Sales-wise there is not any evidence and currently the tech isn't there to support the premise either. It's inching closer every year but not in the whiz bang 'this is the future' way enthusiasts are hoping. And I say enthusiasts because pro shooters aren't clamoring for it.

Sure there are pundits on this forum who suggest it must be as they predict but there is no hard evidence to back it up. I'm all for better, smaller (to an extent) less expensive all that jazz but we know how those hopes work. Plus there's the you can have two but not all three rule.

Again, with FF, it's not about smaller. It's about better. It's about being able to do more than with a mirror: (Hear me out, and I'll get to 'given' / inevitability in a bit.)

• The EVF is cute now but could become a game-changer on a host of fronts. Principally this is the natural merging of the LiveView screen piped directly to our eye in a stable handheld shooting position, but there's more:
  
  • Focus peaking / image magnification will breathe new life into manual focus lenses.
    
    
  • Amplify light in dark rooms. Huge for concerts/events. Even if the AF fails from -4, -5 EV lighting, you can still manually focus your AF lens with the same MF tools as above.
    
    
  • Customize your viewfinder in intricate ways -- I think over time these will become hypercustomizable like for (of all things) more serious PC gamers. Tune it to do give exactly the information you want. I jokingly tell people to 'think inside of Iron Man's visor', but you get the idea. Build your cockpit the way you like it.
    
    
• Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.
  
  
• Costs should go down as there's less mechanical stuff to design / build / assemble / calibrate / etc. Folks like Canon and Nikon will not lower price to maximize margins, but companies like Sony / Pentax / etc. could drop prices and still make their margins, and possibly push CaNikon to do the same. Personally, I think this is the biggest industry reason to shift people to mirrorless. It's not that it's new or smaller -- it's that they can command the same sales price for a less expensive product to produce, and in so doing, beef up their margins.
  
  
• As time goes on, the hard wall between stills and video will further blur. Video-based stills and clever/interesting ways to merge the two will continue to evolve, so it makes sense you'd be in a live feed to the sensor sort of environment. A hard cut over from an optical path to an electronic path inhibits that to some extent.
  
  
  
• The more the system becomes a purely electronic/digital animal, the greater likelihood we'll the ability to upgrade/modify/improve/customize these rigs. Sony is already tinkering with an app ecosystem (they had an app for in-camera ND grads, believe it or not) that could let third parties unlock some clever stuff. Don't think total conversion like Magic Lantern -- think small but targeted unmet needs that Canon wouldn't block from happening for price reasons. (I'm not saying Canon will allow jailbreaking or go open source, but someone will.)
  
  
  
• Depending on the mount that is chosen, the ability to adapt other lenses is kind of awesome. More of a tinkerer's pastime than a pro's move, I admit, but haven't you always wanted to try a specific Nikon lens or old FD lens?

Now I'm not blindingly fanboying mirrorless -- it has some seemingly intractable limitations that are well discussed and I don't own one as a result even to this day (not including my cell phone). Lag / battery life / ergonomics / handling, etc. are all not there yet -- granted. But eventually, those limitations will either be softened (or, for battery, simply accepted as the price of admission) to the point that the growing value proposition of mirrorless will get the sale.

And no one said 'eventually' was happening anytime soon (other than AvTvM). Could be 10 years. Could be more. But by that time, mirrors will die off in all but the most responsiveness-demanding shooting arenas where people will still pay for that level of technological complexity -- sports, wildlife, etc.

But you are right -- I have zero data on this. Just a gut feeling from the bullet points above.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987. That was a big risk at the time, but Canon did it to pursue the best possible AF system. Nikon stayed with AF in the camera body for a long time, and paid a price for that while Canon rose on the back of their unbeatable AF system. The rest is history and EF lenses obviously became massively popular.

There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. They could easily provide an adapter for the transition period, and in fact Canon would probably sell even more lenses as people switched to the mirrorless lens line up.

for starters, canon wasn't at the time in the dominant position they are now. back then they were solidly #2 or 3# in marketshare so it made sense.

it also made more sense because the FD mount just simply wasn't a good mount going forward with canon's continued pressing of computerization inside their film cameras.

this is entirely different.

 

[GHPhotography]

It feels like Canon is testing the waters with the M5 and M6 as far as how many people are buying mirrorless just because it's the newest thing. It is also a way to "innovate" when it appears that APS-C sensors are topping out. If Canon are going to introduce a new FF mirrorless mount I would bet my money that is comes when they master the global shutter they just patented and evolve the DO optics to the point where they actually can make AvTvM's dreams come true with shorter/lighter lenses that are of equal quality to the current EF mount options. That or if a real competitor starts eating away their market share with a mirrorless body.

If canon released a global shutter FF mirrorless camera with a new mount and a decent stable of light and high IQ DO lenses they would own the market and present a clear reason to drop the mirror. Like any giant company they are moving slow and letting other, smaller companies take the risk and suffer the consequences of making too small of a mount or having to make giant lenses. Canon is exactly where they want to be and there is little evidence, aside from the opinions of some forum members, that anyone threatens them.

 

[Loswr]

Mirrorless opens up new optical formulae: More freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor. You have to avoid confusion with the standard EF mount - so a new mount is mandatory IMO.
...

I am shure there will be a small selection of native EF-X-mount (or whatever it name will be) lenses of shorter focal lengths and an adaptor to adapt EF lenses.

Is Sony just too dumb to use that freedom in terms of lens design as they keep releasing E-mount G-Master lenses that have the rear element 40-50mm from the sensor with some empty lens barrel as a spacer? Or could it be that the 'freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor' comes at the cost of a hit on image quality?

There's no need to 'avoid confusion with the standard EF mount' if future Canon FF MILC's just use the EF mount.

As for a new MILC mount, there's already an EF-M mount...quite simlar to the Sony E-mount. If there's some new mount for FF MILC, unless those lenses can natively mount on EOS M bodies (as EF lenses can mount on APS-C dSLRs), then that new mount is likely a non-starter from a commercial standpoint.

I think we're going to see a Canon FF MILC that either uses the EF mount (seamless compatibility for curent users, maintain lens lineup), or the EF-M mount (providing a direct upgrade path for EOS M users). A brand new mount that lacks native compatibility and thus alienates both current buyers and future APS-C MILC buyers is really unlikely.

 

[Ryananthony]

Mirrorless opens up new optical formulae: More freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor. You have to avoid confusion with the standard EF mount - so a new mount is mandatory IMO.
...

I am shure there will be a small selection of native EF-X-mount (or whatever it name will be) lenses of shorter focal lengths and an adaptor to adapt EF lenses.

Is Sony just too dumb to use that freedom in terms of lens design as they keep releasing E-mount G-Master lenses that have the rear element 40-50mm from the sensor with some empty lens barrel as a spacer? Or could it be that the 'freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor' comes at the cost of a hit on image quality?

There's no need to 'avoid confusion with the standard EF mount' if future Canon FF MILC's just use the EF mount.

As for a new MILC mount, there's already an EF-M mount...quite simlar to the Sony E-mount. If there's some new mount for FF MILC, unless those lenses can natively mount on EOS M bodies (as EF lenses can mount on APS-C dSLRs), then that new mount is likely a non-starter from a commercial standpoint.

I think we're going to see a Canon FF MILC that either uses the EF mount (seamless compatibility for curent users, maintain lens lineup), or the EF-M mount (providing a direct upgrade path for EOS M users). A brand new mount that lacks native compatibility and thus alienates both current buyers and future APS-C MILC buyers is really unlikely.

I just can't imagine myself investing into another canon lens mount. I have no interest in using an adaptor to mount my Canon glass to a Canon body. Period. I for one would not spend the money to "duplicate" lenses so I could use a slightly smaller FF-M mount.

 

[[email protected]]

Neuro, this could also be because the lens design was purchased from another company, like Tamron, and the formula was designed for a different build originally, and then adapted.

I wrote "If you need", but why would you (the designer). It's just like ading the EF to EF-M adapter inside the assembly. If you really need that space between the lens and sensor. But why would you???

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.

 

[Etienne]

Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987.

There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount.

You provided (well, restated) an excellent reason for the switch from FD to EF – a technically and functionally compelling reason.

Are you suggesting there is a similar technically and functionally compelling reason for a switch to a new lens mount for FF MILCs? In particular, for a switch to a mount that precludes use of those lenses on Canon's APS-C MILC cameras? If so, please share it...because it's sure not evident to me.

ahsanford makes some good points about Focus Peaking, lighter weight, fewer moving parts (higher FPS possibly), lowered costs etc etc.

Mirrors still have some advantages today, but LCD technology is still improving.

Still, why would anyone care to cling to mirrors? Personally I want better and better products. The mirror and prism was brilliant technology, and I still love my 5D3, but I think the technology in LCDs, and the advantages will win. An LCD can let you "see in the dark" for example, long after the optical viewfinder is black.

Anyway, this is no different than any technical revolution that preceded it. There will be winners and losers, and I don't think Canon is just going to sit back and watch Sony, or Panasonic, race ahead in the mirrorless game forever.

 

[AvTvM]

canon will not repeat the Sony mistake of using APA-C lens mount for FF sensored cameras, massively compromising and limiting lens design.

i do expect Canon's FF mirrorless system for early 2018. it is not 10 or 5 years out.

 

[ahsanford]

Are you suggesting there is a similar technically and functionally compelling reason for a switch to a new lens mount for FF MILCs? In particular, for a switch to a mount that precludes use of those lenses on Canon's APS-C MILC cameras? If so, please share it...because it's sure not evident to me.

The only reason I could see Canon would preclude APS-C mount crossover is to make the APS-C mount have a common interface -- choose EF-M as the FF mirrorless mount.

If the FF mount is indeed EF-M (with a larger image circle lens design, of course), the entire APS-C Rebel SLR space would (eventually) switch to EOS M's EF-M mount and then we'd just have the two camps APS-C EF-M shooters and FF EF-M shooters.

It would look a lot like EF-S vs. EF today, but it would be a whale of a painful crossover period. Think of how many people are Rebel shooters who bought more than the kit lens. They'd be SOL.

But that's just a way to make sense of APS-C to FF crossover question you asked: make a brilliant future happen with just the thinner mount for everyone. I don't know if I buy my own argument here. It's a deus ex machina -level resolution to a realtime / real people getting hosed problem, and I have no idea how Canon would sell such a painful EF-S exodus as an upside during the all-but-certainly painful transition period.

- A