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

[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.

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.

So I ask for a compelling rationale for a switch to a new lens mount for FF mirrorless...and you rehash some of the advantages of mirrorless cameras. Sad. :

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.

This is no different from all the BS arguments that have been swirling around lately. I guess you missed the fact that Canon is already ahead of both Sony and Panasonic in the mirrorless game. Only Olympus sold more MILCs than Canon last year.

 

[Etienne]

Just to add more fuel to the FF mirrorless lens mount fire:

We can be certain that the photo/video tech is not done innovating, even revolutionizing the tech. For all we know Canon may be researching curved FF sensors (I believe they put out patents on lens designs for small curved sensors), which may offer some significant advantages, especially at the edges. This would necessitate an entirely new set of lenses, and what better time to introduce this than in a FF mirrorless with a new mount!

 

[takesome1]

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.

The decision will most likely be based on potential sales, profit and market, rather than the technical side.
Ideally I would think most current DSLR users would want a FF MILC that would adapt to the current line of EF lenses. I really wouldn't think the upgrade path from a M crop body to a FF body would be that profitable for Canon.
It wouldn't be a complete surprise to me if Canon released a FF MILC that has its own line of lenses with an adapter.
In the end I think how it is released will be driven by anticipated profits.

 

[ahsanford]

Just to add more fuel to the FF mirrorless lens mount fire:

We can be certain that the photo/video tech is not done innovating, even revolutionizing the tech. For all we know Canon may be researching curved FF sensors (I believe they put out patents on lens designs for small curved sensors), which may offer some significant advantages, especially at the edges. This would necessitate an entirely new set of lenses, and what better time to introduce this than in a FF mirrorless with a new mount!

Again, any advancement or development that leads to "We need to repeat EF all over again" won't make it through the first business plan review at Canon. One might assume the health and ongoing sales of EF remains the #1 first priority at Canon, because any project that involves rebuilding that portfolio just got a billion dollar write-off stapled to it's ROI.

So would they make a small number of FF lenses to maximize tinyness on a new mount? Yes. They could force people to EF adaptors for anything longer than 50-85mm or so. (This very well may happen with FF mirrorless.)

But would they push a boulder a new awesomeness downhill that would have users insist Canon remake (all/most of) EF in the new mount? Hell no. They'd murder that idea before it leaves the cradle unless a curved sensor does a whole. lot. more. than sharpen/brighten the corners. It would need to cure cancer or something.

- A

 

[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.

So I ask for a compelling rationale for a switch to a new lens mount for FF mirrorless...and you rehash some of the advantages of mirrorless cameras. Sad. :

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.

This is no different from all the BS arguments that have been swirling around lately. I guess you missed the fact that Canon is already ahead of both Sony and Panasonic in the mirrorless game. Only Olympus sold more MILCs than Canon last year.

I'm not going to pretend to understand lens design, that's Canon's job. In fact I don't really care if Canon decides to keep or change the lens mount, but my guess, and it is a guess like everyone else's on this forum, is there are good technical reasons for a change. What I really want is the best light weight all-in-one photo/video solution possible, and Canon does not provide that right now.

You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.

Although I have a lot of Canon gear, I'm not brand loyal fanatic like you appear to be. In fact I just don't understand why anyone would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution. It's not personal.

 

[Etienne]

Just to add more fuel to the FF mirrorless lens mount fire:

We can be certain that the photo/video tech is not done innovating, even revolutionizing the tech. For all we know Canon may be researching curved FF sensors (I believe they put out patents on lens designs for small curved sensors), which may offer some significant advantages, especially at the edges. This would necessitate an entirely new set of lenses, and what better time to introduce this than in a FF mirrorless with a new mount!

Again, any advancement or development that leads to "We need to repeat EF all over again" won't make it through the first business plan review at Canon. One might assume the health and ongoing sales of EF remains the #1 first priority at Canon, because any project that involves rebuilding that portfolio just got a billion dollar write-off stapled to it's ROI.

So would they make a small number of FF lenses to maximize tinyness on a new mount? Yes. They could force people to EF adaptors for anything longer than 50-85mm or so. (This very well may happen with FF mirrorless.)

But would they push a boulder a new awesomeness downhill that would have users insist Canon remake (all/most of) EF in the new mount? Hell no. They'd murder that idea before it leaves the cradle unless a curved sensor does a whole. lot. more. than sharpen/brighten the corners. It would need to cure cancer or something.

- A

No one here has access to Canon's business plan, or technical research roadmap. One thing the history of technological development demonstrates clearly: it always looks impossible until someone does it, then it looks obvious.

 

[Loswr]

The decision will most likely be based on potential sales, profit and market, rather than the technical side.

Absolutely.

I really wouldn't think the upgrade path from a M crop body to a FF body would be that profitable for Canon.

Do you believe that the upgrade path from an APS-C dSLR to a FF dSLR is not that profitable for Canon? Sorry, but that does not seem like a credible scenario. In that case, why would mirrorless be any different (keeping in mind that Canon is in this for the long-haul, not just basing decisions on the first year or two of sales)?

 

[takesome1]

I really wouldn't think the upgrade path from a M crop body to a FF body would be that profitable for Canon.

Do you believe that the upgrade path from an APS-C dSLR to a FF dSLR is not that profitable for Canon? Sorry, but that does not seem like a credible scenario. In that case, why would mirrorless be any different (keeping in mind that Canon is in this for the long-haul, not just basing decisions on the first year or two of sales)?

I think we are two examples of how the APS-C to FF upgrade path worked for Canon.

Of course this is just my opinion. But the environment is different now. When the 50D was released and promoted as the stepping stone between consumer and professional gear the options were much more limited and defined. DSLR's made it easier for beginners to pursue photography and there was a boom for several years.
The idea of upgrading to "pro" grade equipment is appealing. I bought in to it, many others did as well.

With a new FF MILC peoples views and their starting point will be different, upgrading from an M crop to a FF is less likely to be viewed as an upgrade to "pro" equipment. One of the main reasons to buy an M is the small size, you will loose some of that when you go to a FF.

While there would no doubt be those who would follow the MILC upgrade path, I think the upgrade path from APS-C to FF is a highway, where the upgrade to a FF mirrorless will be a country road less traveled.

 

[Loswr]

I really wouldn't think the upgrade path from a M crop body to a FF body would be that profitable for Canon.

Do you believe that the upgrade path from an APS-C dSLR to a FF dSLR is not that profitable for Canon? Sorry, but that does not seem like a credible scenario. In that case, why would mirrorless be any different (keeping in mind that Canon is in this for the long-haul, not just basing decisions on the first year or two of sales)?

I think we are two examples of how the APS-C to FF upgrade path worked for Canon.

Of course this is just my opinion. But the environment is different now. When the 50D was released and promoted as the stepping stone between consumer and professional gear the options were much more limited and defined. DSLR's made it easier for beginners to pursue photography and there was a boom for several years.
The idea of upgrading to "pro" grade equipment is appealing. I bought in to it, many others did as well.

With a new FF MILC peoples views and their starting point will be different, upgrading from an M crop to a FF is less likely to be viewed as an upgrade to "pro" equipment. One of the main reasons to buy an M is the small size, you will loose some of that when you go to a FF.

While there would no doubt be those who would follow the MILC upgrade path, I think the upgrade path from APS-C to FF is a highway, where the upgrade to a FF mirrorless will be a country road less traveled.

Speaking for myself, I didn't upgrade to full frame because it was "professional," I upgraded for better image quality. Then I upgraded to the 1-series for better performance than the 5DII.

FF MILCs will be expensive, just like FF dSLRs. That high cost is a major barrier to FF being an entry level purchase for anyone. Rather, in the vast majority of cases it's an upgrade from an APS-C body. Dropping the mirror is not going to change that essential fact. Sure, when a Canon FF MILC becomes reality and for the proximate future, the upgrade path will much more likely be APS-C dSLR to FF MILC. But if the broader market transitions to mirrorless, the upgrade path will become APS-C MILC to FF MILC.

I rather suspect that people with only an M-series body would not consider a FF dSLR to be an upgrade. But certainly as the number of mirrorless users grows, Canon will absolutely want to give those users an upgrade path.

 

[takesome1]

I really wouldn't think the upgrade path from a M crop body to a FF body would be that profitable for Canon.

Do you believe that the upgrade path from an APS-C dSLR to a FF dSLR is not that profitable for Canon? Sorry, but that does not seem like a credible scenario. In that case, why would mirrorless be any different (keeping in mind that Canon is in this for the long-haul, not just basing decisions on the first year or two of sales)?

I think we are two examples of how the APS-C to FF upgrade path worked for Canon.

Of course this is just my opinion. But the environment is different now. When the 50D was released and promoted as the stepping stone between consumer and professional gear the options were much more limited and defined. DSLR's made it easier for beginners to pursue photography and there was a boom for several years.
The idea of upgrading to "pro" grade equipment is appealing. I bought in to it, many others did as well.

With a new FF MILC peoples views and their starting point will be different, upgrading from an M crop to a FF is less likely to be viewed as an upgrade to "pro" equipment. One of the main reasons to buy an M is the small size, you will loose some of that when you go to a FF.

While there would no doubt be those who would follow the MILC upgrade path, I think the upgrade path from APS-C to FF is a highway, where the upgrade to a FF mirrorless will be a country road less traveled.

Speaking for myself, I didn't upgrade to full frame because it was "professional," I upgraded for better image quality. Then I upgraded to the 1-series for better performance than the 5DII.

FF MILCs will be expensive, just like FF dSLRs. That high cost is a major barrier to FF being an entry level purchase for anyone. Rather, in the vast majority of cases it's an upgrade from an APS-C body. Dropping the mirror is not going to change that essential fact. Sure, when a Canon FF MILC becomes reality and for the proximate future, the upgrade path will much more likely be APS-C dSLR to FF MILC. But if the broader market transitions to mirrorless, the upgrade path will become APS-C MILC to FF MILC.

I rather suspect that people with only an M-series body would not consider a FF dSLR to be an upgrade. But certainly as the number of mirrorless users grows, Canon will absolutely want to give those users an upgrade path.

In the future, but I would speculate that is somewhat / possibly very distant since Canon hasn't even tested the market with a FF mirrorless.

Possibly what we will see, is a FF M that gives an upgrade path from the current APS-C MILC, new lenses geared toward the new FF MILC with an option for an adapter to use the current EF lenses. Then Canon gets everything, upgrade path, add on path and a new revenue stream for those that want a lens that is specifically for the FF MILC.

Whatever course Canon chooses it will most likely be based on customer satisfaction and Canon's ability to make a profit.

 

[Mikehit]

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.

You are doing it again. You are conflating the greater insurgence of mirrorless with your claims of a new mount. The two are not linked, nor are they mutually exclusive. People are not doubting the gradual increase in mirrorless cameras but are arguing your claim that to make FF mirrorless viable they have to introduce a new mount and introduce it now.
So yeas, 2018 is viable fora FF mirrorless. But people are far from convinced about the new mount.

 

[Mikehit]

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.

So I ask for a compelling rationale for a switch to a new lens mount for FF mirrorless...and you rehash some of the advantages of mirrorless cameras. Sad. :

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.

This is no different from all the BS arguments that have been swirling around lately. I guess you missed the fact that Canon is already ahead of both Sony and Panasonic in the mirrorless game. Only Olympus sold more MILCs than Canon last year.

I'm not going to pretend to understand lens design, that's Canon's job. In fact I don't really care if Canon decides to keep or change the lens mount, but my guess, and it is a guess like everyone else's on this forum, is there are good technical reasons for a change. What I really want is the best light weight all-in-one photo/video solution possible, and Canon does not provide that right now.

You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.

Although I have a lot of Canon gear, I'm not brand loyal fanatic like you appear to be. In fact I just don't understand why anyone would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution. It's not personal.

Didn't you post that same argument (almost verbatim) 4 pages back?

 

[Don Haines]

I'm not going to pretend to understand lens design, that's Canon's job. In fact I don't really care if Canon decides to keep or change the lens mount, but my guess, and it is a guess like everyone else's on this forum, is there are good technical reasons for a change. What I really want is the best light weight all-in-one photo/video solution possible, and Canon does not provide that right now.

You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.

Although I have a lot of Canon gear, I'm not brand loyal fanatic like you appear to be. In fact I just don't understand why anyone would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution. It's not personal.

The problem is that you can have the best in image quality, or you can have light weight, but you can't have both.

If you really want a high quality lightweight system that shoots decent pictures and even 4K video, the system to beat is Olympus. If you really want high image quality, you need a FF sensor, but more than that, you need high quality glass to hang off of that camera and a kick-ass AF system. Right now, that means a FF canon or a FF Nikon.

In order to get a lightweight FF system, you need lightweight lenses... and that ruins your image quality..... And, since most buyers of FF cameras are chasing image quality and not compactness, the odds of Canon or Nikon even trying are almost non-existent.

 

[ahsanford]

In order to get a lightweight FF system, you need lightweight lenses... and that ruins your image quality.....

...or you give up a stop. Shoot with f/2 and f/2.8 primes and f/4 zooms. That's certainly how Sony tried to launch the A7 platform.

Many choose not to get those slower lenses with CaNikon FF SLRs because part of the allure of going to FF is a combination of great light gathering and small DOF, which fast lenses complement brilliantly.

Further, unless you can live at f/5.6 to f/11 or so, the bigger/heavier/professional lenses outresolve the slower glass near their respective max apertures, i.e. the 24-70 f/2.8L II blows both 24-something f/4L IS lenses out of the water at f/4. Lenses with faster max apertures get a 'head start' on peak resolution over their slower peers -- this is changing a bit as slower lenses are now designed to be very usable wide open, but they are not perfect there.

So, in broad strokes, the only folks happy with only using slow primes and slow zooms on a FF mirrorless system are:

• Vacationers who want to keep size/weight down
• Landscapers (classic daylight tripod stuff, not astro)
• People who are desperate to get a FF sensor but are also desperate to fight physics and keep it small (paging AvTvM)
• People who don't mind climbing to five figures of ISO to 'get back' the speed, so to speak

...and that list of people is (not surprisingly) too short to Sony to make money off of. So this past year they've spent putting out enormous f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms to expand the tent for more realms of photographers.

- A

 

[Loswr]

You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.

Although I have a lot of Canon gear, I'm not brand loyal fanatic like you appear to be. In fact I just don't understand why anyone would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution. It's not personal.

You're clearly missing the point. Sony has had 'extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas' for several years now. Yet Sony is way behind Canon and is still losing market share to Canon.

I don't understand why anyone 'would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution' either, except insomuch as there's a cost to switching when one is invested in a system...but that's not loyalty, that's fiscal pragmatism. But you're implying that Canon doesn't offer the best overall technical solution for me, and sorry, but who the hell are you to determine or judge my needs?

Do you honestly believe that most people who buy Canon products do so out of a blind sense of loyalty? That seems like a rather asinine assertion, to me. And if people do choose to buy the products that best meet their needs, which is the most likely general case, what does it say to you that nearly 50% of ILC buyers choose Canon? Probably nothing, or whatever it says is drowned out by the megaphone of your own opinion in your head. Sad.

 

[AvTvM]

not at all.

Canon can take one of 3 approaches:
1. repeat Sony's mistake and use EF-M also for FF-sensored MILCs. it would be technically "viable", but not desirable, since IQ and lens design would be severely limited and compromised ... see Sony FE lenses
2. repeat Pentax mistake with ill-fated K01 and use long flange distance EF mount for mirrorless MILCs. no size advantage for camera bodies and lenses in most frequently used focal lengths range possible.
3. launch new FF mirrorless lineup with a big bang and a newly designed, no-compromises, optimal design lens mount for FF image circle, maximum IQ and size advantages for most frequently used focal lengths. bigger, faster lenses also possible without any technical issues.

most important for canon' decision: compared to scenarios 1 and 2, many more new lenses will be sold in scenario 3 over the next umpteen years! not only new MILC camera purchasers and "crop-to-ff-upgraders" will buy new mount FF lenses, but also majority of existing EF user base will transition from EF glass to new native mirrorless mount glass as they move from dslrs to milcs.

other than in 1987 fd to ef transition there it will be painless for existing customers, since ef lenses will remain fully functional with a cheap little adapter. everybody can decide for themselves if/when they want to upgrade their lenses. new/improved lenses with better iq and functionality (af, is, ...) will however only be available in new mount ... $$$$$$$

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.

You are doing it again. You are conflating the greater insurgence of mirrorless with your claims of a new mount. The two are not linked, nor are they mutually exclusive. People are not doubting the gradual increase in mirrorless cameras but are arguing your claim that to make FF mirrorless viable they have to introduce a new mount and introduce it now.
So yeas, 2018 is viable fora FF mirrorless. But people are far from convinced about the new mount.

 

[ahsanford]

You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.

Although I have a lot of Canon gear, I'm not brand loyal fanatic like you appear to be. In fact I just don't understand why anyone would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution. It's not personal.

You're clearly missing the point. Sony has had 'extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas' for several years now. Yet Sony is way behind Canon and is still losing market share to Canon.

Yep. It's as much about comprehensive options and not having inexplicable problems than it is about innovation.

For instance, I don't care if there's a Ferrari engine in there if a car lacks steering, head lights, air conditioning, and brakes. Respect for the engine, but I'm not driving that car.

Spec sheets do not equate to the end user experience nearly as many would purport. Things like intuitive controls, feeling great in your hand, ability to dial in custom settings they way you want, etc. never make the spec sheet but they sure as hell p--- you off when they aren't right.

- A

 

[takesome1]

For instance, I don't care if there's a Ferrari engine in there if a car lacks steering, head lights, air conditioning, and brakes. Respect for the engine, but I'm not driving that car.

We finally made it to the car comparison.

We are not talking about Ferrari's without steering, head lights, air conditioning and brakes. We are talking about Ferrari's without rear view mirrors. Possibly add a touch screen to see where you are backing.

 

[Loswr]

For instance, I don't care if there's a Ferrari engine in there if a car lacks steering, head lights, air conditioning, and brakes. Respect for the engine, but I'm not driving that car.

We finally made it to the car comparison.

We are not talking about Ferrari's without steering, head lights, air conditioning and brakes. We are talking about Ferrari's without rear view mirrors. Possibly add a touch screen to see where you are backing.

We're talking about a car where, if it breaks, there's only one mechanic in the country that can service it, and even a simple repair could leave you taking the iBus for two months.

Would you want to drive that car, much less depend on it for your livelihood?

 

[takesome1]

For instance, I don't care if there's a Ferrari engine in there if a car lacks steering, head lights, air conditioning, and brakes. Respect for the engine, but I'm not driving that car.

We finally made it to the car comparison.

We are not talking about Ferrari's without steering, head lights, air conditioning and brakes. We are talking about Ferrari's without rear view mirrors. Possibly add a touch screen to see where you are backing.

We're talking about a car where, if it breaks, there's only one mechanic in the country that can service it, and even a simple repair could leave you taking the iBus for two months.

Would you want to drive that car, much less depend on it for your livelihood?

Am I not allowed to have a back up chevy. I think if I could afford anything with a Ferrari engine I could afford a backup.