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

[Loswr]

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.

Sure, if you think you could stand driving that piece o' junk while your real car was in the shop. Better get two Ferraris.

 

[Etienne]

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.

"the megaphone of your own opinion in your head. Sad."

LOL ... Priceless projection from the loudest megaphone on CR, with over 20,000 loudly shouted opinions!
Sad indeed.

 

[Loswr]

That wooshing sound was the point sailing over your head...again. I guess you're unable to come up with a cogent response. I'm not surprised.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

Shouldn't we be talking about Mazdas and arguing about if the four banger or the rotary engine performs better when you are stuck in traffic during rush hour?

 

[Etienne]

That wooshing sound was the point sailing over your head...again. I guess you're unable to come up with a cogent response. I'm not surprised.

No. I got the point plenty: You are easily the most arrogant, self-important, loudmouth I've ever run into on an internet forum. Chasing down every little petty oversight in order to try and display your "knowledge," throwing out condescending quips to pat yourself on the back, and impress the few fanboys you've gathered here. You are nowhere near the most knowledge photo/video/technical person I've met, but you most certainly are the most obnoxious.

 

[Loswr]

That wooshing sound was the point sailing over your head...again. I guess you're unable to come up with a cogent response. I'm not surprised.

No. I got the point plenty: You are easily the most arrogant, self-important, loudmouth I've ever run into on an internet forum. Chasing down every little petty oversight in order to try and display your "knowledge," throwing out condescending quips to pat yourself on the back, and impress the few fanboys you've gathered here. You are nowhere near the most knowledge photo/video/technical person I've met, but you most certainly are the most obnoxious.

I know some people have a tendency to lash out, especially when they've lost an argument. Feel better now that you've vented? :

 

[takesome1]

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.

Shouldn't we be talking about Mazdas and arguing about if the four banger or the rotary engine performs better when you are stuck in traffic during rush hour?

Since were talking about a Japanese camera manufacture it might be more appropriate.

 

[mb66energy]

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?

[...]

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.

RED I think you do not understand "freedom" in terms of design ... or not got the point I meant. If Sony doesn't use that freedom it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

GREEN Why? - If the mount is delivered with the body and well crafted to integrate into the ergonomics e.g. with an additional ring for changing settings (like f-stop) - where is the problem?

BLUE I think otherwise: EF-M is to narrow to gain freedom ... design-wise integrated adapter allows for seamless compatibility.

I WANT TO ADAPT MY FD LENSES FOR SPECIFIC PHOTOGRAPHIC TASKS SO I NEED AN ADAPTER-ENABLED FF EOS M

 

[Mikehit]

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 ... $$$$$$$

Again, I ask that you explain what characteristics this new mount will have.

maximum IQ and size advantages for most frequently used focal lengths.

What are the 'most commonly used focal lengths'? At what point do you say 'well, we have this FF camera, but for you guys who shoot [wildlife/sports], it is less than optimal. Sorry'.


As said above, Sony have an excellent mirrorless system already yet they are losing market share to Canon. Proponents say they like Sony because it is smaller than Canon, yet it does not seem advantage enough to have people buying into it an my interpretation is that that part of the market is now saturated. Which suggests it is a pretty small market segment.
So what this means is that they are now being funded by turnover purchase which is slow. Which gives Canon plenty of time to develop their next phase.
So again I say that Canon may be looking at a new mount, but not with the urgency you say then need. All I can say is that I am glad you are not on the market strategy group in Canon because they would not exist to sell the fantastic gear that I buy.

 

[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?

[...]

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.

RED I think you do not understand "freedom" in terms of design ... or not got the point I meant. If Sony doesn't use that freedom it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Sony has used that freedom to make small E-mount lenses...but those were slow with just decent IQ, and when Sony made fast lenses with excellent IQ, that 'freedom' was severely constrained. So unless you're going to make the argument that Canon can has far better lens design skills than Sony, you're point fails. Either Sony could make small fast/high IQ lenses but didn't (so they're dumb), they lack the technical competence (possible but unlikely), or you don't understand the technical issues at hand. I suspect the 3rd one is most likely.

GREEN Why? - If the mount is delivered with the body and well crafted to integrate into the ergonomics e.g. with an additional ring for changing settings (like f-stop) - where is the problem?

The problem is it clobbers the upgrade path from APS-C MILC. Right now, an APS-C dSLR user with more than just the kit lens(es) quite likely has an EF lens (the 50/1.8 has been Canon's best-selling standalone lens for years). Outside of a certain range there's no real advantage to crop-specific glass. Already owning a 70-300, an 85/1.8, etc., facilitates the move from APS-C to FF vs. knowing you'll have to buy all new lenses.

BLUE I think otherwise: EF-M is to narrow to gain freedom ... design-wise integrated adapter allows for seamless compatibility.

Perhaps. But full EF isn't too narrow... Canon can choose native compatibility with existing EF, or native compatibility with APS-C MILC upgraders, or native compatibility with nothing. Canon has mountains of data to guide the choice between the first two options, and unlike FD-EF, there's no compelling reason for the last option.

I WANT TO ADAPT MY FD LENSES FOR SPECIFIC PHOTOGRAPHIC TASKS SO I NEED AN ADAPTER-ENABLED FF EOS M

Yeah, you and an infinitesimal number of others. Shout all you want, Canon doesn't care. :

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

Yeah, you and an infinitesimal number of others. Shout all you want, Canon doesn't care. :

Maybe, maybe not - but if minorities do not tell about their requirements (maybe shout sometimes there isn't any chance to be heard! I know that there is no market for FD lens users but maybe PL Mount users which might be interested in an ultra compact camera for very narrow spaces. Just assuming that the future FF mirrorless of Canon will have some extended video features and hopefully good video QUALITY.

 

[slclick]

[...]

Yeah, you and an infinitesimal number of others. Shout all you want, Canon doesn't care. :

Maybe, maybe not - but if minorities do not tell about their requirements (maybe shout sometimes there isn't any chance to be heard! I know that there is no market for FD lens users but maybe PL Mount users which might be interested in an ultra compact camera for very narrow spaces. Just assuming that the future FF mirrorless of Canon will have some extended video features and hopefully good video QUALITY.

Canon Board Members are huddling around a laptop reading CR right now! Keep hope alive!

 

[ExodistPhotography]

...................

Again, there are so many reasons Canon should go full EF with FF mirrorless, but not everyone agrees with that. Canon may actively try the 'small game' again with FF despite all common sense, perhaps in an effort to court a new generation of photographers.

- A

I am personally hoping they go with the same idea that Sigma did with their Quattro cameras. Just make the body with the spacer built in. That way EF lenses will natively fit. But that said, not all EF lenses work very well with DPAF. But most the ones in the past 5 years or so work fine.

 

[AvTvM]

@mikehit: please read my posts, i've stated this before ... so 1 more time: i expect canon ff mirrorless mount to come with 49-50mm throat width and 22-24mm FDD. in my estimate that would be a no compromise approach to mirrorless ff. it would allow for slim and for chunky cameras, for decent ultracompact lenses in the most frequently used focal lengths and for big, expensive lenses like fast primes, f/2.8 zooms and big supertele lenses. of course EF glass could be easily adapted with a simple "extension tube" adapter.

and for sports and wildlife shooters and conservatives/ovf-lovers canon will probably make 1-series mirrorslappers (but nothing below) for another 10 years.

 

[ahsanford]

I am personally hoping they go with the same idea that Sigma did with their Quattro cameras. Just make the body with the spacer built in. That way EF lenses will natively fit. But that said, not all EF lenses work very well with DPAF. But most the ones in the past 5 years or so work fine.

I've pointed out the Quattro a number of times, yes. It's APS-H but the concept (just the 'built in tube' idea, not the entire body design) makes sense for Canon to roll out something completely seamless to EF users.

Some people cringe at the look of this, but it's a way to carve some weight out of a full EF mount design.

That said, we still may get a thin body with something EF-M like (if not an outright EF-M mount). Either way, I still think that width/height + grip should be 5D like (as only possibly pancakes might be shorter in height than such a grip) -- if the attached lens dictates the size of bag you have to pack into, why throw any grip away?

- A

 

[AvTvM]

forget the total failure if signa quattro concept. nobody in their right mind buys fairly expensive digital camera with Aps-h sensor and bilted on, not-changeable prime lens. i doubt they sell more than 1000 copies of it .. globally.

 

[Loswr]

@mikehit: please read my posts, i've stated this before ... so 1 more time: i expect canon ff mirrorless mount to come with 49-50mm throat width and 22-24mm FDD. in my estimate that would be a no compromise approach to mirrorless ff. it would allow for slim and for chunky cameras, for decent ultracompact lenses in the most frequently used focal lengths and for big, expensive lenses like fast primes, f/2.8 zooms and big supertele lenses.

...and long term, it would be a significant disincentive for owners of Canon APS-C MILC systems to upgrade. That really would be stupid Canon...which is probably why you think it's such a good idea. :

 

[AvTvM]

@mikehit: please read my posts, i've stated this before ... so 1 more time: i expect canon ff mirrorless mount to come with 49-50mm throat width and 22-24mm FDD. in my estimate that would be a no compromise approach to mirrorless ff. it would allow for slim and for chunky cameras, for decent ultracompact lenses in the most frequently used focal lengths and for big, expensive lenses like fast primes, f/2.8 zooms and big supertele lenses.

...and long term, it would be a significant disincentive for owners of Canon APS-C MILC systems to upgrade. That really would be stupid Canon...which is probably why you think it's such a good idea. :

don't understand your problem. EF-M lenses cannot be used on FF sensor. EF-? lenses can be adapted to EOS M (crop) cameras with a simple adapter. no change to cross-compatibility. EF-M lenses have exactly the same status for mirrorless world as EF-S lenses on mirrorslappers.

 

[Loswr]

don't understand your problem.

I'm not the one with the problem...

EF-M lenses have exactly the same status for mirrorless world as EF-S lenses on mirrorslappers.

Yes, but in your scenario the converse would not be true, i.e. FF EF-? lenses would not be compatible with the EF-M mount. There are going to be a helluva lot more people with Canon APS-C MILCs than with Canon FF MILCs, and long-term Canon will want facilitate that much larger APS-C population to upgrade to FF, just as they do for their dSLR lines – by having FF lenses that natively mount to APS-C cameras.

As I stated above, the problem with your scenario is that it clobbers the upgrade path from APS-C MILC. Right now, an APS-C dSLR user with more than just the kit lens(es) quite likely has one or more EF lenses (the 50/1.8 has been Canon's best-selling standalone lens for years) - meaning native lenses for the new FF camera. Outside of a certain range there's no real advantage to crop-specific glass. For dSLRs, already owning a 70-300, an 85/1.8, etc., facilitates the move from APS-C to FF vs. knowing you'll have to buy all new lenses, instead of just some.

EF-? lenses can be adapted to EOS M (crop) cameras with a simple adapter.

You're proposing a 22-24mm FFD, meaning your 'simple adapter' would be a mere 4-6mm thick. The EF 12 extension tube has barely enough room for the lens release 'button'. Some guy DIY'd an 8mm extension tube for Canon and he had to use a watch crown for the release button! Sure, Nikon sells an 8mm tube, but that's still 1.5-2x longer than your 'simple adapter'...and in both those cases, there's no diameter change.

This 'simple adapter' you're talking about is an EdMika project, not something for the mass market.

 

[AvTvM]

i don't see any (backwards) compatibilty issues. EF lenses are easy to adapt to EF-M and will be easy to adapt on EF-? mount. EF-? lenses can be adapted to EF-M mount, it may necessitate a new release mechanism. but isn't Canon ever so "innovative"? if 22-24mm FDD arectoo toght, heck then maybe Canon will go to 26mm. "they are the experts, they spend millions on research, they know everything best", don't they. i'd definitely expect zhem to figure it out and achieve the same dehree of interchangability as is the case between Ef and EF-S mounts and lenses also for hheir mirrorless offering for APS-C and FF image circle.