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

[rrcphoto]

i don't see any (backwards) compatibilty issues.

canon has 110 millions reasons why not to disrupt the EF mount.

 

[AvTvM]

don't panic, don't hyperventilate. every EF lens ever made will continue to work on a new native FF MILC mount - if so desired by owner. a cheap little adapter will warrant this. just like the canon Ef/EF-M adapter. Canon may be *stupid*, but not in this respect.

 

[Loswr]

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.

Sure, that's easy. Use the EF-M mount for FF MILCs.

 

[moreorless]

Neuro's point that Canon is already ahead of everyone but Oly in MILC body sales could potentially point at a consideration more important than the nature of the mount.

The focus of mirrorless development for most companies has been to shift towards progressively larger bodies and build up systems of higher spec lenses trying to rival EOS and the F-mount. That's not the route Canon has taken with the EF-M mount at all though, the focus has been on very small bodies(even the higher spec M5 is much smaller than most rivals flagship mirrorless bodies) and also on smaller lenses with more limited spec but that generally offer good performance/value.

I think if Canon release a FF mirrorless body that isn't EF mount then its quite likely they may take a similar kind of route. That is a relatively small body(although likely more like the M5 than other M's I'd expect) and also a lens system that's geared to exploiting this size and offering value rather than trying to build up a larger system.

 

[rrcphoto]

don't panic, don't hyperventilate. every EF lens ever made will continue to work on a new native FF MILC mount - if so desired by owner. a cheap little adapter will warrant this. just like the canon Ef/EF-M adapter. Canon may be *stupid*, but not in this respect.

Canon's probably smarter than you.

there is such a thing called customer perception. look no further than Sony for that. After they started to go great guns on E mount, A mount just simply died.

Right now, Sony has yet to reach back to it's pre E mount days in terms of marketshare.

For a marketshare leader, affecting that large marketshare base in such a way would be suicidal.

 

[scyrene]

Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.

Are we quite certain that mechanical technology is less reliable (more prone to failure) than electronics?

 

[slclick]

Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.

Are we quite certain that mechanical technology is less reliable (more prone to failure) than electronics?

+1 Just look at all the 100% mechanical things which lasted for years before circuitry got involved. From furnaces to car parts. Planned obsolescence started with the onset of computerized goods. Not to mention non customer serviceable parts.

 

[ahsanford]

Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.

Are we quite certain that mechanical technology is less reliable (more prone to failure) than electronics?

Besides the shutter and mirror, is anything else on the camera rated to a certain number of uses?

I don't have a hard answer for you as I'm not a EE, and I don't mean to be snide with that comment above. But common sense would imply that fewer moving parts in a camera would have less failure modes from fatigue, wear, thermal expansion, shock, etc.

That said, the form FF mirrorless takes may add new mechanical failure modes. For instance, an angled or pop-up EVF would require mechanical elements to support it, and those conceivably could fail.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.

Are we quite certain that mechanical technology is less reliable (more prone to failure) than electronics?

Besides the shutter and mirror, is anything else on the camera rated to a certain number of uses?

I don't have a hard answer for you as I'm not a EE, and I don't mean to be snide with that comment above. But common sense would imply that fewer moving parts in a camera would have less failure modes from fatigue, wear, thermal expansion, shock, etc.

That said, the form FF mirrorless takes may add new mechanical failure modes. For instance, an angled or pop-up EVF would require mechanical elements to support it, and those conceivably could fail.

- A

electronics has a lifespan simply because components do. components half their lifespan for every 10c over 30c.

the amount the device is powered on governs the lifespan, versus each shutter click as it would be with mechanical.

 

[Alex_M]

some electronic components life span is limited regardless ...
electrolytic capacitors will dry up and stop functioning withing 3-10 years depending on the quality of its internal parts and chemistry, ambient temperatures and ventilation.

Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.

Are we quite certain that mechanical technology is less reliable (more prone to failure) than electronics?

Besides the shutter and mirror, is anything else on the camera rated to a certain number of uses?

I don't have a hard answer for you as I'm not a EE, and I don't mean to be snide with that comment above. But common sense would imply that fewer moving parts in a camera would have less failure modes from fatigue, wear, thermal expansion, shock, etc.

That said, the form FF mirrorless takes may add new mechanical failure modes. For instance, an angled or pop-up EVF would require mechanical elements to support it, and those conceivably could fail.

- A

electronics has a lifespan simply because components do. components half their lifespan for every 10c over 30c.

the amount the device is powered on governs the lifespan, versus each shutter click as it would be with mechanical.

 

[Don Haines]

some electronic components life span is limited regardless ...
electrolytic capacitors will dry up and stop functioning withing 3-10 years depending on the quality of its internal parts and chemistry, ambient temperatures and ventilation.

Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.

Are we quite certain that mechanical technology is less reliable (more prone to failure) than electronics?

Besides the shutter and mirror, is anything else on the camera rated to a certain number of uses?

I don't have a hard answer for you as I'm not a EE, and I don't mean to be snide with that comment above. But common sense would imply that fewer moving parts in a camera would have less failure modes from fatigue, wear, thermal expansion, shock, etc.

That said, the form FF mirrorless takes may add new mechanical failure modes. For instance, an angled or pop-up EVF would require mechanical elements to support it, and those conceivably could fail.

- A

electronics has a lifespan simply because components do. components half their lifespan for every 10c over 30c.

the amount the device is powered on governs the lifespan, versus each shutter click as it would be with mechanical.

Yet at work we have test equipment dating back almost 30 years that is still working fine and is calibrated to specs.... yet with some manufacturers the stuff is almost universally dead within 10 years. We have electronics that has been working away outside for 20 years, and some stuff that dies inside within 5. A lot depends on the quality of the components....

 

[Alex_M]

yes, that's what I said as well. depending on the quality of the stuff.. correct. some good capacitors will last 30 years and cheap ones will develop a bulge and fail in 2-3 years from new max. I am sure that Canon cuts no corners there...

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/calculating-the-lifespan-of-electrolytic-capacitors-with-de-rating/

some electronic components life span is limited regardless ...
electrolytic capacitors will dry up and stop functioning withing 3-10 years depending on the quality of its internal parts and chemistry, ambient temperatures and ventilation.

Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.

Are we quite certain that mechanical technology is less reliable (more prone to failure) than electronics?

Besides the shutter and mirror, is anything else on the camera rated to a certain number of uses?

I don't have a hard answer for you as I'm not a EE, and I don't mean to be snide with that comment above. But common sense would imply that fewer moving parts in a camera would have less failure modes from fatigue, wear, thermal expansion, shock, etc.

That said, the form FF mirrorless takes may add new mechanical failure modes. For instance, an angled or pop-up EVF would require mechanical elements to support it, and those conceivably could fail.

- A

electronics has a lifespan simply because components do. components half their lifespan for every 10c over 30c.

the amount the device is powered on governs the lifespan, versus each shutter click as it would be with mechanical.

Yet at work we have test equipment dating back almost 30 years that is still working fine and is calibrated to specs.... yet with some manufacturers the stuff is almost universally dead within 10 years. We have electronics that has been working away outside for 20 years, and some stuff that dies inside within 5. A lot depends on the quality of the components....

 

[ahsanford]

Sure, I've built and left running far too long enough PCs in my day to know the smell of a blown out capacitor, but I would assume given Canon's demanding clientele they spec their FF body components to a slightly higher standard than your average home PC mobo or video card, right?

- A

 

[Alex_M]

That's what I was doing back in 90's and early 00's as well as my day job

yes, canon gear is the business. hence my statement : "... I am sure that Canon cuts no corners there..."

Sure, I've built and left running far too long enough PCs in my day to know the smell of a blown out capacitor, but I would assume given Canon's demanding clientele they spec their FF body components to a slightly higher standard than your average home PC mobo or video card, right?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

yes, canon gear is the business. hence my statement : "... I am sure that Canon cuts no corners there..."

Couldn't detect if you were being sarcastic there.

- A

 

[ExodistPhotography]

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

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

I agree.

Also when you take a look at Sony's A7. They do have some compact lens. But those alway seem to be slower budget lenses. From what I can tell, any of there faster higher end lenses always seem to have a spacer built onto the lens making the lens just as large if not sometime longer then they would have been for a comparable DSLR lens from Canon or Nikon. Which often means the body is smaller, but size savings is shifted to the lens if you want better quality glass.
Sony's 85mm G master and 70-200 f/2.8 g master lenses are prime examples of this..

 

[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.

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

Made me smile - a funny picture!

I am shure they do not but at the same time I am absolutely shure that they have a small department which makes statistics from user comments in fori (plural of forum?) well sorted by poster / reader specifications.
They will report to the CB Members not that "mb66energy needs support for FD lenses on CR forum" but "there is a number of Canon users especially film makers and some scientific photographers who need more flexibility hence EF-X-mount + adapter is a viable solution".

 

[mb66energy]

[...]

Also when you take a look at Sony's A7. They do have some compact lens. But those alway seem to be slower budget lenses. From what I can tell, any of there faster higher end lenses always seem to have a spacer built onto the lens making the lens just as large if not sometime longer then they would have been for a comparable DSLR lens from Canon or Nikon. Which often means the body is smaller, but size savings is shifted to the lens if you want better quality glass.
Sony's 85mm G master and 70-200 f/2.8 g master lenses are prime examples of this..

While Sony has very good sensors in terms of DR, in my opinion they aren't a lens maker company. They have taken some Minolta designs and use now Zeiss lenses - shurely they have developes some lenses themselves.

I would like to see a EF-Mx or whatsoever mount with seemlessly integrated adapter tube for the EF world. And compact bright IS-equipped EF-Mx lenses with stellar IQ - as compact as possible while maintaining stellar IQ.
And I am shure: Canon can do that - but just they need a decade to develop the necessary revolutionary (as opposite of evolutionary) designs.

And for those who want a large grip: I am with you - because I like good ergonomics and a laaaarge battery in the grip compartment.

 

[AvTvM]

yes, sony FE lenses are longer/larger than desirabl. This is solely due to Sony's poor choice of lens mount - they decided to use E-mount - originally designed for APS-C sensored cameras only (NEX series, then A####) - also for their FF-sensor cameras (A7 / II series).

too large, complex and expensive lenses are the price Sony users are asked to pay for Sony's wrong lens mount decision. Many potential users are balking at that prospect. This is the main reason why Sony's mirrorless market share has not taken off despite innovative and well-specced mirrorless cameras. Poor / often totally lacking customer service being another major reason.

with a properly designed lens mount, mirrorless FF lenses can be made more compact than DSLR lenses throughout the most frequently used focal lengths ... frome wide-angle to short tele lenses. Without compromises in image quality. In terms of lenses, Sony is not "gold standard", but rather "worst practice" in terms of size and price.

 

[Mikehit]

are the price Sony users are asked to pay for Sony's wrong lens mount decision. Many potential users are balking at that prospect. This is the main reason why Sony's mirrorless market share has not taken off despite innovative and well-specced mirrorless cameras. Poor / often totally lacking customer service being another major reason.

with a properly designed lens mount, mirrorless FF lenses can be made more compact than DSLR lenses throughout the most frequently used focal lengths ... from wide-angle to short tele lenses. Without compromises in image quality. In terms of lenses, Sony is not "gold standard", but rather "worst practice" in terms of size and price.

Now I am a bit confused.
Your argument is that Canon must have a new mount, and make it very soon, to make really compact mirrorless kits otherwise they will lose market share. As far as I can see the only real competition is from Sony, but here you are saying that Sony has screwed it up by their choice of lens mount (plus their poor after sales service).
So please tell me where is the competitive impetus for Canon to institute the new mount that you say is essential lest they get left behind. And left behind by whom?