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

[takesome1]

The new mount discussion for a FF is somewhat ridiculous.
There are several issues that have to be resolved before a FF mirrorless will be the replacement for DSLR's.
As an owner of a M5 they have to resolve the battery issue, continual shooting in live view is a drain.
Shutter lag, shutter speed and AF all have to improve.

Add to this that Canon makes all their FF bodies mirrorless convertibles, they just throw in a mirror in case you want to switch it over to a an old style DSLR. I am sure this is in Canon's mind when debating on whether to release a FF dedicated mirrorless. What would a 1Dx II or a 5D IV mirrorless do for you that a one with a mirror will not do? Save you a few ounces of weight on a rig that weighs several pounds? Save a bit of size on top that you will end up mounting a huge flash to? Add several batteries to your kit, make it even more difficult to carry enough batteries because of restrictions when flying?

Canon released the M1 and everyone complained it didn't have a view finder. Seriously, keep the mirror and you have both.

So why hasn't Canon retooled their factories and investing millions in designing lenses that can be used as mirrorless now? Maybe they see it for what it really is and know the need is not there yet. Then again maybe they are and they know it is 10 years down the road.

Think about this, if there is a real market for mirrorless FF Canon bodies, there would be companies removing the mirrors from DSLR's and modifying the top. Where there is a true need there is always someone finding a way.

 

[ahsanford]

What would a 1Dx II or a 5D IV mirrorless do for you that a one with a mirror will not do? Save you a few ounces of weight on a rig that weighs several pounds? Save a bit of size on top that you will end up mounting a huge flash to? Add several batteries to your kit, make it even more difficult to carry enough batteries because of restrictions when flying?

We have covered this before. Answering your question, in reverse perspective this time:

With a mirror...

• You can't run LiveView and get all of its benefits -- brighten a dark room, focus peaking, histo in the viewfinder, etc. -- handheld up to your eye. No, a loupe on the back LCD doesn't count, nor does holding a camera with two hands a foot from your face and smugly saying "I've got mirrorless right here". Getting all the LiveView magic through the VF while still have a super stable holding posture and perfect native handling of all the buttons is where the good stuff comes in: using manual focus lenses, shooting in really dark rooms where the AF may let you down, checking exposure as you go in difficult lighting rather than having to chimp what you captured, etc.
  
  
• You can't use AF points far away from the center when shooting through the viewfinder. OVF AF spreads are somewhat central but sensor-based AF covers a ton more of the frame.
  
  
• You have more work to do to get the best AF performance -- you need to dial in the lens for that body.
  
  
• You get mirror slap. (It's not a big deal for me, but this is a small downside to a mirror.)
  
  
• You can't adapt other companies' lenses. (This of course would require a thinner mirrorless mount instead of full EF)

That said, you happen to have chose two of Canon's finest rigs, and mirrorless won't outperform those (real world 'yes it can' usability, I mean) for a very long time. In the mirrorless future down the road where 90% of cameras are mirrorless and only a few SLR types remain, it will be the really high end SLRs (like the two brand levels you mentioned) that remain with mirrors.

I'm not saying mirrorless is better yet. It's not. But mirrorless is not without its upsides even today.

And it isn't a black and white / 'one is better than the other' / 'retool the whole plant!' sort of thing. Mirrorless opens a few interesting doors photographically that people would pay for. But no one's saying a new year rolls around and SLRs will be out of fashion -- it will be a gradient of mirrorless increasing its units while SLRs units diminish. One would think mirrorless would start from the bottom (1300D, SL1, etc.) and eat its way up the food chain until only the highest end SLRs keep their mirrors.

- A

 

[takesome1]

I'm not saying mirrorless is better yet. It's not.

I agree with that.
Point is that almost anything incorporated in to a mirrorless can be incorporated in to today's DSLR's and you keep the mirror. Name any thing that you can think of that cann't I am sure Canon is aware of this.

The advantage is weight and size, but that will be only slightly significant.

The view finder of the M5 is not a big positive and probably part of the reason for the battery drain. So t me that isn't a benefit.

So are there more benefits of mirrorless that cann't be incorporated in to DSLR's?

 

[ahsanford]

I agree with that.
Point is that almost anything incorporated in to a mirrorless can be incorporated in to today's DSLR's and you keep the mirror. Name any thing that you can think of that cann't I am sure Canon is aware of this.

The advantage is weight and size, but that will be only slightly significant.

The view finder of the M5 is not a big positive and probably part of the reason for the battery drain. So t me that isn't a benefit.

So are there more benefits of mirrorless that can't be incorporated in to DSLR's?

You are driving around the point. DSLRs in LiveView can do most everything a mirrorless rig can do (except for thin mount size savings and lens adapting), if you don't mind using a loupe, using a tripod, or taking photos a foot from your face like it's an iPad.

That italicized caveat above is a categorical non-starter for me. I only shoot handheld away from my eye when I'm reaching over a crowd, which is next to never.

Consider what I cannot do with my 5D3 today -- it's a short but pretty specific list. Everyone's list will be a little different, but here's mine:

• Since Canon took away focusing screens from the 5D line, large aperture manual focus lens work is off the table. Focus peaking through the viewfinder effectively solves that problem.
• Even the best AF can't resolve in poor interior lighting, say at a concert or indoor event. With an EVF, I'd switch off the AF, brighten the viewfinder, and either use peaking again or go 5x/10x to confirm focus -- again, all through the viewfinder in what is likely a high ISO / longer shutter environment that I wouldn't want to hold out away from my body.
• My 5D3 cannot let me pack the smallest possible FF construct for travel -- thin mount mirrorless could. a 5D3 is not terrible for travel at all, but yes, it could be smaller on the 24-50mm FLs I like to use.
• My 5D3 is limited to EF glass. Thin mount + adapter would unlock a great deal more. With MF assist tools and a thinner mount, I will become an ancient lens collector because I could actually use those lenses on a modern rig with all the Canon handling/ergonomics I love.

Granted, I love my 5D3 and haven't gone mirrorless because everything I'd lose is greater than what I'd gain in 2017. But someday, that's going to be a hell of a mirrorless rig and I'm going to love it.

- A

 

[takesome1]

They do make adapters for the EF mount. You are not limited now.
And
You are making the assumption the size difference will be enough to matter.

 

[cayenne]

They do make adapters for the EF mount. You are not limited now.
And
You are making the assumption the size difference will be enough to matter.

You're making the assertion that size matters....??

Ok..sorry, sorry.....I just couldn't resist....



C

 

[takesome1]

They do make adapters for the EF mount. You are not limited now.
And
You are making the assumption the size difference will be enough to matter.

You're making the assertion that size matters....??

Ok..sorry, sorry.....I just couldn't resist....



C

Hopefully not to the girls I take pictures of.
If they do not like the quality I get out of a crop sensor then they will not be satisfied.

 

[AvTvM]

size advantage of mirrorless FF vs. full-blown mirrorslappers like 1D or even 5D series is *really significant*. it dors matter to a lot of people.

Bpdy size like Sony A7 (1st series) plus well-chosen lens mount yielding a compact lens set eg 16-35/4, 24-70/4, 50-150/4, 20/4, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 ... would be absolutely great. camera body could still have a grip large enough to for good ergonomics and to hold a regular-charge battery (12+ Watthours, size like like LP-E6N).

it could do everything a 5D IV does and them some (EVF to see image scene as it will be recorded, no mirrorslap, no no mech shutter = vibration-free, adaptability of all EF lenses with full functionality, etc.) at significantly reduced size and weight ... and (potentially) lower price, since cost to produce suchva cam is quite a bit lower than for mirrorslappers.

as far as market potential goes: just imagine for a moment, if Sony A7 II series would be "Canon" instead of "Sony" ... with some nice and compact native Canon lenses (instead of mega-bucks, big fat expensive Sony "girth master" or "sonyZeiss" lenses) and a simple, cheap adapter for all Canon EF glass (instead of 500 bucks metabones stuff) ... and Canon RT flash commander built in ... i would not worry about sales of a compact, affordable, mirrorless FF system ... with Canon badge on it.

 

[Mikehit]

wow so much red ink, drama queen.

sony has tapped smaller size in FF *mirrorless bodies*. they missed the boat with their wrong choice of lens mount and the compromised lens design caused by it. just look at their big, fat, grissly overpriced zeiss-badged FE-lenses and those obacenely big GM "Girth Master" lenses. Would you really want Canon to repeat that mistake? ;-)

No, I would not want them to repeat that mistake.

But I note that (again) you have avoided my key question in my last 2 posts: if Sony, Fuji and everyone else have (at your own admission) screwed the lens mount, where is the commercial threat that is Canon's incentive to introduce a new mount in the short timelines you say is essential.
Yet all you do is keep on bleating about how Canon need to go deeper into the mirrorless market sector - I am not denying that.

 

[Loswr]

wow so much red ink

That's exactly what Canon's commercial/marketing group said when the idea of a new FF MILC lens mount incompatible with EOS M bodies was presented to them.

 

[Dylan777]

wow so much red ink, drama queen.

sony has tapped smaller size in FF *mirrorless bodies*. they missed the boat with their wrong choice of lens mount and the compromised lens design caused by it. just look at their big, fat, grissly overpriced zeiss-badged FE-lenses and those obacenely big GM "Girth Master" lenses. Would you really want Canon to repeat that mistake? ;-)

Mistake???

If a7 is the primary gear in his/her photography, the 24-70GM & 70-200GM are great choices shooting at even. Why I know it? because I OWN them.

You don't need to buy these larger FE lenses if they don't fit your needs. Batis, FE28, FE35f2.8 and FE55 are great choices if you want compact on the go.

Your needs don't apply to others.

 

[AvTvM]

FE 35 is the only halfway compact FE lens. had Sony chosen better mount parameters, they could have wasily made a 35/2.0 same size.

Fe 55 has built in spacer already. lens mount at fault.

FE lenses are too big, too complex and too expensive (compared to Canon, Nikon) ... simply because of Sony's mistake to use an APS-C E-mount also for FF. Sony lens size and prices are a major reason why they have not been able to capture a more significant market share.

 

[Dylan777]

FE 35 is the only halfway compact FE lens. had Sony chosen better mount parameters, they could have wasily made a 35/2.0 same size.

Fe 55 has built in spacer already. lens mount at fault.

FE lenses are too big, too complex and too expensive (compared to Canon, Nikon) ... simply because of Sony's mistake to use an APS-C E-mount also for FF. Sony lens size and prices are a major reason why they have not been able to capture a more significant market share.

Again, too much day dreaming!!!

 

[unfocused]

wow so much red ink

That's exactly what Canon's commercial/marketing group said when the idea of a new FF MILC lens mount incompatible with EOS M bodies was presented to them.

Also highly likely.

 

[Orangutan]

wow so much red ink

That's exactly what Canon's commercial/marketing group said when the idea of a new FF MILC lens mount incompatible with EOS M bodies was presented to them.

Also highly likely.

How do you figure? As with everything Canon, we can expect them to make no rash decisions. FF mirrorless is likely to have a lot of interest among pro/enthusiast groups, rather than newbs, and those groups want L-glass. It seems to me that creating a new FF M-mount would mean committing to a line of new L-class lenses from UWA to 200mm. It's possible, but it certainly doesn't look like an obvious decision either way.

 

[unfocused]

wow so much red ink

That's exactly what Canon's commercial/marketing group said when the idea of a new FF MILC lens mount incompatible with EOS M bodies was presented to them.

Also highly likely.

How do you figure?

Because the statement below is unproven and highly speculative.

...FF mirrorless is likely to have a lot of interest among pro/enthusiast groups...

Only Canon knows if the market exists. Perhaps it does. But, it is equally likely that it doesn't exist in sufficient quantity to justify creating a full frame mirrorless at this time.

 

[Orangutan]

wow so much red ink

That's exactly what Canon's commercial/marketing group said when the idea of a new FF MILC lens mount incompatible with EOS M bodies was presented to them.

Also highly likely.

How do you figure?

Because the statement below is unproven and highly speculative.

...FF mirrorless is likely to have a lot of interest among pro/enthusiast groups...

Only Canon knows if the market exists. Perhaps it does. But, it is equally likely that it doesn't exist in sufficient quantity to justify creating a full frame mirrorless at this time.

Cost alone makes my assertion likely: the M5 is $980, how much would a FF M5 cost? If reports are true, it's going to have the same guts as the 6D2 -- I don't think they'd cannibalize 6D2 sales by pricing the mirrorless much lower, if at all.

My best guess is that the FF mirrorless market will be much the same as the 6D2 market. Guesses are just guesses, though.

 

[ahsanford]

FE lenses are too big, too complex and too expensive (compared to Canon, Nikon) ... simply because of Sony's mistake to use an APS-C E-mount also for FF. Sony lens size and prices are a major reason why they have not been able to capture a more significant market share.

Then read Dylan's post above.

You have options that are not big: http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.394,624.429,624.615,ha,t

As far as I can tell, the wheels only come off the bus with the whole 'built-in lens tube at the base of the lens' for the f/1.4 primes, f/2.8 zooms, and lenses with larger diameter front elements: http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.515,624.440,624.516,ha,t

What's the problem?

You claim Sony going too thin with the mount makes their lenses enormous, but I have yet to see the dissertation on why a 5mm more flange distance would magically make FF lenses 25mm shorter.

I have a theory that the porridge is always too hot or too could with you. No one is making the perfect balance of 'fast-ish and not too big' lenses for you.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

How do you figure? As with everything Canon, we can expect them to make no rash decisions. FF mirrorless is likely to have a lot of interest among pro/enthusiast groups, rather than newbs, and those groups want L-glass. It seems to me that creating a new FF M-mount would mean committing to a line of new L-class lenses from UWA to 200mm. It's possible, but it certainly doesn't look like an obvious decision either way.

I see three possible FF mirrorless outcomes:

• They go with EF-M. They make a small selection of FF lenses for EF-M and offer an adaptor for the rest. They may or not be L series quality depend on the price of the brand, how well the non-Ls sell at first, etc.
  
  
• They go full EF and offer us something really sexy to bolt on to it as a distraction to why it's not a thin-flange setup, like a 24-50 f/2L or a 24-70 f/2.8L IS, etc.
  
  
  
• They go with two models, one with a thin and one with a full EF mount (over time, not simultaneously -- thin would lead to test the waters)

But none of those options involve remaking EF in any significant way. If there's a thin mount, I only see 4-6 lenses ever happening. Your up to 200mm comment is dreamland for the mirrorless camp -- the only way long glass saves meaningful space over full EF would be to nerf the max aperture, like offer a dainty 200mm f/6.3 or 70-200 f/5.6 and I just don't see that happening.

- A

 

[moreorless]

Cost alone makes my assertion likely: the M5 is $980, how much would a FF M5 cost? If reports are true, it's going to have the same guts as the 6D2 -- I don't think they'd cannibalize 6D2 sales by pricing the mirrorless much lower, if at all.

My best guess is that the FF mirrorless market will be much the same as the 6D2 market. Guesses are just guesses, though.

My guess is if we saw a FF EOS mount camera it would probably be below the 6D2 in price but if we see a FF EF-M camera or less likely a new mount it would likely be closer to the same price.

Really though I think just focusing on body price is perhaps a mistake. A lot of Canon's recent success for me has actually been based on bucking the trend of offering poorly performing kit options and overpriced upgrades. Sony especially is IMHO guilty of this and I think the EF-M lineup offering quality in the kit options and relatively cheap upgrades was a big issue, I could well see the same happening with FF.