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

[AvTvM]

yes, totally agree. it is Canon and Nikon's undeserved good luck, that

• Sony f*cked up its choice of FF mirrorless lens mount.
• Fuji stupidly decided to go for 44X33mm "pseudo middle-format" (GFX) rather thn launching a kick-ass FF-sensored mirrorless product line
• Olympus and Panasonic settled for dwarf-sized mFT sensor format without being able to deliver proportionally smaller gear
• Ricoh/Pentax has no clue at all and f*cked up so badly with its long FDD K-mount mirrorless camera (K-01)
• Leica charges moon prices and made its SL system way too large and heavy

and it is CaNikon customers' bad luck, that
• all other makers fail to provide enough "competitive impetus" for CaNikon re. great mirrorless FF gear

sigh ...

Jumping back a couple of days, but I have to ask: what do you think is more likely?

1) Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Ricoh/Pentax, and Leica are all dumb and stupid and all whiff on design and engineering
2) The problem is more complex than you think and CaNikon looked at the realities and decided "nope nope nope nope nope can't do it properly we're not wasting money down that rat hole"

Be honest.

what i honestly think is stated in the post you are quoting.

fuji has NOT f*ckep up its lens mount paramrters and lens design. They chose an "APS-C optimized" lens mount and are sticking to APS-C, rather than raping the mount into FF sensor use ... as opposed to Sony.

Where Fuji fails (economically) is by trying to ONLY sell "retro-styled gear at premium prices". Yes, there is a market segment for it, but it is rather narrow ... people wanting a Leica, but not rich enough for that. In other words: maybe 5% market share. Fuji GFX ... technically solid 44x33 optimized lens mount parameters. Economically GFX will likely end in disaster, but not for "technical reasons".

Oly/Panasonic: lens mount parameters adequately chosen for mFT sensor diagonal. Economically: sensor is too small to offer significant, easily visible IQ advantages over smartphones. Even worse: mFT cameras / lenses size and prices are *not proportional to reduced sensor surface area* (which is technically not possible) .. not even close. And not many people in their right mind will pay 2,000 USD/€ for a quarter-sensor camera in 2017. Therefore: death within 3 years for Oly as we know it today. Panasonic will last somewhat longer, because of their product focus on video usage.

Basic ""product-technical" mistake: when Oly and consortium abandoned original FT mount - originally invented as a sensor-area-maximizing "work-around", back when FF sensors where way too expensive - they should have switched to 3:2, standard APS-C rather than re-inventing the wheel one more time with mFT. And speaking of "precious sensor surface": recording 16:9 video material on a 4:3 format sensor looks pretty crazy wasteful to me ... but hey, what do i know, i am just a dumb forum nut.

So in a nutshell, honestly YES, i stand by my assessment, that Canon should and likely will - *NOT* use either EF-M mount or EF-mount for its upcoming 36x24mm sensor "FF" mirrorless system that will replace and succeed the current DSLR product lineup over a small number of years.

Reason: both EF-M and EF-mount are "technically feasible", BUT only with huge lens design compromises for a new system that Canon's future in imaging gear rides on. Canon has demonstrated in the past that they know, when it is time to "boldly break the old mold" ... and they will do it again! Because it is necessary in order to provide technically excellent gear at price points that yield maximum market share and profitability. "As small as possible AND fully capable" is a paramount factor for market success.

But, we shall see, which way Canon goes ... and how exactly they implement it ... and when.

 

[Mikehit]

oly/panasonic: lens mount paramters are adequately chosen for sensor diagonal. economically, sensor is too small to offer significant, easily visible IQ advantages over smartphones.

 

[LonelyBoy]

...
Be honest.

Reminds me of the quote: And remember, this is for posterity so be honest. How do you feel?

I wish I could give you a stack of Likes. Hadn't been thinking of that quote when I wrote that, but it's so fitting.

 

[Loswr]

And not many people in their right mind will pay 2,000 USD/€ for a quarter-sensor camera in 2017. Therefore: death within 3 years for Oly as we know it today.

Well, I guess if you throw enough crappy opinions at the wall, something might stick...some day.

Here's a sloppy pile of crappy opinion from 2015:

I have no doubt that DSLRs at "Rebel" level will globally be dead in the water a year or two from now. Nothing can save those puny tunnel-OVF mirror-flippers ...

:

 

[LonelyBoy]

what i honestly think is stated in the post you are quoting.

<snip>

But, we shall see, which way Canon goes ... and how exactly they implement it ... and when.

Sure, you say you don't think Fuji fucked up... but in the post I quoted you called them "stupid". Potato pofuckup.

Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks that, if Canon releases a "6DM" this cycle it will come in two flavors, EF and EF-M. They've demonstrated a willingness to do twin releases with the 5DS/R and T6s/I (and now the 77D/71D). If the rest of the engineering is the same, it shouldn't be too bad to release one with each mount, and stop building one or the other if it tanks.

If I'm wrong, and they do go to a fourth mount, it'll be for the 4-6 lens lineup someone posted about that only covers the range with the size advantage. The future you see does not exist.

To phrase my point another way, a bunch of other companies have already looked at the engineering space and come up with solutions that are not the one you want. Does that mean the solution does not exist, or that the demand for it is not big enough to make money? Does it matter?

And yes, we'll see which way Canon goes.

 

[Loswr]

Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks that, if Canon releases a "6DM" this cycle it will come in two flavors, EF and EF-M. They've demonstrated a willingness to do twin releases with the 5DS/R and T6s/I (and now the 77D/71D). If the rest of the engineering is the same, it shouldn't be too bad to release one with each mount, and stop building one or the other if it tanks.

If I'm wrong, and they do go to a fourth mount, it'll be for the 4-6 lens lineup someone posted about that only covers the range with the size advantage.

A FF MILC with the EF-M mount would have to be launched with a few lenses, or else it's a non-starter. If Canon were to release an ILC with no available native lenses, that really would be 'stupid Canon' – and history has clearly shown that one of AvTvM's steaming piles of crappy opinion that fails to stick.

 

[LonelyBoy]

A FF MILC with the EF-M mount would have to be launched with a few lenses, or else it's a non-starter. If Canon were to release an ILC with no available native lenses, that really would be 'stupid Canon' – and history has clearly shown that one of AvTvM's steaming piles of crappy opinion that fails to stick.

Well yes... I was referring to the possibility of using the EF-M mount for a FF mirrorless, not the existing lineup. Of course they'd need to release a few lenses as well if they go with any mount other than EF.

How much re-engineering is needed for a new mount, anyway? If there's an EF-X, or they use EF-M, could something like the 35/2 IS be released with a minor tweak to the rear, or would it need more extensive redesign?

 

[AvTvM]

How much re-engineering is needed for a new mount, anyway? If there's an EF-X, or they use EF-M, could something like the 35/2 IS be released with a minor tweak to the rear, or would it need more extensive redesign?

I think, it would need a totally new design. Difference in FDD [44mm vs. 18mm or even 22 or 24mm] is too significant.

 

[arcer]

Sometimes I feel like somebody asks too much of the current industries.
It's like asking Toyota to make a electric Mini Cooper-sized car that have four independent high torque, high brake-horsepower electric motors, wireless charging within 2 hours for a 100km ride, equipped with electronic gull-wing doors, handling like a F1 car, 3 seconds to 60mph, have a boot that's as wide as the car itself, being a 4-seater with large enough legroom for a 7-ft guy to sit in and equipped with Recaro racing seats.. Even though it might go in white with red racing stripes but still hoping it would only costs USD$50,000.

But hey, what I just mentioned might be possible. Who knows?
Physics does not matter when discussing anyway :

 

[rrcphoto]

A FF MILC with the EF-M mount would have to be launched with a few lenses, or else it's a non-starter. If Canon were to release an ILC with no available native lenses, that really would be 'stupid Canon' – and history has clearly shown that one of AvTvM's steaming piles of crappy opinion that fails to stick.

Well yes... I was referring to the possibility of using the EF-M mount for a FF mirrorless, not the existing lineup. Of course they'd need to release a few lenses as well if they go with any mount other than EF.

How much re-engineering is needed for a new mount, anyway? If there's an EF-X, or they use EF-M, could something like the 35/2 IS be released with a minor tweak to the rear, or would it need more extensive redesign?

extensive redesign, not to mention an entire fab process change for a full frame sensor that canon cannot do right now.

 

[AvTvM]

extensive redesign, not to mention an entire fab process change for a full frame sensor that canon cannot do right now.

electronic global shutter FF sensor you mean? Probably true right now. But getting close ... hopefully.
http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-showcases-23-global-shutter-sensor-at-isscc-2017/

 

[Mikehit]

Sometimes I feel like somebody asks too much of the current industries.
It's like asking Toyota to make a electric Mini Cooper-sized car that have four independent high torque, high brake-horsepower electric motors, wireless charging within 2 hours for a 100km ride, equipped with electronic gull-wing doors, handling like a F1 car, 3 seconds to 60mph, have a boot that's as wide as the car itself, being a 4-seater with large enough legroom for a 7-ft guy to sit in and equipped with Recaro racing seats.. Even though it might go in white with red racing stripes but still hoping it would only costs USD$50,000.

But hey, what I just mentioned might be possible. Who knows?
Physics does not matter when discussing anyway :

Thing is petrol heads know their stuff and the major limitations are pretty well known by the enthusiast. Not a single one of them would look at that as other than a futuristic wishlist and they would discuss it in the same manner people talk about what Santa will bring them.
Lens design is a pretty arcane subject with a whole myriad of compromises and that is even before you talk about designing a comaptible body. This leaves people like AvTvM to say "Canon are stupid and you cannot prove me wrong so what I say is fact". Conveniently also ignoring Occam's razor.

 

[AvTvM]

Mikehit, you dont ever get tired of lashing out against me, do you? *stupid Canon* shill probably.

 

[Mikehit]

Mikehit, you dont ever get tired of lashing out against me, do you? *stupid Canon* shill probably.

You don't get tired of making outlandish claims - admitting you know nothing about lens design yet point out why Canon are wrong in not making the product you want. Saying Canon will fall behind the competition if they do not make what you want in the next few months, yet admit the competition is providing no impetus to do so because they screwed up in the products they have made.
When someone does put you on the spot you sidestep the question and restate your previous argument in a different way.

Lashing out? Nope - I look on it as more of a sport ;D

 

[Loswr]

Mikehit, you dont ever get tired of lashing out against me, do you? *stupid Canon* shill probably.

So we can add 'continually making asinine claims and statements, expects to not be called out on them' to your long and growing list of unrealistic expectations. Good to know.

 

[arcer]

Sometimes I feel like somebody asks too much of the current industries.
It's like asking Toyota to make a electric Mini Cooper-sized car that have four independent high torque, high brake-horsepower electric motors, wireless charging within 2 hours for a 100km ride, equipped with electronic gull-wing doors, handling like a F1 car, 3 seconds to 60mph, have a boot that's as wide as the car itself, being a 4-seater with large enough legroom for a 7-ft guy to sit in and equipped with Recaro racing seats.. Even though it might go in white with red racing stripes but still hoping it would only costs USD$50,000.

But hey, what I just mentioned might be possible. Who knows?
Physics does not matter when discussing anyway :

Thing is petrol heads know their stuff and the major limitations are pretty well known by the enthusiast. Not a single one of them would look at that as other than a futuristic wishlist and they would discuss it in the same manner people talk about what Santa will bring them.
Lens design is a pretty arcane subject with a whole myriad of compromises and that is even before you talk about designing a comaptible body. This leaves people like AvTvM to say "Canon are stupid and you cannot prove me wrong so what I say is fact". Conveniently also ignoring Occam's razor.

Not a really good analogy, I know. But my point still stands. Automobile design is also a complicated matter and no one petrol head can design a new car design from scratch by referencing from current car designs and performance, and the latest car tech innovations. They will always be a balance in car performance for the near future based on current technologies, same as in photography equipment.

You can never design a system with no compromises in every aspect while hoping it to stay affordable and reasonably-sized.

 

[jeffa4444]

AvTvM

There are no limiting factors to making a 18mm FFD camera with a 36x24mm sensor or indeed lenses that cover a larger image circle for 36x24mm. There are many good optical reasons for a shorter back focus however one of them is not smaller lenses because fast lenses (2.8 or faster) will require larger more complex lens designs as we already see for light gathering but even that is a challenge that's being addressed.
The advantages for the camera are global shutters, faster frame rates and less moving parts to wear or fail for instance. With the moving together of stills & moving image we are witnessing a blending of technical ideas from two different disciplines where the best of both is shaping the future.

When Canon moved to the EF mount from the FD mount it was a monumental change without backward compatibility, however the shorter back-focus as we see with the EF-M mount allows for compatibility with adapters not ideal but sill possible for legacy glass. I used the Mft to m.Mft adapter for my Olympus for many years as my small package and it worked just fine.

Still if you know better maybe you could tell the engineers I listed in my previous post from the largest optical companies in the world plus my 35 years of working in the motion picture industry in camera & lens development were all wrong. I KNOW who I would back.

 

[Mikehit]

So we can add 'continually making asinine claims and statements, expects to not be called out on them' to your long and growing list of unrealistic expectations. Good to know.

And I hope to god that the 6D2 doesn't come out with a new mount in 2017. He will be insufferable ;D ;D ;D

 

[Don Haines]

So we can add 'continually making asinine claims and statements, expects to not be called out on them' to your long and growing list of unrealistic expectations. Good to know.

And I hope to god that the 6D2 doesn't come out with a new mount in 2017. He will be insufferable ;D ;D ;D

If the 6D2 comes out as a mirrorless camera with a new mount, he will deserve to be insufferable and should be awarded the magic crystal ball prize..... or we could attribute it to luck, but that's no fun......

 

[Bob Howland]

There are many good optical reasons for a shorter back focus however one of them is not smaller lenses because fast lenses (2.8 or faster) will require larger more complex lens designs as we already see for light gathering but even that is a challenge that's being addressed.

Could you please be more specific?