could the new EF-M mount support FF sensors too?

[Canon-F1]

maybe a stupid question but could the new mount be used for FF sensor mirrorless cameras too?

i guess with current lenses the image circle fits only for aps-c.
but could it possible to use it for other lenses and a FF sensor.

i only wonder if canon thinks about the future here.
or if a future mirrorless FF camera would have a new lens mount again.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

I can see no reason that it wouldn't support a FF sensor. After all, the mount is a full EF mount diameter. If anything, it's massively oversized for the camera.

 

[x-vision]

If you look at the position of the contact pins, the new M lens mount will not be able to support a FF sensor.

And if you consider that this is a brand new mount - and Canon did not make it FF compatible - it is very safe to say that Canon is not planning to put a FF sensor in the M series ... ever.

The M-series is obviously meant as a bridge camera between compacts and DSLRs.
If Canon ever makes a compact FF camera, it will surely user the EF mount.

 

[Canon-F1]

If you look at the position of the contact pins, the new M lens mount will not be able to support a FF sensor.

but what has the contact pin layout to do with the sensor size?

edit:

you mean there is not enough room for a FF sensor?
mhm.. yes it looks that way.

im really no expert when it comes to mounts.

 

[x-vision]

you mean there is not enough room for a FF sensor?

Yes. Take a look - a FF sensor will covered/obscured by the pin base:

 

[Canon-F1]

so no leica killer with an EF-M mount

 

[TrumpetPower!]

so no leica killer with an EF-M mount

Eh, you've already got that, basically. Slap a Shorty McForty to a 5DIII and you're pretty much there. As far as image / camera quality, it blows the Leica out of the water, though, granted, it's a little bit bigger. As a bonus, you can mount pretty much any lens ever made to it, too, including all that sweet sweet Canon glass (like the TS-E 24 II or the 400 f/2.8 II) as well as all the legendary Leica and Zeiss lenses.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Canon-F1]

Eh, you've already got that, basically. Slap a Shorty McForty to a 5DIII and you're pretty much there. As far as image / camera quality, it blows the Leica out of the water, though, granted, it's a little bit bigger.

remove the "little bit" and i agree.

but still the leica is way better for street photography.


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8t5zxkUtf1qccbcn.jpg

 

[Nassen0f]

If you look at the position of the contact pins, the new M lens mount will not be able to support a FF sensor.

And if you consider that this is a brand new mount - and Canon did not make it FF compatible - it is very safe to say that Canon is not planning to put a FF sensor in the M series ... ever.

The M-series is obviously meant as a bridge camera between compacts and DSLRs.
If Canon ever makes a compact FF camera, it will surely user the EF mount.

Im guessing/hoping thats why we have the 40mm STM pancake already..

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Eh, you've already got that, basically. Slap a Shorty McForty to a 5DIII and you're pretty much there. As far as image / camera quality, it blows the Leica out of the water, though, granted, it's a little bit bigger.

remove the "little bit" and i agree.

but still the leica is way better for street photography.


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8t5zxkUtf1qccbcn.jpg

Well, that picture is hardly a fair comparison.

Take the longish zoom off the Canon and put on the Shorty McForty instead, and now the Canon actually sticks out less far from the tip of your nose than the Leica. The Canon is still a bit taller, but the only part of the body that's thicker is the handgrip.

The only reason the 5D series has a reputation for being substantially bigger than a rangefinder is because all the comparisons are made with a normal slow prime on the rangefinder and a fast wide-to-telephoto zoom on the 5D. Mount similar lenses on each, and the size difference is more of a shape difference than anything else -- and the shape of the 5D makes it fit the hand better. (What, you don't think Canon could remove the right-side grip if they thought that was a problem?)

Cheers,

b&

 

[Canon-F1]

Take the longish zoom off the Canon and put on the Shorty McForty instead....
....
The only reason the 5D series has a reputation for being substantially bigger than a rangefinder is because all the comparisons are made with a normal slow prime on the rangefinder and a fast wide-to-telephoto zoom on the 5D. Mount similar lenses on each, and the size difference is more of a shape difference than anything else -- and the shape of the 5D makes it fit the hand better.

it´s a 35mm f2 on the leica and a 35mm f1.4 on the 5d mk2.
no longish zoom.

a 35mm f2 would make things look a bit better for the 5D MK2 sure.. but not much.
walk a day with a leica and a day with a 5D MK2 through a city.

it´s not only size.
the leica is less obtrusive (at least to the normal non-photographer crowd).

 

[funkboy]

maybe a stupid question but could the new mount be used for FF sensor mirrorless cameras too?

(answered the same question earlier today)
From http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/:

The EF-M mount is 58mm in diameter, with a flange distance of 18mm from the bayonet to the sensor. As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen.

Sorry to rain on your parade...

OTOH, the EF-M flange-back distance is the same as Sony E mount, so there'll be a whole slew of adapters to mount all kinds of tasty old-school lenses to it.

Now that I revisit this topic, there are a few reasons they've done it this way:

• They needed to make the camera, mount, & lenses as small & light as possible.
• They want all of these cameras to work with EF & EF-S lenses.
• The kind of photogs that want FF also tend to want top-notch AF, and mirrorless systems seem to be a long way from delivering that right now (though it looks like EF-M should be quite good for a mirrorless).
• When Leica made a full-frame camera (the M9) with such a short flange-back distance, they had to get Kodak to design a sensor for them with incrementally offset microlens positioning towards the edges in order to properly capture the photons that are hitting the sensor at an extreme angle towards the edge of the frame. I don't think Canon wants to go there (although admittedly they could probably buy the patent off Kodak for peanuts at the moment...).

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Take the longish zoom off the Canon and put on the Shorty McForty instead....
....
The only reason the 5D series has a reputation for being substantially bigger than a rangefinder is because all the comparisons are made with a normal slow prime on the rangefinder and a fast wide-to-telephoto zoom on the 5D. Mount similar lenses on each, and the size difference is more of a shape difference than anything else -- and the shape of the 5D makes it fit the hand better.

it´s a 35mm f2 on the leica and a 35mm f1.4 on the 5d mk2.
no longish zoom.

Eh, sorry. Looked like a 24-105 at first.

But, again. An f/1.4 lens has an aperture twice the size as an f/2 lens, so is it any surprise that it's also substantially bigger?

Canon's own 35 f/2 is certainly no bigger than the Leica version, and looks to be a bit smaller. Of course, Canon's f/2 is a cheapie consumer lens while the f/1.4 is their no-holds-barred lens...but, if you want no-holds-barred quality in a small, light, cheap package, then that's what the Shorty McForty is all about.

a 35mm f2 would make things look a bit better for the 5D MK2 sure.. but not much.
walk a day with a leica and a day with a 5D MK2 through a city.

it´s not only size.
the leica is less obtrusive (at least to the normal non-photographer crowd).

You do know that that type of distinction exists solely in your own head, don't you? Anything that isn't instantly recognizable as a P&S zoom or a camera phone is going to identify you as a photographer, and something that looks like a retro antique (the Leica) is going to make you stand out every bit at much as something big with a red ring that you hold up to your eye.

The 5DIII with the Shorty McForty, on the other hand, just looks like a slightly oversized PowerShot G-series-style camera, especially if you use Live View. It'll only draw attention from other photographers, not the general public.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Ricku]

If you look at the position of the contact pins, the new M lens mount will not be able to support a FF sensor.

Well thats it then. All hope is lost.

If what you say is true, Canon F**ked up big time. They closed the door on all who wants an affordable full frame mirrorless. Well, at least more affordable than the Leica M9.

 

[Gothmoth]

Eh, sorry. Looked like a 24-105 at first.

nope it does not

But, again. An f/1.4 lens has an aperture twice the size as an f/2 lens, so is it any surprise that it's also substantially bigger?

he wrote that a EF 35mm f2 would make it look a bit better for the 5D.
but the body is still larger.

and the 35mm f1.4 summilux is not that much bigger then the f2 summicron mounted on the leica in the picture.

You do know that that type of distinction exists solely in your own head, don't you?

i guess that´s why so many professionell photographers LOVE the leicas for street portraiture.
they all don´t know what they are doing.

have you ever used a leica?

 

[mitchell3417]

M Lens Mount Full Frame?

One question. Can a full frame sensor fit within the M-mount? I don't care if their going to make a camera with FF anytime soon. I just want to know if it's even possible to have a mirrorless FF camera from canon.

To me it looks like a FF sensor won't fit in the mount because of where the electrical contacts are located. Not enough circumference.

 

[Loswr]

Re: M Lens Mount Full Frame?

Based on the images, I think you're right - a FF sensor isn't compatible with the EF-M mount.

 

[Don Haines]

People! You are getting two very different things confused.

First, on the EOS-M, the size of a full frame sensor is larger than the ROUND hole that the light has to enter the camera through. As long as a round hole is used, you will vignette the corners of a full frame sensor. you might be able to get away with making a rectangular hole, but this is not the way they have chosen to go with the EOS-M mount. This camera is designed to be small and to constrain it with a full frame sensor would be to negate that criteria.

Second, you can not say that this means that Canon will not design a FF mirrorless. This is the first try at mirrorless, not the final answer. You can bet that at some point in the future there will be far more capable mirrorless Canons out there, ones with tilt screens, viewfinders, and advanced wireless features that will make the current crop of FF's seem primitive by comparison... and yes, they will operate on the big glass.... why do you think Canon continues to put so much effort into thier prime lenses?

A digital camera is not a film camera. They have different strenghts and different weaknesses. To think that digital cameras should be designed like a film camera is to cheat yourself out of the future.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Eh, sorry. Looked like a 24-105 at first.

nope it does not

The one is 3.3" x 4.2" with a red ring, a wide focus ring at the front, a focus distance window, and uses a petal hood. The other is 3.1" x 3.4" with a red ring, a wide focus ring at the front, a focus distance window, and uses a petal hood. And one is the kit lens for the camera. And the picture of the lens is all of a few hundred pixels tall. Yes, at quick glance it's really not that hard to mistrake the one for the other in such circumstances.

But, again. An f/1.4 lens has an aperture twice the size as an f/2 lens, so is it any surprise that it's also substantially bigger?

he wrote that a EF 35mm f2 would make it look a bit better for the 5D.
but the body is still larger.

The bodies are essentially the same size, except the 5DIII has the housing for the pentaprism and the grip on the right-hand side.

and the 35mm f1.4 summilux is not that much bigger then the f2 summicron mounted on the leica in the picture.

Both Leicas have 2.1" diameters. The f/1.4 is a half-inch longer than the f/2. The Canon f/2 is bigger than the Leica f/2 but smaller than the Leica f/1.4. The Canon f/1.4 is larger, yes, but it's internal focus, it's got great autofocus, and it focusses down to 1' as opposed to the Leica's 2'. It's an entirely different lens intended for an entirely different function.

And, once again: if it's small and discreet that you want from a Canon camera, that's exactly what the Shorty McForty is for.

You do know that that type of distinction exists solely in your own head, don't you?

i guess that´s why so many professionell photographers LOVE the leicas for street portraiture.
they all don´t know what they are doing.

have you ever used a leica?

And what on Earth does any of that have to do with the general public's perception of a camera?

Just because the Leica is popular for street portraiture doesn't at all mean that people think that somebody using a Leica isn't using a serious camera. Quite the contrary: people who don't know about cameras will think you're a real photographer because you're obviously using an antique, and people who do know about cameras will know you've got lots of money to burn. With a 5DIII with a Shorty McForty, people who don't know about cameras will at most notice that yours is a little bit bigger than the typical G-series-style prosumer P&S, while those who do know about cameras will know you've got the trendy new toy.

Look, I'm not trying to say that Leicas are bad cameras. I'm just pointing out that many of the reasons people put forth for why Leicas are superior really don't have a whole lot of bearing in reality.

If you like a Leica because you actually like the user interface, because you prefer rangefinders to the 100% view from a 5DIII viewfinder, because you like the sound the shutter makes when it clicks, whatever -- fantastic. By all means, use your Leica and enjoy it.

Just don't kid yourself that you're getting something that takes better pictures (it doesn't, not by a long shot) or that's more inconspicuous (it isn't).

Cheers,

b&

 

[EchoLocation]

No Full Frame EOS-M EVER?

"The EF-M mount is 58mm in diameter, with a flange distance of 18mm from the bayonet to the sensor. As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen."
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m

Haven't seen much discussion of this, but for me this is a huge let down.....
Why would Canon wait so long to enter the game, make a new mount(EOS-M) and then restrict that to only one sensor size, with no hope for future upgrades to the line?
Is DPreview wrong?
The APS-C sensor gave me hope for a FF Leica killer coming someday soon, but now, it seems that this hope is dashed forever. I am a serious traveler and always travel as light as possible(and hopefully without $10k worth of Leica gear,) so I have been eagerly awaiting a smaller than DSLR full frame option....
Who will be the first to make a Full Frame Mirrorless, Sony, Fuji, Nikon?
Whoever does it, I will seriously look in to pre ordering.... but at the moment, all I have to look forward to is the new entry level FF DSLR(D600, or whatever Canon is making.) I really don't want to carry around a 24-70 and DSLR all the way from Asia to Africa(my next trip.)
ugh....