EF-X Mirrorless concept

[fullstop]

i would not want a fat camera with a telescoping mount. i want a small camera with a set of small lenses. f/4 zooms and f/1.8-2.8 primes. no problem, if i have to put a simple little extension tube adaptor on my 70-200/2.8 when i want to ocassionally use it.

and i am not alone. overwhelming majority of canon ILC customers dont even have a 70-200/2.8, much less a 400/2.8 or 600/4. if there is a new-mount EF-X "non L" 24-105/3.5-5.6 and 70-300/4-5.6 they will get those as single or dual lens EF-X kit and throw away the legacy EF versions (try to sell them for a few bucks on ebay). so they won't even need an adaptor. instant transition from 1 mirrorslapper plus 2 or 3 EF lenses to 1 MILC plus 2 or 3 EF-X lenses (a pancake 24 or 40 or 50/1.8 or a 60/2.8 macro.

 

[Don Haines]

What we have, is a set of conflicting requirements.

We want the best in image quality, yet we also want it to be small.

In order to get the best in imaging quality, we need to look beyond the sensor and look at the camera as a system... and this means the ergonomics to allow us the easy use of the controls to capture that image, and it means that there will be several mechanical and optical constraints on the lenses... in particular, the problems of CA when you attempt to bend light too sharply plus the problems of vignetting when light strikes the sensor at too great of an angle. Canon and Nikon's FF cameras and lenses are the size/shape that they are for this reason.

To go smaller, you risk loosing the very thing that you were trying to achieve, yet in doing so you will never be able to achieve the size and weight savings that you would reap by going to an "M" camera and lenses.

Canon is not staffed by idiots. They have done the market research to tell them what the typical consumer is looking for, and quite frankly, they are looking at crop cameras. FF is a much smaller niche market occupied by those for which quality is the over-riding criteria and whom are wiling to pay for it. Make no mistakes about it, this is the market for the bulk of FF buyers. The only question is, how big is the market of FF buyers that want a compromise between FF EF cameras and high end crop cameras, and is this market big enough to justify coming up with a new mirrorless mount with a smaller flange distance? Personally, I don't think so.

Ages ago (at least for the forum) I proposed an EF-X mount for Canon's FF mirrorless entry. Essentially, it would be the EF-S mount as it would accept both EF lenses and EF-S lenses natively (just like a 7D2 or a rebel) but would also allow a FF mount that would protrude slightly into the body (like an EF-S lens). These new lenses would be pinned with the EF-S mount and would fit the new mirrorless cameras AND EF-S cameras, as the mirror would still clear the back of the lens.

That is your simple and elegant solution that Canon is proposing. The idea of a whole new series of dedicated lenses plus legacy adaptors is neither simple nor elegant, and despite the vocal adherence of those who are expecting that Canon will abandon their superior ergonomics to copy Sony, is very unlikely to happen.

 

[fullstop]

i think you will be in for quite a surprise. People like myself want one camera (only at a time) with a good Ff sensor and a set of compact lenses. most of the time we dont care for f/2.8 zooms, focal lengths beyond 200mm or f/1.4 or f/1.2 primes. we are not willing to spend in excess of 1000 bucks for each and every lens and are loathe of carrying around large "pickle jars" big lenses, we take IQ also at only 90% of a zeiss otus, no problem, thank you. Good enough! and still 1 full stop better than any crop sensor.

now is our day to finally get "FF goodness" in significantly smaller, lighter and hopefully (!) also less expensive packages. plenty of interest, only problem up to now was "supply side". only Sony, and them without a "fully convincing" system (especially FE lenses and lens size and pricing ... totally out of whack). looking forward to hopefully soon getting a choice between 3 good, compact ff mirrorless systems (so, ni, ca), fully capable of anything i ever need as an amateur/ enthusiast. end of lugging around mirrorslappers or big L glass - except when really needed, along with a tiny, simple, elegantly black mount adaptor. also end of inherently compromised crop gear for me and having to maintain 2 separate systems.

 

[3kramd5]

If Canon can make a telescoping mount that is slick/secure/etc. it's the best of both worlds.

I disagree, that would be one way of natively taking two lens families. The best of the reflex world is the OVF and off-image sensor purpose-built modules (e.g. PDAF); the best of the mirrorless world is all the live view stuff in a viewfinder. Adding an EVF to an SLR for use in lockup mode would present the best of both worlds.

That is of course if you’re interested in function more than form. If size is your priority, there are better options, not the least of which is using a smaller format camera and attaching fast glass to mitigate the sensor size disadvantage when desired.

 

[Kit.]

People like myself want one camera (only at a time) with a good Ff sensor and a set of compact lenses. most of the time we dont care for f/2.8 zooms, focal lengths beyond 200mm or f/1.4 or f/1.2 primes. we are not willing to spend in excess of 1000 bucks for each and every lens and are loathe of carrying around large "pickle jars" big lenses,

Then "people like yourself" are not a target audience for Canon FF offerings.

 

[unfocused]

People like myself want one camera (only at a time) with a good Ff sensor and a set of compact lenses. most of the time we dont care for f/2.8 zooms, focal lengths beyond 200mm or f/1.4 or f/1.2 primes. we are not willing to spend in excess of 1000 bucks for each and every lens and are loathe of carrying around large "pickle jars" big lenses,

Then "people like yourself" are not a target audience for Canon FF offerings.

I'm not really sure about that. For literally decades, the standard Leica rangefinder kit used by people like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank and other truly great photographers was a compact camera and a few lenses seldom going beyond the 35-135 mm range. It's safe to say that none us, with our supersized DSLRs and fast lenses, are likely to ever equal their accomplishments.

On the other hand, technological improvements are so great today that there is also no real reason why someone wanting compact and convenient needs to invest in full frame either. The world's truly great photographers were not hampered by a little grain, which was far worse during the film days than any noise from an APS-C sensor.

In Fullstop's defense, a rangefinder-like mirrorless kit consisting of lenses in the 24-135mm range, either zooms or primes, at f4 or with variable apertures, would probably satisfy a lot of people (and might even improve their photography).

 

[KevinP]

The mount discussions are interesting. If there's a new mount, I wonder if it's hiding in plain sight. There was the rumor article citing a revamped mirrorless mount patent a while back. It looked a lot like the EF-M, but pins and details changed, and a big sensor. Sony E or FE and Canon EF-M mounts are very similar dimensions from what I can find. EF-M bayonet may be sized for full frame.

It seems a little non-intuitive to choke the light portal down in diameter on a brand with large-aperture lens pride. In the opposing corner, the lens elements in the back of a lens are much smaller than the mount, so it looks like the image would be expanding from back of lens to sensor. If the image is being re-expanded back there, choking tight to the edge of sensor might not interfere. Any light splashing over the edge of sensor would have done the same on EF. Adapting EF to EF-M can be done w adapter already, but no telling if current adapters would suit the larger sensor.

Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II element diagram 3/4 down at link
https://www.lenstip.com/358.3-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Build_quality.html

Naming seems cluttered if it's a full-frame EF-M. For FF over APS-C heirarchy, Canon might like a 2-letter string. MF might have more than one meaning. EF-F?

 

[fullstop]

EF-M bayonet may be sized for full frame.

no. The very Canon people who designed EF-M clearly stated in a publicized interview it is for APS-C sensors only.

 

[Don Haines]

I'm not really sure about that. For literally decades, the standard Leica rangefinder kit used by people like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank and other truly great photographers was a compact camera and a few lenses seldom going beyond the 35-135 mm range.

<snip>

In Fullstop's defense, a rangefinder-like mirrorless kit consisting of lenses in the 24-135mm range, either zooms or primes, at f4 or with variable apertures, would probably satisfy a lot of people (and might even improve their photography).

Things were a lot simpler back then.... we did not have AF systems with various zones, in camera white balance, variable ISO, exposure compensation, automatic bracketing, custom modes, or a host of functions that come with digital cameras. Digital is a very different beast than film and the ergonomics rewuired for one to not translate well to the other. I never had to learn the menu system on an Ikeda 4X5

 

[josephandrews222]

EF-M bayonet may be sized for full frame.

no. The very Canon people who designed EF-M clearly stated in a publicized interview it is for APS-C sensors only.

I thought I remembered reading that, too...but would like to look at it again.

Can you supply a link?

 

[unfocused]

I'm not really sure about that. For literally decades, the standard Leica rangefinder kit used by people like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank and other truly great photographers was a compact camera and a few lenses seldom going beyond the 35-135 mm range.

<snip>

In Fullstop's defense, a rangefinder-like mirrorless kit consisting of lenses in the 24-135mm range, either zooms or primes, at f4 or with variable apertures, would probably satisfy a lot of people (and might even improve their photography).

Things were a lot simpler back then.... we did not have AF systems with various zones, in camera white balance, variable ISO, exposure compensation, automatic bracketing, custom modes, or a host of functions that come with digital cameras. Digital is a very different beast than film and the ergonomics rewuired for one to not translate well to the other. I never had to learn the menu system on an Ikeda 4X5

All true, but not relevant to the discussion. If I understood Fullstop’s point (and I admit it can be hard to know what his point is because it seems to constantly change), I believe he was saying that a Mirrorless entry does not need the full range of EF lenses because many of those wanting Mirrorless want a small camera with a few choices in the “normal” range which generally does not go wider than24 or 28mm nor longer than about 135mm, although upon further reflection I can imagine some interest in a variable aperture 70-300, which seems to be a very popular zoom range.

 

[3kramd5]

I'm not really sure about that. For literally decades, the standard Leica rangefinder kit used by people like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank and other truly great photographers was a compact camera and a few lenses seldom going beyond the 35-135 mm range.

<snip>

In Fullstop's defense, a rangefinder-like mirrorless kit consisting of lenses in the 24-135mm range, either zooms or primes, at f4 or with variable apertures, would probably satisfy a lot of people (and might even improve their photography).

Things were a lot simpler back then.... we did not have AF systems with various zones, in camera white balance, variable ISO, exposure compensation, automatic bracketing, custom modes, or a host of functions that come with digital cameras. Digital is a very different beast than film and the ergonomics rewuired for one to not translate well to the other. I never had to learn the menu system on an Ikeda 4X5

All true, but not relevant to the discussion. If I understood Fullstop’s point (and I admit it can be hard to know what his point is because it seems to constantly change), I believe he was saying that a Mirrorless entry does not need the full range of EF lenses because many of those wanting Mirrorless want a small camera with a few choices in the “normal” range which generally does not go wider than24 or 28mm nor longer than about 135mm, although upon further reflection I can imagine some interest in a variable aperture 70-300, which seems to be a very popular zoom range.

But of course that begs the question: why make it full frame at all? I’ve no interest one-size-fits-all Swiss army camera. Maybe I’m alone in that market.

 

[fullstop]

why make it FF? because an FF sensor has 1 full stop advantage over APS-C. camera body does not have to be much larger than one for APS-C and a FF f/2.0 lens yields the same photographic potential as a less compact and more expensive f/1.4 lens on APS-C. same for f/4 FF zoom - same capability as a f/2.8 zoom on APS-C.

FF allows for the smallest, full capability setup of camera + lens combo and then has still reserve to go with faster (larger) glass, if abd when really required/ desired. but only then.

i consider the fuji approach - crop sensor camera + expensive f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses priced almost like FF lenses, the "least economical" approach. looking for the opposite approach, compact camera, big sensor plus compact, economical lenses. i need only 1 camera but more than 1 lens. so space and cost savings on lenses are more important to me (and photographers like me). i know, i cannot get a "pancake 400/2.8" - that's fine with me, i dont ever need one, same as probably 90% of all current and future Ff camera owners. and if, i'll put it on a tripod or at least monopod, perfectly balanced on lens foot. compact camera no issue. mounting via sinple adaptor also no issue. although "eventually" all lenses will be new mount, even those where it brings no size advantage. EF will be legacy the day the first FF MILC is launched and it will be discontinued one day - a few years out.

so yes, "its gotta be FF". it is the absolute sweet spot for "sensor surface divided by gear size, weight and price".

 

[ahsanford]

so yes, "its gotta be FF". it is the absolute sweet spot for "sensor surface divided by gear size, weight and price".

I must agree. For some reason, FF is the sweet spot.

Smaller sensors require large exotic glass to do things we'd consider fairly straightforward in FF.

Oddly enough, going the other way, 44x33 Medium Format lacks the full slate of FF f/1.4 prime equivalents, everything cost much more and that extra sensor real estate isn't *that* much better than FF.

So... yeah. FF is where it's at for me. Detail if I want it. High ISO if I need it. Large aperture if I want it. Inexpensive lenses are available.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

I'm not really sure about that. For literally decades, the standard Leica rangefinder kit used by people like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank and other truly great photographers was a compact camera and a few lenses seldom going beyond the 35-135 mm range.

<snip>

In Fullstop's defense, a rangefinder-like mirrorless kit consisting of lenses in the 24-135mm range, either zooms or primes, at f4 or with variable apertures, would probably satisfy a lot of people (and might even improve their photography).

Things were a lot simpler back then.... we did not have AF systems with various zones, in camera white balance, variable ISO, exposure compensation, automatic bracketing, custom modes, or a host of functions that come with digital cameras. Digital is a very different beast than film and the ergonomics rewuired for one to not translate well to the other. I never had to learn the menu system on an Ikeda 4X5

All true, but not relevant to the discussion. If I understood Fullstop’s point (and I admit it can be hard to know what his point is because it seems to constantly change), I believe he was saying that a Mirrorless entry does not need the full range of EF lenses because many of those wanting Mirrorless want a small camera with a few choices in the “normal” range which generally does not go wider than24 or 28mm nor longer than about 135mm, although upon further reflection I can imagine some interest in a variable aperture 70-300, which seems to be a very popular zoom range.

It is very relevant to the discussion. Where do you put those extra controls? How do you access them? This greatly affects ergonomics and the physical size of the camera body..... some will be happier with smaller firm factors like the M series with less controls, while others will be happiest with a 1DX like experience.... and that includes lens choices.

 

[Kit.]

why make it FF? because an FF sensor has 1 full stop advantage over APS-C. camera body does not have to be much larger than one for APS-C and a FF f/2.0 lens yields the same photographic potential as a less compact and more expensive f/1.4 lens on APS-C. same for f/4 FF zoom - same capability as a f/2.8 zoom on APS-C.

But that's not true.

An equivalent (in the sense of focal distance and amount of light gathered per pixel) FF lens needs to have the same entrance pupil as the dedicated APS-C lens, but a bigger length.

An EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens will gather the same amount of light per pixel as its equivalent "EF-X"-sized 45/2.0, but be lighter and more compact.

As to the price... don't you count in the price of the FF body? Or do you expect to get one for free?

 

[fullstop]

what extra controls? All that's needed is a
1x shutter button ... "record video" button NOT needed on a stills camera
1x mode dial - Av, TV, M, P, B + 3x Custom, "creative sh*t" NOT needed
1x context-sensitive and freely user-assignable thumb wheel in rear
1x context-sensitive and freely assignable front wheel
1x BBF [AF] button - freely user-programmable
1x Exposure lock / asterisk button - freely user-programmable
2 additional freely user-assignable buttons on top
+ touch screen and a smart menu system.

Easily fits on a FF mirrorless camera shell as small as a Sony RX1-R II. Where is the problem?

btw: all those "complex AF" setup options - i don't want any of it. I want to select 1 AF field on the touchscreen and I want the camera to reliable focus on whatever i have targeted and if it is a moving object, I want the camera to start tracking it intelligently and reliably. I don't care, whether camera uses "single, expanded, group or all AF point/s". All I want, is that it nails the very pinpoint in the frame that I initially seleet and in in case it detects motion there, follows subject around. Plus I want to see at all times in viewfinder or on LCD currently active AF field marked with red frame and as soon as AF lock is achieved with green frame. I do NOT want to fiddle around in custom AF menus having to decide whether i will encounter "use case 1 or use case 99", only because the camera does not have enough AI / CPU power / smarts to reliably figure it out by itself whether subject is "stationary or coming straight at camera or moving erratically around".

All Canon EOS have "One-Shot AF", "Servo-AF" and "AI-AF" options. Currently nobody uses they AI-AF mode, because no one trusts it. For good reason, because even in 2018 it does not really work reliably in practice. This is one major area where i see a lot of room for improvement for every single Canon camera. I want that AI-AF option to be implemented in a reliable, simple and trusty way. I tell camera precisely what to focus on, camera locks on it and keeps it in focus while i take care of the more important, fun and creative stuff:
*getting light right,
* getting composition right and
* getting the moment right.
Those are my tasks, and boy, I am fully occupied with these three tasks. Correct exposure, correct colors and optimal sharpness = camera shall handle it.

EOS M50 AF system is a step in the right direction with Face + Eye detection and -tracking. I want my cameras to be even "AI smarter" and getting desired object/subject in focus and keep focus locked on it, until i tell it to focus on something else.

 

[fullstop]

An EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens will gather the same amount of light per pixel as its equivalent "EF-X"-sized 45/2.0, but be lighter and more compact.

As to the price... don't you count in the price of the FF body? Or do you expect to get one for free?

EF-M 32/1.4 size and price ... remains to be seen. I don't expect it to be smaller or cheaper than fully FF- capable EF 40/2.8 pancake [yes, i know, we are 1 stop shy of equivalence here ...] or FF-capable EF 50/1.8 STM].

As to price: let's say 1 camera + 5 lenses.
A) 1x APS-C 80D + 3x f/2.8 zoom + 2 f/1.4 primes
B) 1x FF MILC + 3x f/4.0 zoom and 2 f/2.0 primes.
Do you really think setup A) will be less expensive, more capable and more compact than B)?

 

[fullstop]

EF-M bayonet may be sized for full frame.

no. The very Canon people who designed EF-M clearly stated in a publicized interview it is for APS-C sensors only.

I thought I remembered reading that, too...but would like to look at it again.

Can you supply a link?

sure.
https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/551672.html

see also discussion here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35236.msg725561#msg725561

 

[Kit.]

As to price: let's say 1 camera + 5 lenses.
A) 1x APS-C 80D + 3x f/2.8 zoom + 2 f/1.4 primes
B) 1x FF MILC + 3x f/4.0 zoom and 2 f/2.0 primes.
Do you really think setup A) will be less expensive, more capable and more compact than B)?

"5 lenses" is already not compact.

And when did 80D become a MILC?