FF mirrorless mount -- go thin or go with EF?

[moreorless]

One thing to consider as well is whether the shorter flange distance is even really much of a size saver on FF. I can see why Leica for example went with it on the SL simply because its the only way there M-mount lenses would be adaptable but just look at the size/length of there native lenses. I would argue that when you move up to FF the bigger size saver of going mirrorless isn't reduced flange distance its actually being able to remove the larger prism and AF sensor. Look at this...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.345,579.394,ha,t

The overhead view with the lenses really isn't too different besides the larger Canon grip that's not directly connected to the camera being an SLR. Its the front on view where the Sony is smaller. Release a 6D like camera with no mirror and an EVF plus maybe a slightly smaller grip and you could get very close to the A7.

There's still advantages to draw from a shorter flange distance, and the Sony 28mm f2 is a good example of that. Yes, all right, it's software corrected. But it's one full stop brighter than the Canon 28mm IS USM and yet the overall lens + flange distance remains smaller, and it's dramatically smaller than the Nikon 28mm f1.8G. The following picture uses the Sony 55 and Nikon 24mm as stand in since the 28mm lenses aren't in Camerasize's database, with a blue line to roughly show where the 28mm lenses would end.

Remember that to measure overall thickness you shouldn't look at the back of a body but at the focal plane mark. The A7 series bodies, particularly the II version, are quite thick behind the sensor.

I would not say even that 28mm is so small as to make the overall setup thin enough to be pocketable easily, only the 35mm F/2.8 achieves that. So your basically looking at a very slow 35mm and a moderately fast 28mm, both with comprises on light drop-off and distortion to really get much benefit from the reduced flange distance. Added to that when you save flange distance your mostly saving empty space, if you shave height off of a camera your more likely to save both size AND weight.

Its obvious longer focal lengths will need to be larger with a smaller flange distance but even with lenses inside the flange distance of a DSLR the Sony options are often larger.

Sony 35mm F/1.4 - Longer than the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 art

Sony 24-70mm F/4 - Canon lens has that macro function built in but the Nikon 24-85mm VR is shorter despite the longer zoom.

Sony 16-35mm F/4 - Sony lens appears smaller than the Canon and Nikon versions but the difference is the Sony lens expands when zoomed towards the wide end where it is actually longer than they are.

What I think Sony is looking to exploit is following up on film era short flange distance lenses being smaller on 35mm and of course the small size of manual focus M mount lenses. This has lead to a still widely held view to small flange distance digital AF lenses will offer the same size savings when reality hasn't reflected that. Beyond that as well what are the chances a FF foreveon style sensor will throw an even greater spanner in the works? multi layer tech seems even less friendly to extreme light angles.

If you really slimmed down a cameras handling and stuck to a 35mm lens then yes a smaller flange distance leads to a significant advantage with a small flange distance but how big is the market for that and couldn't that market also be appealed to via a fixed lens camera even more successfully?

 

[MayaTlab]

One thing to consider as well is whether the shorter flange distance is even really much of a size saver on FF. I can see why Leica for example went with it on the SL simply because its the only way there M-mount lenses would be adaptable but just look at the size/length of there native lenses. I would argue that when you move up to FF the bigger size saver of going mirrorless isn't reduced flange distance its actually being able to remove the larger prism and AF sensor. Look at this...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.345,579.394,ha,t

The overhead view with the lenses really isn't too different besides the larger Canon grip that's not directly connected to the camera being an SLR. Its the front on view where the Sony is smaller. Release a 6D like camera with no mirror and an EVF plus maybe a slightly smaller grip and you could get very close to the A7.

There's still advantages to draw from a shorter flange distance, and the Sony 28mm f2 is a good example of that. Yes, all right, it's software corrected. But it's one full stop brighter than the Canon 28mm IS USM and yet the overall lens + flange distance remains smaller, and it's dramatically smaller than the Nikon 28mm f1.8G. The following picture uses the Sony 55 and Nikon 24mm as stand in since the 28mm lenses aren't in Camerasize's database, with a blue line to roughly show where the 28mm lenses would end.

Remember that to measure overall thickness you shouldn't look at the back of a body but at the focal plane mark. The A7 series bodies, particularly the II version, are quite thick behind the sensor.

I would not say even that 28mm is so small as to make the overall setup thin enough to be pocketable easily, only the 35mm F/2.8 achieves that. So your basically looking at a very slow 35mm and a moderately fast 28mm, both with comprises on light drop-off and distortion to really get much benefit from the reduced flange distance. Added to that when you save flange distance your mostly saving empty space, if you shave height off of a camera your more likely to save both size AND weight.

Its obvious longer focal lengths will need to be larger with a smaller flange distance but even with lenses inside the flange distance of a DSLR the Sony options are often larger.

Sony 35mm F/1.4 - Longer than the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 art

Sony 24-70mm F/4 - Canon lens has that macro function built in but the Nikon 24-85mm VR is shorter despite the longer zoom.

Sony 16-35mm F/4 - Sony lens appears smaller than the Canon and Nikon versions but the difference is the Sony lens expands when zoomed towards the wide end where it is actually longer than they are.

What I think Sony is looking to exploit is following up on film era short flange distance lenses being smaller on 35mm and of course the small size of manual focus M mount lenses. This has lead to a still widely held view to small flange distance digital AF lenses will offer the same size savings when reality hasn't reflected that. Beyond that as well what are the chances a FF foreveon style sensor will throw an even greater spanner in the works? multi layer tech seems even less friendly to extreme light angles.

If you really slimmed down a cameras handling and stuck to a 35mm lens then yes a smaller flange distance leads to a significant advantage with a small flange distance but how big is the market for that and couldn't that market also be appealed to via a fixed lens camera even more successfully?

As far as I'm concerned, the only body + 28mm in the photo that I could put in my messenger bag is the Sony .

Also, going by SLRgear's samples, it doesn't have (without correction) much more vignetting than the Canon and doesn't look any softer (despite the distortion correction).

The 35mm is an internally focusing lens, compared to the 40mm, which moves the entire optical block. I'm not sure they're directly comparable.

All of the FE primes use the extra space for elements - if they do so I suppose there is a good reason why .

Also, if the future might be stacked sensors (or at least sensors that are even less tolerant of acute light angle), why couldn't the future present us with the exact opposite situation (sensors that are more tolerant) ? The decision Canon will take isn't something that they should take to satisfy current users during the transition period, but something that they'll have to stick with for several decades.

I can understand that people invested in the EF mount would like to see their lenses keep a certain value, but I have a feeling that it's a little delusional when you can notice that nearly none of the lenses specifically made for mirrorless cameras use a USM/SWM type AF motor. EF mount or not, unless Canon accomplishes some miracle and create a mirrorless camera that doesn't need CDAF in any circumstance, I'm afraid USM/SWM motors will rather quickly feel a little obsolete and we'll see something akin to the 43/m43 situation.

 

[moreorless]

As far as I'm concerned, the only body + 28mm in the photo that I could put in my messenger bag is the Sony .

Again though I think the main reason for that wouldn't be the small flange distance, it would be the reduced height of the body and smaller grip, this would be even more true with most other lens options.

I think its telling that the ultra compact FF mirrorless that people here are talking up hasn't been made by Sony at all whilst there newer A7 models are all moving towards larger body designs

Also, going by SLRgear's samples, it doesn't have (without correction) much more vignetting than the Canon and doesn't look any softer (despite the distortion correction).

The big issue with light dropoff on almost all of the Sony FE wide lenses is that it doesn't diminish nearly as much as you stop down, wide open a lot of people probably desire it but at F/8 I'd expect minimal dropoff.

Also, if the future might be stacked sensors (or at least sensors that are even less tolerant of acute light angle), why couldn't the future present us with the exact opposite situation (sensors that are more tolerant) ? The decision Canon will take isn't something that they should take to satisfy current users during the transition period, but something that they'll have to stick with for several decades.

Its possible there your probably dealing with existing sensor performance, if forevon is made it work on a FF sensor your dealing with a greatly improved level of performance(at least at abse ISO) that would badly damage any system that cannot use it. I wonder as well whether this isn't now getting more likely with Sony's sensor division being spun off, previously I would imagine they would have held back from creating tech that could damage the imaging divisions sales.

I can understand that people invested in the EF mount would like to see their lenses keep a certain value, but I have a feeling that it's a little delusional when you can notice that nearly none of the lenses specifically made for mirrorless cameras use a USM/SWM type AF motor. EF mount or not, unless Canon accomplishes some miracle and create a mirrorless camera that doesn't need CDAF in any circumstance, I'm afraid USM/SWM motors will rather quickly feel a little obsolete and we'll see something akin to the 43/m43 situation.

The thing is though DSLR lenses are essentially designed to work with a superior AF system that can quickly tell them exactly what focus distance is needed rather than moving too and fro, if mirrorless gets to the level of performance where its replacing DSLR tech isn't it likely it will have achieved the same by some combination of CAF and PDAF?

 

[AvTvM]

I think its telling that the ultra compact FF mirrorless that people here are talking up hasn't been made by Sony at all whilst there newer A7 models are all moving towards larger body designs
...
The thing is though DSLR lenses are essentially designed to work with a superior AF system that can quickly tell them exactly what focus distance is needed rather than moving too and fro, if mirrorless gets to the level of performance where its replacing DSLR tech isn't it likely it will have achieved the same by some combination of CAF and PDAF?

Yes, sizewise i consider A7 II versions a step in the wrong direction. Some body depth behind the sensor plane is owed to the addition of IBIS, which is probably worth it. Larger grip however should have come with a larger, more powerful battery as well - for more shots per charge.

What i am thinking of is a FF MILC the size of a Sony R1X - just with lens mount and EVF - in a form factor like A6000 ... Rangefinder style, EVF in top left corner .. As on A600 or the RX100 III and IV.

As far as MIL AF systems are concerned, i cannot see a clear correlation between AF performance and a specific AF technology: there are ultrafast CDAF applications out there and slow ones as well as good and poor hybrid CD+PD AF implementations. Certainly Canon is at the bottom of the pack with all EOS M bodies up to now, whereas 2 year old Sony A6000 AF still is top and Samsung (NX1 + NX500) are currently best in class, followed by some Olympus models.

What i like about CDAF is its purely electronic nature. Everything is straightforward. AF performance is solely dependant on CPU power, smartness of algorithms and highly effective linear stepper motors in the lenses. Phase-AF has theoretical advantage, but in solid state version without separate phase AF unit as in mirrorflippers performance in MILCs is mixed and those on-sensor PD-AF sensels are a disturbance in the image. For whatever reason, Canon has also not been able or willing to bring a top-notch dual pixel (phase) plus CD-Af in their mirrorless EOS M bodies.

I think the question of "best mirrorless AF system" is still open right now ... Personally i'll happily take any sort of better performing AF - precision, speed, tracking moving subjects, face recognition, low light performance etc. Hoping that Canon will not fall further behind in this discipline (as they are regarding sensor tech) but bring something really great very soon. Fast, precise mirrorless AF with good tracking capabilities .. Coupled with the most intuitive UI for any AF-system: touch screen on LCD (check) and eye control AF point selection Mark II in (electronic) viewfinder. That would be major progress as far as i am concerned and a huge USP for Canon.

 

[moreorless]

The biggest reason for the size increased from the A7 to the A7 II models to me seems to be to improve the handling, better grips and space for a couple of custom function buttons on the top plate. The things demanded by most users of a FF camera system and many still feel Sony should go further in this direction.

Now I'd agree there is a market for smaller FF cameras, my question would be how large the market is and whether it can't better be handled by a fixed lens camera. If your looking at lenses in the 28-35mm range to come up with something relatively compact that doesn't really leave many lens options does it? whats more the RX1 seems to show that by going fixed lens you can have a much better performing lens in a similar sized package.

 

[AvTvM]

The biggest reason for the size increased from the A7 to the A7 II models to me seems to be to improve the handling, better grips and space for a couple of custom function buttons on the top plate. The things demanded by most users of a FF camera system and many still feel Sony should go further in this direction.

Now I'd agree there is a market for smaller FF cameras, my question would be how large the market is and whether it can't better be handled by a fixed lens camera. If your looking at lenses in the 28-35mm range to come up with something relatively compact that doesn't really leave many lens options does it? whats more the RX1 seems to show that by going fixed lens you can have a much better performing lens in a similar sized package.

For me, fixed lens digital cameras go totally against the universality and flexibility offered by electronic imaging gear. I'd never buy one, I'd always feel *severly limited" and 99% of the market seems to share that perception. It really is the tiniest of all possible imaging gear market niches.

Again, all I want is something like a FF-sensored Sony RX1 with built-in EVF and a native short-flange back lens mount up front instead of a bolt-on fixed focal length. Such a body would still be large enough to put all required hardware control points on it: front wheel [ideally Nikon style, below shutter trigger, for middle finger], rear wheel [Canon style], mode dial, 3-4 freely assignable Fn-buttons on top, AF-button and AEL-button top rear. Not much else needed, if the LCD is a responsive touchscreen [as on Canon M or Samsung NX] and it comes with a good UI/menu system [Canon-style please, NOT Sony, NOT Oly].

A small FF MILC, sensibly priced, instead of insanely ... not 3000+ USD/€ but something between 999 [more plasticky version] to 1799 [more metallicky version] plus a slow kitzoom and more importantly 3 or 5 primes between 20mm and 100mm, "as compact as possible", optically highly competent (but no Otus ambitions), moderate-fast speeds [f2.0 to 2.8], attractively priced .. in essence FF-equivalents to Canon EF-M 22/2 ... that system would sell like hot cakes. 8)

 

[moreorless]

The biggest reason for the size increased from the A7 to the A7 II models to me seems to be to improve the handling, better grips and space for a couple of custom function buttons on the top plate. The things demanded by most users of a FF camera system and many still feel Sony should go further in this direction.

Now I'd agree there is a market for smaller FF cameras, my question would be how large the market is and whether it can't better be handled by a fixed lens camera. If your looking at lenses in the 28-35mm range to come up with something relatively compact that doesn't really leave many lens options does it? whats more the RX1 seems to show that by going fixed lens you can have a much better performing lens in a similar sized package.

For me, fixed lens digital cameras go totally against the universality and flexibility offered by electronic imaging gear. I'd never buy one, I'd always feel *severly limited" and 99% of the market seems to share that perception. It really is the tiniest of all possible imaging gear market niches.

Again, all I want is something like a FF-sensored Sony RX1 with built-in EVF and a native short-flange back lens mount up front instead of a bolt-on fixed focal length. Such a body would still be large enough to put all required hardware control points on it: front wheel [ideally Nikon style, below shutter trigger, for middle finger], rear wheel [Canon style], mode dial, 3-4 freely assignable Fn-buttons on top, AF-button and AEL-button top rear. Not much else needed, if the LCD is a responsive touchscreen [as on Canon M or Samsung NX] and it comes with a good UI/menu system [Canon-style please, NOT Sony, NOT Oly].

A small FF MILC, sensibly priced, instead of insanely ... not 3000+ USD/€ but something between 999 [more plasticky version] to 1799 [more metallicky version] plus a slow kitzoom and more importantly 3 or 5 primes between 20mm and 100mm, "as compact as possible", optically highly competent (but no Otus ambitions), moderate-fast speeds [f2.0 to 2.8], attractively priced .. in essence FF-equivalents to Canon EF-M 22/2 ...that system would sell like hot cakes. 8)

My point is though that if you look to create a very small system you are naturally limiting yourself to a very narrow range of lenses, a 100mm F2.8 lens would be grossly unbalanced on an RX1 sized camera with no grip, even 24mm and 50mm lenses would likely be getting large enough to kill the attraction of such a camera.

Beyond that I would say again that I don't think the majority of the demand for FF cameras is for such limited handling either, your simply not going to be able to get A7 II handling onto an RX1 sized body and that includes having a decent EVF.

That's why Sony haven't gone this route IMHO, they don't see any money in it.

My feeling is that Canon should look to expand the APSC EOS M lens lineup and release a slightly larger camera for it with a decent EVF. At APSC I think DSLR's are naturally under more threat from mirrorless simply because the smaller lenses mean that the flange distance savings are also a lot more relevant. If they do anything at FF they should release a mirrorless EOS mount camera, use it to cut down a lot on the height of the body, reduced the grip size and come up with something not too far off an A7II model.

 

[AvTvM]

My feeling is that Canon should look to expand the APSC EOS M lens lineup and release a slightly larger camera for it with a decent EVF.

My feeling is you are not well informed. The size difference between an APS-C mirrorless camera with EVF and one without is rather minimal.
see EOS M (1) vs. Sony A6000 [unfortunately the comparison with ES M3 is bungled up on this web tool]
http://camerasize.com/compare/#351,535

I would like a Canon EOS M4 with
* 24MP sensor performance at least as good as the 2 year old (!) Sony A6000
* body size exactly like the Sony A6000, but somewhat chunkier grip to hold Canon LP-E6N battery (for 500+ shots CIPA-standard rating)
* build-quality like the EOS M (original M not M2, M3, M10!)
* built-in EVF in the same position as Sony A6000, but tiltable like in Sony RX 1000 IV with at least Full-HD resolution = "6 Mega-Subpixels" 1920x1080x3]
* AF performance - speed, precision, features - at least as goos as in the 2 year old (!) Sony A6000
* touchscreen as responsive and good as on any EOS M
* EOS-type Canon user interface with rear wheel and front wheel and back-button AF plus 4 well-placed user-assignable Fn buttons
* at a pice not higher than Sony A6000
Why does Canon not make that?

And then exactly the same beast, just a bit larger to accomodate FF sensor, new native FF "EF-X" mount, with sensor at least as good as the one in A7 II ... for USD/€ 999,-

As soon as those are avaliable I promise to write a personal thank-you letter to the Canon head honchos, Masaya Maeda (Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Image Communication Products Operations Canon Inc.) and to his freakin' octogenarian boss Mr. Fujio Mitarai.

 

[Proscribo]

My feeling is you are not well informed. The size difference between an APS-C mirrorless camera with EVF and one without is rather minimal.
see EOS M (1) vs. Sony A6000 [unfortunately the comparison with ES M3 is bungled up on this web tool]
http://camerasize.com/compare/#351,535

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that A6000 screen is nearly useless in terms of size.

 

[AvTvM]

My feeling is you are not well informed. The size difference between an APS-C mirrorless camera with EVF and one without is rather minimal.
see EOS M (1) vs. Sony A6000 [unfortunately the comparison with ES M3 is bungled up on this web tool]
http://camerasize.com/compare/#351,535

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that A6000 screen is nearly useless in terms of size.

I'll happily trade in some back LCD screen size for a good EVF.

 

[moreorless]

I'm not sure how that goes against my point of "slightly" larger? I would say a little larger screen would be preferable though.

Again I think the issue is you can release an APSC camera that size and still have a lot of wide/normal lenses that balance well with it. You move up to FF though and your naturally limiting which lenses will work plus going with a built in lens does seem to both save size and maximise performance.

 

[AvTvM]

I'm not sure how that goes against my point of "slightly" larger? I would say a little larger screen would be preferable though.

Again I think the issue is you can release an APSC camera that size and still have a lot of wide/normal lenses that balance well with it. You move up to FF though and your naturally limiting which lenses will work plus going with a built in lens does seem to both save size and maximise performance.

The lenses I've already listed would work nicely on a small FF MILC. And new native short flange distance lenses could be even smaller. And it would still offer the option to work with any EF lens, no matter how small or large it is. I want both options in 1 system: A) small & light kit when thats all I need AND B) use of any EF lens [and possibly all sorts of other lenses] when there is a need for them. That's why I will never ever buy a camera with built-in lens. For thoses tasks I use a smartphone.

 

[moreorless]

The lenses I've already listed would work nicely on a small FF MILC. And new native short flange distance lenses could be even smaller. And it would still offer the option to work with any EF lens, no matter how small or large it is. I want both options in 1 system: A) small & light kit when thats all I need AND B) use of any EF lens [and possibly all sorts of other lenses] when there is a need for them. That's why I will never ever buy a camera with built-in lens. For thoses tasks I use a smartphone.

If you mean adapted EF lenses I think only the 40mm pancake would, if you mean non adapted potential lenses I would say probably only fairly slow 28mm and 35mm lenses would. You could obviously mount larger lenses but then why go for an ultra compact body at all?

Again I think you could get an EF mount mirrorless camera/lens package pretty close to the size of the Sony A7's for all but the above handful of very small lenses, What you can't do is make an APSC mirrorless with an EF mount as smaller as the EOS M or even slightly larger models.