FF Mirrorless Poll: if new mount is thin, how many new lenses will we see?

[ahsanford]

Just curious what everyone's thoughts are on how much new-mount glass we would see if Canon does indeed offer a thin-mount FF mirrorless setup.

I am not asking how many lenses we will see at launch. I am referring to the 'end footprint' of the new mount's lens ecosystem, i.e. many years down the road.

COMPANION POLL HERE:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35293.0

- A

 

[[email protected]]

Expectation for Canon's *self-perception* of how many lenses being introduced constitutes a good amount at launch:
Placeholder - 1-2 lenses
Good Start - 3-5
Incredible Priority - 6

*Users' perception* of amounts at launch:
1-2 lenses - Really just a body that is used only with an adapter
3-5 lenses - Mostly an adapter body with one or two options for something small
6-9 lenses - Mostly an adapter body, but with potential to pick up native mount glass over time that is deserving (which means 25-35 percent of releases)

The big issue with the difference between those two sets of perceptions isn't what happens at launch, but rather what happens 18 months after launch, when people's expectations of a new mount lineup haven't materialized, and they have 3 crappy kit lenses, 3 lenses that are just slightly worse than new third party glass, but smaller, and 3 lenses that are fantastic.

The question of whether Sony should be tested will shift from Sony's various deficiencies - such as lens lineup, awful service, and Martian interfaces - to whether or not the Canon bodies are at least 80 percent as good as the Sony ones - the inflection point after which people are willing to consider switching.

It'll be messy. The biggest winner among all players will be Sigma, who will be offering a complete, fast, excellent lineup in all mount flavors.

 

[ahsanford]

The big issue with the difference between those two sets of perceptions isn't what happens at launch, but rather what happens 18 months after launch...

Good post (in general), but I wanted to highlight that little nugget of insight above.

I agree that some folks will be all-in expecting an FE sort of full mirrorless portfolio regardless of all common sense saying it won't happen (due to limited size savings for bigger/faster lenses, Canon famously underwhelmingly-supporting it's non-EF mounts, EF already existing to serve that need, etc.). And those folks will be in tears if Canon doesn't bring a steady gravy train of thin-mount glass and announce that EF is shutting down soon. :

But those folks are lost.

Canon isn't Sony, and to act like Sony with EF being such a juggernaut (both good and bad: good to have, but bad to have to design/build/inventory/maintain/obsolete) simply isn't going to happen. So let those folks cry -- the tears are on their unreasonable expectations, not on Canon's inability to satisfy them.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Side predictions (if the mount is thin):

• Will we see L lenses on FF mirrorless? Yes. They'd be leaving way too much money on the table not to do this. (May they call these premium lenses something else, give them a blue ring instead of a red ring, etc.? Possibly, but the price point and marketing prestige will be there.)
  
  
• Will we see Ring USM, truly mechanical FTM focusing, etc? Really hope so, but we haven't seen anything but FBW for EF-M to date...
  

- A

 

[timmy_650]

I think it will depend on how good the adapter is, if there isn't any difference with the AF. I think we will see less FF-M mounts. My understanding is that wide angle is where we can see the improvement in lenses so we might see more of those lenses. But on something like 70-200 f2.8 on a mirrorless wont be any smaller than a dslr.

While writing this, I was thinking about if you have two bodies lets say 5D and FF-M, the EF will be able to go on the 5D and FF-M but FF-M lenses probably wont be able to go on the 5D.

 

[ahsanford]

While writing this, I was thinking about if you have two bodies lets say 5D and FF-M, the EF will be able to go on the 5D and FF-M but FF-M lenses probably wont be able to go on the 5D.

That's exactly right. Same as trying to put an EF-M lens on an EF-S mount. You can't.

And that's the wild card. Is Canon preparing for a massive migration from EF to FF mirrorless like FD was to EF?

Most folks would say 'hell no' for a dozen correct reasons.

Others on this forum seem very skittish like a decision to go with a thin FF mount is the beginning of the end for EF for ...reasons that don't really make enough sense to walk away from the staggering investment and advantage EF represents today.

So, no, EF isn't going anywhere in my book unless these FF mirrorless bodies are so sexy, pricey and successful in the market that it underwrites remaking (most of) EF in the new mount. I just don't see that happening, especially in a following (and not leading) market introduction timing. Maybe we'll get a mount conversion service or something like that, but it will just be EF lenses with a mechanical lens tube. I just don't see any future where EF goes away -- not until science-fiction tech like lightfield, curved sensors, etc. arrives, and that's not happening in these kind of products anytime soon..

- A

 

[timmy_650]

I could see the running an AD campaign why EF lenses are good for their FF-M camera but just make specialty lenses for FF-M like pancakes and smaller lenses.

 

[Mikehit]

If Harry is to be believed, you forgot the option of 'something that will fit on a smartphone'

 

[ahsanford]

If Harry is to be believed, you forgot the option of 'something that will fit on a smartphone'

Ergonomics? What are those?

Physics of lens size? That's not a thing.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The underlying question is how many cameras will be sold? If a Mirrorless camera series sells very well, than we would see more lenses. It takes many years to develop new lenses, Canon has only a few teams that develop one lens at a time, it can take them 2-3 years. That limits the number of lenses. Thats why I would prefer a Mirrorless that uses EF, it will take 20+ years to build up a good selection.

 

[Mikehit]

If Harry is to be believed

Also if the world is flat, maybe the swift boat vets for truth can show that 911 was Planned by the Bush dynasty and that Putin rigged the 2016 presidental election for The Donald

Big Sony lenses are white so maybe they license from Sony...?

 

[fullstop]

"eventually" ALL (new) Canon lenses for FF sensor cameras will be "EF-X" new mount.

 

[ahsanford]

Wow. We are all over the map with this survey.

We have roughly equal responses that Canon will just offer a few tiny thin-mount lenses vs. Canon will rebuild almost all of EF in the new mount.

Wow.

- A

 

[jolyonralph]

The key word here is *eventually*.

In 20 years they won't be making EF lenses any more.

 

[jolyonralph]

Just to compare, when the EF mount launched here were the lenses available within the first year:

* 50mm f/1.8
* 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5
* 35-105 f/3.5-4.5
* 100-300 f/5.6
15mm f/2.8 fisheye
28mm f/2.8
70-210 f/4
100-300 f/5.6L (First L series EF lens, I have this lens )
135mm f/2.8 soft focus
300mm f/2.8L
28-70 f/3.5-4.5
50mm f/2.8 Compact Macro
50-200 f/3.5-4.5

Four slowish zoom lenses at launch and a 50mm. The only 'major' lens in the first year was the 300/2.8

 

[ahsanford]

Just to compare, when the EF mount launched here were the lenses available within the first year:

I think that if Canon goes thin, they need to tread delicately with future-looking actions and statements to reinforce that EF won't become the equivalent of the A mount.

So in the first year -- if it's a thin mount -- I don't see Canon doing any of the following:

• Putting out a huge spread of lenses -- it would raise fears that EF is going away.
  
  
• Putting out anything that will render the body + lens combination as big as the FF equivalent combination -- it, too, would imply that EF is going away (if it's not all about being small -- [gulp] ). So that means not signing up for pro f/2.8 zooms or f/1.4 primes in the early stage of the platform.
  
  
• Making any outright commitments or statements that the new mount will be as big and comprehensive as EF someday --> this implies Canon is in a rebuilding phase and that their current EF professionals are not Canon's priority. This could drive an exodus to other manufacturers.
  
  
• Saying anything other than "The EF adaptor works perfectly" -- the same as a native EF mount. If they undermine the adaptor, state that it has certain limitations or body-lens-communication fine print and people will get really wound up and demand a full EF mount mirrorless body.

But I did ask 'eventually' with the poll. My gut says that EF is simply too big and too important and too real/on-the-shelf/financially committed to walk away from. I see EF living on for at least 10 years, likely much longer so I'm treating that in the 'eventually' phase. Only when Canon makes other changes -- like moving to curved sensors -- will abandoning EF make financial sense, IMHO. That would be the revolutionary change worth investing dollars and risk into: the lenses could get so much tinier/lighter.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

But I did ask 'eventually' with the poll. My gut says that EF is simply too big and too important and too real/on-the-shelf/financially committed to walk away from. I see EF living on for at least 10 years, likely much longer so I'm treating that in the 'eventually' phase. Only when Canon makes other changes -- like moving to curved sensors -- will abandoning EF make financial sense, IMHO. That would be the revolutionary change worth investing dollars and risk into: the lenses could get so much tinier/lighter.

- A

It really boils down to sales. If a lot of mirrorless sales happen and buyers are switching to mirrorless in large numbers, we could see DSLR's going away in 10-20 years, or even very quickly. The market can switch almost overnight if a new product is popular.

Canon has been worried that a Mirrorless model will flop, just like their previous attempts with pellicle mirrors did. I don't expect that to happen.

I firmly believe that the price of mirrorless cameras could be lower. Cost to manufacture is closely related to the number and complexity of parts, and elimination of moving mirrors, sub mirrors, exposure and AF sensors, pentaprism come to mind. The Autofocus sensor has to be calibrated on each camera. Some of those moving parts also figure in the cost to maintain a camera and cost to Canon for warranty service.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm a visual person and I'm trying to wrap my head around the EF-X / protrudes into the mirror-space idea.

So does this look right? (Not do you like it, but is this what folks meant with that idea?)

Thx,
A

 

[BillB]

I'm a visual person and I'm trying to wrap my head around the EF-X / protrudes into the mirror-space idea.

So does this look right? (Not do you like it, but is this what folks meant with that idea?)

Thx,
A

This EF-X approach could be used to avoid retrofocus wide angle designs needed for use with DSLR cameras.

 

[Antono Refa]

Just to compare, when the EF mount launched here were the lenses available within the first year:

<snip, 12+ lenses>

Four slowish zoom lenses at launch and a 50mm. The only 'major' lens in the first year was the 300/2.8

When EF was launched, it wasn't backward compatible with existing FD lenses.

There's a snow ball's chance in hell that Canon's mirrorless FF camera would be incompatible with EF. The new mount might be thinner and/or have extra pins, but it will be compatible with EF, possibly via an extension tube like EOS-M.

As Sony's ecosystem shows, the size benefit is there for the limited case of slow wide lenses. I'm not saying Canon will pass this segment, I'm saying Canon will not piss off people who bought several >$1,500 lenses by making said lenses obsolete by new versions that are identical except having a built in extension tube and a paint job (new ring color and a different shade of white / black).