Full Frame Mirrorless in the Works [CR2]

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<p>While Canon themselves have confirmed an “enthusiast” mirrorless camera will come from Canon eventually, no one is quite sure what that means.</p>
<p>We’re told that Canon is actively working on a full frame mirrorless camera, but that Canon may first announce a higher end APS-C sensor EOS M camera first. The full frame camera would retain a version of the EF-M mount we’re told, though it would likely require its own set of lenses due to image circle issues with the current crop of EF-M lenses.</p>
<p>No timeline has been given, but we expect Canon to become more aggressive in the mirrorless space in the coming 12-18 months.</p>
<p>I do wonder if all of this is being held back as they try to figure out how EF lenses fit in with mirrorless.</p>

 

[Chaitanya]

excited to see what Canon does with their mirrorless offerings.

 

[PureClassA]

Rumor coming right on the heels of the 3rd Q Financials... We get it. Canon has to get serious in the MILC market just to keep up with the times. They can do that without scaling back their Professional DSLR divisions. Sometimes I wonder if that's what some folks worry about.

Maybe I'm in the minority (but I don't think so), but as a semi-pro/pro I really do NOT want a compact little MILC body in my hands all day for serious work. I don't care for the feel and ergonomics whatsoever. The 5 body is about the most perfect thing ever made. If Canon makes some MILC stuff in a 5-type body then fine.

I would even look at buying this rumored FF MILC if it was Alpha-like or even more compact but NOT to replace my real gear. I also suspect Canon will have to find some solution for the EF dilemma. If they can make a FF MILC that can NATIVELY mount EF glass I think they'll have a big winner. But of course this means bigger flange distance that MILCs normally have and therefore not as compact. But if Canon could create a FF MILC in, say, an SL1/Rebel body ....

 

[neuroanatomist]

I do wonder if all of this is being held back as they try to figure out how EF lenses fit in with mirrorless.

Could be just the broader strategy – long term planning, waiting for the MILC market to grow...marathon, not sprint.

 

[HaroldC3]

Any chance Sony allows Canon to use one of their sensors for what would be an a7 competitor?

Hoping for an enthusiast m though but my expectations are kind of low based on past experience.

 

[Don Haines]

There is absolutely nothing to say that a FF mirrorless could not be in a similar body style to that of a 5D3... we are talking tried and true ergonomics here..... make it too small and you don't fit properly in people's hands (BIG problem with larger lenses), you loose real estate to mount controls, and the smaller body has less heat-sinking abilities.....

 

[Random Orbits]

Any chance Sony allows Canon to use one of their sensors for what would be an a7 competitor?

Hoping for an enthusiast m though but my expectations are kind of low based on past experience.

Not the newest generation of what Sony has. The new a7s have been out for months. Nikon is still stuck with older sensors and Pentax is using the 36MP sensor for its NEW FF camera.

 

[Random Orbits]

There is absolutely nothing to say that a FF mirrorless could not be in a similar body style to that of a 5D3... we are talking tried and true ergonomics here..... make it too small and you don't fit properly in people's hands (BIG problem with larger lenses), you loose real estate to mount controls, and the smaller body has less heat-sinking abilities.....

I hope they come out with an elegant solution to do something with the open space of the mirrorbox assembly. Perhaps it makes more sense to introduce pro-mirrorless in the same form factor and flange distance as the current EOS cameras. The fast glass won't be any smaller or lighter (look at the 35 f/1.4 for the a7), so you might gain a benefit for ultrawide/consumer zooms with smaller max apertures but for those that bring several lenses to span a wide focal length range, that benefit is marginal.

 

[sanj]

It was matter of time. They had to embrace the future.
Leica already has a mirror less that competes, or surpasses in some areas, the 1dx.
Lets see Canon's reply.

 

[MayaTlab]

There is absolutely nothing to say that a FF mirrorless could not be in a similar body style to that of a 5D3... we are talking tried and true ergonomics here..... make it too small and you don't fit properly in people's hands (BIG problem with larger lenses), you loose real estate to mount controls, and the smaller body has less heat-sinking abilities.....

I hope they come out with an elegant solution to do something with the open space of the mirrorbox assembly. Perhaps it makes more sense to introduce pro-mirrorless in the same form factor and flange distance as the current EOS cameras. The fast glass won't be any smaller or lighter (look at the 35 f/1.4 for the a7), so you might gain a benefit for ultrawide/consumer zooms with smaller max apertures but for those that bring several lenses to span a wide focal length range, that benefit is marginal.

Some Sony FE lenses are in fact quite dramatically smaller than their DSLR counterparts, taking into account the front element to sensor length (Sony 28mm f2 for example - and it's brighter, and cheaper ! And doesn't seem to perform that much worse than the Canon), and, in the case of Canon, which EF mount is entirely electronic anyway (unlike Nikon, that for some reason still continues to release lenses in 2015 with a mechanical aperture lever), adapting EF lenses shouldn't be too difficult. In fact it's already been done. Perhaps people could find adapters annoying to use in some scenarios, and perhaps there could be some tolerancing issues with fast lenses and high resolution sensors.
In addition, it isn't because it's difficult to fully exploit the benefits of a shorter flange distance in 2015 that it will still be the case in 2035. Perhaps by this time sensors and filter stacks will be more accepting of sharper ray angles, who knows ?
Keeping the EF mount looks like a very good short term solution - and given that any misstep could be deadly it might be a good survival approach. Long term, I'm not sure it's the best idea ever.
But I don't think the EF-M mount is brilliant as well. What if sensor yields increase and medium format gets cheaper and cheaper ? What if cinema wants to use 65mm-ish sensors, like the Alexa 65 ?
I think a shorter flange (but not too short) distance mount with a rather widish throat diameter, at least as wide as the EF mount (if you pull a Sony, you can put the Pentax 645Z's sensor in the current EF mount throat diameter) would be more future-proof than the current EF or EF-M mounts, either for photo or video.

 

[sanj]

There is absolutely nothing to say that a FF mirrorless could not be in a similar body style to that of a 5D3... we are talking tried and true ergonomics here..... make it too small and you don't fit properly in people's hands (BIG problem with larger lenses), you loose real estate to mount controls, and the smaller body has less heat-sinking abilities.....

I hope they come out with an elegant solution to do something with the open space of the mirrorbox assembly. Perhaps it makes more sense to introduce pro-mirrorless in the same form factor and flange distance as the current EOS cameras. The fast glass won't be any smaller or lighter (look at the 35 f/1.4 for the a7), so you might gain a benefit for ultrawide/consumer zooms with smaller max apertures but for those that bring several lenses to span a wide focal length range, that benefit is marginal.

That is what I am waiting to see as well. I would like it to retain the current form factor.
Would like them to also have a small and light, high ISO small camera with a fixed 35mm lens for people like me who want such a camera for travel, family etc. With a pop up flash. If they make it look like the Fuji/Leica with shutter/ISO dials I would be ecstatic.

 

[E.H.]

Maybe I'm in the minority (but I don't think so), but as a semi-pro/pro I really do NOT want a compact little MILC body in my hands all day for serious work. I don't care for the feel and ergonomics whatsoever. The 5 body is about the most perfect thing ever made. If Canon makes some MILC stuff in a 5-type body then fine.

Funny, I was about to write "Maybe I'm in the minority" as well, except I'd love to have a smaller body . I'm a professional photojournalist, I've been using the 5D mark III since switching from Nikon, and I've added a Fuji X100s to the bag 2 years ago. My first camera was a Nikon F3, 20 years ago, and if I could have a dslr/mirrorless in that body, I wouldn't think twice about buying 2 right away. For most things, the 5D mark III is 99% perfect , but in certain situations I'd feel more comfortable carrying a smaller camera and don't attract attention and/or intimidate the subjects. I realize it's a very personal thing, but personally, once I tried a smaller body, the harder it got to justify carrying the bigger body in the bag all the time, *IF* I can achieve pretty much the same quality and if the shooting experience is the same or better.
After trying the Sony A7 I gotta say those cameras look *very* interesting, but right now I think I'd compromise too much by switchng to that system. I thought the OVF would've been the deal-breaker, but funnily enough, it's not the OVF that's keeping me from buying one, but rather the short battery life and the buffer size (and to a lesser degree, the lack of lossless compressed raw). If Canon puts out a mirrorless body that goes head-to-head with the Sony's next year (year of Olympics, btw), things are going to get quite interesting.

 

[raptor3x]

(Sony 28mm f2 for example - and it's brighter, and cheaper ! And doesn't seem to perform that much worse than the Canon)

In this case I think it's hard to separate out the effects of the shorter flange distance from the effects of not having IS and heavily relying on software corrections. The new Loxia 21 seems like a slightly better example of the potential benefits in terms of size reduction for mirrorless bodies.

 

[raptor3x]

It will be interesting to see if Zeiss releases Canon versions of their new mirrorless lenses if/when Canon releases a full frame mirrorless body. The flange distance is the same between the EF-M mount and E mount so licensing concerns should be the only real roadblock.

 

[stefang]

I don't need smaller, I like the form factor of my 1Ds II too much. In fact, my EOS5 with VG10 and 20D with BG-E2 were about the same size. (Losing a bit of weight would be appreciated though)
So Canon: please create a mirrorless about the size of the 1D series! (Losing a bit of weight would be appreciated though)
Canon should create an EF mount with shorter register and an adapter (essentially an extension tube) to allow legacy EF lenses to be mounted

 

[mb66energy]

About body size of a FF MILC:

I fully agree. After upgrading to old 5D s I share your statement about 5D. Combined with the soft shutter release button I get a good rate of usable shots with 1/30 second with 100mm macro at 1:2 ...
Just with a short tele or mild wideangle the size advantage of MILCs is negligible - EOS M is really compact only with the 22mm prime.
Shave off the bulky prism of the SLR viewfinder and the left part of the cam (from users perspective) and you get a compact but very ergonomical camera (see img below) with laaaaarge battery.
The reduced width of the body would be essential to store two cameras side by side in photo packs/backpacks!

The mount di(tri?)lemma:

My preference/solution would be the following:
* use the omitted mirror box to add a ring around the mount to set f-stop / exp compensation / ISO or whatsoever
* use the macro extension ring of 12mm as adapter for EF lenses
* use the shorter flange distance for 1 or 2 ultra compact lenses and for the freedom to use other lenses like FD lenses ...

[...]

Maybe I'm in the minority (but I don't think so), but as a semi-pro/pro I really do NOT want a compact little MILC body in my hands all day for serious work. I don't care for the feel and ergonomics whatsoever. The 5 body is about the most perfect thing ever made. If Canon makes some MILC stuff in a 5-type body then fine.

[...]

I also suspect Canon will have to find some solution for the EF dilemma. If they can make a FF MILC that can NATIVELY mount EF glass I think they'll have a big winner. But of course this means bigger flange distance that MILCs normally have and therefore not as compact. But if Canon could create a FF MILC in, say, an SL1/Rebel body ....

 

[Dylan777]

Slightly larger than current M with pop-up EVF. Better AF speed than a7. Comes with 20mm and 35mm pancake plus 200mm same size as current 200f2.8.

Done

 

[Antono Refa]

just wondering - what would be the difference in benefits between

1. Going mirrorless, keeping the flange distance.

2. Going mirrorless, shortening the flange distance?

From memory, issues are raised with fast & wide lenses, the end being around 85mm f/1.2 (= that one would benefit, but 100mm f/2 & 135mm f/2 not). That would make a difference for a dozen lenses, maybe a couple more.

Wouldn't allowing those to protrude into the body while keeping the same flange distance be as good a solution?

Wouldn't allowing those to protrude into the body, with a mirror locked up, be as good a solution?

 

[Eagle Eye]

C'mon full frame with an FD lens mount!

 

[mb66energy]

I see no longer a strong necessity to have lenses near the sensor. A retrofocus construction helps to keep the distance large between image plane (=sensor) and the last lens element ... and reduces the angle of incidence of light. The latter is important because sensors are more reflective than film emulsions.
So keeping the flange distance isn't that bad if you have potential IQ in mind. And it integrates seemlessly into the Canon ecosystem.

On the other hand I would prefer the possibility to shorten the flange distance: e.g. by removing an element, e.g. the 12mm extension tube which still exists ... to adapt e.g. FD lenses.
Just seen your post, Eagle Eye: You are not alone ...

But that's the perspective of a scientist who likes to have as much universality in each device he owns and uses.

just wondering - what would be the difference in benefits between

1. Going mirrorless, keeping the flange distance.

2. Going mirrorless, shortening the flange distance?

From memory, issues are raised with fast & wide lenses, the end being around 85mm f/1.2 (= that one would benefit, but 100mm f/2 & 135mm f/2 not). That would make a difference for a dozen lenses, maybe a couple more.

Wouldn't allowing those to protrude into the body while keeping the same flange distance be as good a solution?

Wouldn't allowing those to protrude into the body, with a mirror locked up, be as good a solution?