Full Frame Mirrorless in the Works [CR2]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd like something about the size and weight of the SL1, perhaps a little smaller. I'm looking for lighter weight, not so much smaller size. It should use the current EF mount except with a 22mm flange distance and be built

Why would it use the current EF mount, but have a different flange distance? That's a recipe for mass confusion, EF lenses would fit, but not work, Canon would have to come up with another gimmick to keep the wrong lenses from being attached. Its bad enough with EF-s and EF lenses, but at least they have the same flange distance and EF lenses work on all EF mounts.

 

[dolina]

The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.

Lighter, perhaps, but very little chance it will be smaller. Sony's 70-200 f/4 is large like ours.

The minute you want to get more ambitious than, say, a 50mm f/2, you no longer are pursuing mirrorless for size reasons. So chasing long or fast glass on mirrorless effectively turns this from 'Same IQ in a smaller package' to 'What can pulling the mirror box do for me that I couldn't do before?'

Fuji and Olympus have lived in the former camp and Sony has had the stones to chase both camps -- their APS-C rigs play it small and their FF rigs are directly going after FF SLR users' expectations. It's expensive to bet that way, but one of those two bets will certainly win in the end.

- A

Weight is the selling point of mirrorless.

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Canon 5D Mark III + 70-200mm f/4 IS
950g + 760g = 1,710g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.8 OSS
556g + 155g = 711g

Canon 5D Mark III + 35mm f/2 IS
950g + 335g = 1,285g

*Changed all the Canon lenses to IS models as all the Sony bodies + lenses have SteadyShot.

If I were building up my system from scratch I'd lean more towards a Sony system than wait for Canon to bring out a full frame mirrorless.

I hope Sony makes a medium format version of Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II.

 

[Etienne]

The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.

Lighter, perhaps, but very little chance it will be smaller. Sony's 70-200 f/4 is large like ours.

The minute you want to get more ambitious than, say, a 50mm f/2, you no longer are pursuing mirrorless for size reasons. So chasing long or fast glass on mirrorless effectively turns this from 'Same IQ in a smaller package' to 'What can pulling the mirror box do for me that I couldn't do before?'

Fuji and Olympus have lived in the former camp and Sony has had the stones to chase both camps -- their APS-C rigs play it small and their FF rigs are directly going after FF SLR users' expectations. It's expensive to bet that way, but one of those two bets will certainly win in the end.

- A

Weight is the selling point of mirrorless.

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Canon 5D Mark III + 70-200mm f/4 IS
950g + 760g = 1,710g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.8 OSS
556g + 155g = 711g

Canon 5D Mark III + 35mm f/2 IS
950g + 335g = 1,285g

*Changed all the Canon lenses to IS models as all the Sony bodies + lenses have SteadyShot.

If I were building up my system from scratch I'd lean more towards a Sony system than wait for Canon to bring out a full frame mirrorless.

I hope Sony makes a medium format version of Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II.

The Sony 35 1.8 is APS-C . There's a 35 f/2.8 and a 35 f/1.4
The f/1.4 is 630g ... similar to other FF 35 f/1.4 lenses

 

[daemorhedron]

I know it's a tough journey and consumers are more demanding than ever, but I really want to say 'about damn time'. The EOS M is unimaginably better than reviews ever gave it credit for, but any follow up to it has been completely lame and offered no reason at all to upgrade. I don't have much confidence in Canon to follow up in mirrorless of any kind for at least the next year, maybe even two.

I made the switch from EOS M to Sony a7II for three reasons: ability to control camera via USB with liveview, higher DR with less noise, and full frame for better DOF. I can say the FE lenses are not bad, and while they're is not a ton of selection, it absolutely beats the pants off of the EF-M line despite the fact that they are all quite good lenses. I would LOVE FF MILC+touch screen in Canon format but I've already been waiting years for it.

And respectfully I don't get the mentality of some people. If you don't like mirrorless, then don't use it. If you want a camera the size of a SL1 or 5d Mark III, you ALREADY HAVE IT. =)

 

[dolina]

The Sony 35 1.8 is APS-C . There's a 35 f/2.8 and a 35 f/1.4
The f/1.4 is 630g ... similar to other FF 35 f/1.4 lenses

Updated

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Canon 5D Mark III + 70-200mm f/4 IS
950g + 760g = 1,710g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.4
556g + 630g = 1,186g

Canon 5D Mark III + 35mm f/1.4 II
950g + 760g = 1,710g

 

[mb66energy]

I'd like something about the size and weight of the SL1, perhaps a little smaller. I'm looking for lighter weight, not so much smaller size. It should use the current EF mount except with a 22mm flange distance and be built

Why would it use the current EF mount, but have a different flange distance? That's a recipe for mass confusion, EF lenses would fit, but not work, Canon would have to come up with another gimmick to keep the wrong lenses from being attached. Its bad enough with EF-s and EF lenses, but at least they have the same flange distance and EF lenses work on all EF mounts.

I had preferred an extension tube as adapter which is maybe useful for a DSLR as extension tube but you are right: If you mount an EF(-S) lens without the adapter you have focus capabilities far beyond infinity which is useless. So I would say now to Canon: Use a special EF adapter which is delivered with the camera.

 

[ahsanford]

Weight is the selling point of mirrorless.

...to you and some others, certainly. But not to Sony.

The minute they start chasing glass over 50mm or glass faster than f/2 (which they obviously are doing), the lenses look a lot like Nikon F or Canon EF glass and the weight upside of a lighter body is diminished. Keep in mind that Sony is making their rigs heavier with each generation -- partially due to build quality and added tech on-board, but also due to their own photographers wanting a better counterweight to these heavier lenses!

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Weight is the selling point of mirrorless.

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Canon 5D Mark III + 70-200mm f/4 IS
950g + 760g = 1,710g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.8 OSS
556g + 155g = 711g

Canon 5D Mark III + 35mm f/2 IS
950g + 335g = 1,285g

*Changed all the Canon lenses to IS models as all the Sony bodies + lenses have SteadyShot.

If I were building up my system from scratch I'd lean more towards a Sony system than wait for Canon to bring out a full frame mirrorless.

I hope Sony makes a medium format version of Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II.

The weight difference is small, except for pancake lenses. You do need to compare FF with FF, that 35mm f/1.8 is not FF. This illustrates yet another bit of confusion that buyers have, lenses for E mount get people mixed up all the time.

I'd want a mirrorless that had more accurate focusing, and higher reliability, but Sony does not have a track record for reliability of their products, and their repair has been beyond slow..

I'm not fooled by a smaller more difficult to operate body, when similar lenses weigh the same.

So far, you can't have both. FF sensor lenses do not get smaller with mirrorless bodies, and the good ones are heavier than the body and pretty large.

If you are willing to use light weight small aperture consumer lenses with a $3500 camera, then you'll be happy with the size and weight.

 

[raptor3x]

The Sony 35 1.8 is APS-C . There's a 35 f/2.8 and a 35 f/1.4
The f/1.4 is 630g ... similar to other FF 35 f/1.4 lenses

Updated

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Canon 5D Mark III + 70-200mm f/4 IS
950g + 760g = 1,710g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.4
556g + 630g = 1,186g

Canon 5D Mark III + 35mm f/1.4 II
950g + 760g = 1,710g

Canon 6D + 70-200 f/4 IS( or 35L II)
680g + 760g = 1440g

 

[gmon750]

If this future FF mirrorless camera allows me to use my 5DM3 EF lenses, I'll be next in line to buy one. I for one prefer the size of the 5D. I looked at other mirrorless cameras and I find the body just too small for my big hands. I actually have to use an external battery grip attached to the camera to make it comfortable in my hands. Everyone is different.

 

[ahsanford]

If this future FF mirrorless camera allows me to use my 5DM3 EF lenses, I'll be next in line to buy one.

There is a 100% certainty an FF mirrorless mount will have an EF adaptor. That's an absolute hammerlock guarantee or the brand is DOA until a solid 10-15 lenses arrive.

It may not be included with the body and it may not be as razor fast as a native EF mount, but it will be available at launch for certain.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

Personally, I prefer camera body as small as possible. And lenses as small as possible - for a given focal length and fully open aperture. Optical/physical limits will of course apply, as long as glass lenses are used = until lightfield imaging is finally and fully worked out.

I don't get all the clamoring for larger bodies. It is so easy to attach all sorts of grips and rigs to make small gear larger, heavier and bulkier ... if so desired. Making bulky, heavy gear smaller and lighter is typically not possible on the user end.

Also don't understand all the EF glass whining. As opposed to the transition from FD to EF this time round physics work in our favor: flange distance gets shorter. All existing (EF) lenses can be adapted via really simple and cheap, optics-free adaptors. Canon shall package one with every MILC body and be done with it. Any lens that cannot be built as compact or good for mirrorless as for DSLRS shall not be built. meaning: UWA to moderate tele lenses will come in new native mirrorless mount, everything else will only be replaced over many years - and only when new the lens would have been up for a re-work and better image quality anyways ...

I want mirrorless gear as small as my EOS M that I can use with small & light lenses for certain applications in a certain focal length and aperture range and with larger lenses if & when required. And no moving parts please. Solid state, 100% electronic for me please. Including fully electronic shutter with 1/8000s X-sync and fully electronic aperture (100% rounded at any opening), everything totally silent (for use in church and classic music concerts) , everything 100% vibration free.

Now move your butt, Canon, I got money to spend!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If this future FF mirrorless camera allows me to use my 5DM3 EF lenses, I'll be next in line to buy one.

There is a 100% certainty an FF mirrorless mount will have an EF adaptor. That's an absolute hammerlock guarantee or the brand is DOA until a solid 10-15 lenses arrive.

It may not be included with the body and it may not be as razor fast as a native EF mount, but it will be available at launch for certain.

- A

That's a certainty, but the weight of the adapter is a negative. Since it would take 20 years before all the commonly used EF lenses were replaced, I'd not fall for a tiny Mirrorless, it just would take too many years before all the lenses were available in the new mount, and they would probably be a compromise due to the very short flange distance, light falloff at the edges will be even worse due to the extreme angle.

 

[Bob Howland]

I'd like something about the size and weight of the SL1, perhaps a little smaller. I'm looking for lighter weight, not so much smaller size. It should use the current EF mount except with a 22mm flange distance and be built

Why would it use the current EF mount, but have a different flange distance? That's a recipe for mass confusion, EF lenses would fit, but not work, Canon would have to come up with another gimmick to keep the wrong lenses from being attached. Its bad enough with EF-s and EF lenses, but at least they have the same flange distance and EF lenses work on all EF mounts.

Reducing the flange distance from 44mm to 22mm can make the camera 22mm (0.87 inches) shallower. As for confusion, everybody except Canon making lenses for EF-S cameras uses the EF lens mount, that can also fit on FF cameras. People somehow manage to figure this out.

 

[dolina]

Canon 6D + 70-200 f/4 IS( or 35L II)
680g + 760g = 1440g

It should be 755g. 680g is body-only without card, strap or battery.

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.4
556g + 630g = 1,186g

Still lighter.

 

[erjlphoto]

Sony seems to attract those willing to use adapters and accept third party limitations.
Of course, Canon could design an adapter for their own EOS lenses which fully
functions with their mirrorless body. Still, it had better offer something really special to attract me.
I do not like evf's.

 

[dolina]

The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.

Is it?

 

[dolina]

The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.

Is it?

I know it upsets you. Just ignore the comment.

 

[AvTvM]

The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.

Is it?

Yes. At least more so than CaNikon's ever-same marginal iterations of big, heavy, semi-analogue, totally antiquated mirrorflippers.