Industry News: The First Rumored Specifications of Nikon's Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
931
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
TAF said:
Brown said:
TAF said:
Brown said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
God I hope Canon stands out from the pack and offers a mirrorless body with a native EF mount.

Then what's the point of it being mirrorless?

All the advantages of mirrorless (fast frame per second rate; live view; no vibration; no noise; a bit lighter without the heavy prism and mirror box; the potential for advanced display info; all hopefully without the need for 'chimping'), without the added expense of new lenses.

Can't most of that be achieved with mirror lockup and an electronic shutter?
I fail to see the issue to using what amounts to an extension tube for legacy support as in the case of the EOS-M series.

1. Most, but not all (and not the best parts). Note the 'no chimping' advantage of mirrorless, which obviously cannot be achieved with a regular mirrored camera with the mirror locked up, as well as a weight savings. Hence making mirrorless (with an EVF) more desirable.

2. The extension tube (as seen in the M series) is a) a potential failure point, b) something to be misplaced, c) something that can adversely affect the quality of the image unless the tube is extremely well made (and hence expensive - the plane of the two mounts must be exactly parallel, which is not that easy to achieve), d) a potential admission by Canon that they aren't really ready for a new mount system, which has psychological implications for sales. Just look at all the EOS-M lenses they have made...

Since the only reason for a new mount would be to make the camera thinner, at the expense of all of the above objections, it would seem a bad idea to go there.

We shall (hopefully) soon see.

I'm sure there will be FF mirrorless cameras from Canon in the future with both EF mount and a different mount (EF-M or something else).

I don't really understand the problem of adaptors assuming they're made well enough.

People are:

"I want native EF mount because all my lenses are EF mount"

and

"I don't want an adaptor because what if I leave it at home? Lose it?"

Well... If all your lenses are EF mount, KEEP THE ADAPTOR ATTACHED TO YOUR BODY AT ALL TIMES!. Duh...


And we can be certain that any adaptor for EF lenses is going to be a lot more sophisticated than the EF-EF-M adaptor currently being sold. I'd expect weather sealing and a very much more secure locking mechanism to the body at a minimum.
 

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,355
610
Nice set of specs. The better it is the better the Canon mirrorless full frame will be.
Hopefully Nikon will hit it out of the park to push Canon to the limit.
 

tmc784

Just press down the shutter.
Apr 1, 2018
84
24
I have no reason to spend more money to switch to M-camera+lenes, I am happy to stay with my DSLR system as I owned. :) :)
 

Brown

I'm New Here
Apr 17, 2018
19
3
TAF said:
Brown said:
TAF said:
Brown said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
God I hope Canon stands out from the pack and offers a mirrorless body with a native EF mount.

Then what's the point of it being mirrorless?

All the advantages of mirrorless (fast frame per second rate; live view; no vibration; no noise; a bit lighter without the heavy prism and mirror box; the potential for advanced display info; all hopefully without the need for 'chimping'), without the added expense of new lenses.

Can't most of that be achieved with mirror lockup and an electronic shutter?
I fail to see the issue to using what amounts to an extension tube for legacy support as in the case of the EOS-M series.

1. Most, but not all (and not the best parts). Note the 'no chimping' advantage of mirrorless, which obviously cannot be achieved with a regular mirrored camera with the mirror locked up, as well as a weight savings. Hence making mirrorless (with an EVF) more desirable.

2. The extension tube (as seen in the M series) is a) a potential failure point, b) something to be misplaced, c) something that can adversely affect the quality of the image unless the tube is extremely well made (and hence expensive - the plane of the two mounts must be exactly parallel, which is not that easy to achieve), d) a potential admission by Canon that they aren't really ready for a new mount system, which has psychological implications for sales. Just look at all the EOS-M lenses they have made...

Since the only reason for a new mount would be to make the camera thinner, at the expense of all of the above objections, it would seem a bad idea to go there.

We shall (hopefully) soon see.

I regularly stack four EF25s with an adapted Minolta bellow for macro and I haven't noticed a degradation in image quality from mount misalignment.

I think it's been mostly acknowledged that the EOS-M line was a marketing tool used to judge the potential sales of a complete mirrorless system.

It's not the thickness of the camera, but the possibility of traditional non-retrofocal wide angles that makes a short flange distance so appealing.
The quality of which could be improved even further by the introduction of curved sensors.
 

Brown

I'm New Here
Apr 17, 2018
19
3
roxics said:
Brown said:
Can't most of that be achieved with mirror lockup and an electronic shutter?
I fail to see the issue to using what amounts to an extension tube for legacy support as in the case of the EOS-M series.

Yeah except for the EVF, unless you have a hybrid OVF/EVF of some kind. But I assume that just raises the cost unnecessarily.

Here is my Nikon FE on top of my Panasonic GH4 (which is smaller than the GH5)

FEvsGH4.jpg


Flange focal distance:
Nikon F = 46.50 mm
Micro43 = 19.25 mm
For reference:
Canon EF = 44.00 mm

Yet look at the actual thickness of each camera. The GH4 is actually thicker and the Nikon has a mirror box in it.
It's really the electronic components inside that make more of a difference in size than the flange focal distance.

So I say, keep the same lens mount and instant compatibility with all the existing lenses and just work on making the electronics smaller. This obsession people have with shorter flange focal distances is not necessary.

The rear LCD seems to be the biggest offender to the thickness of modern camera designs and while everyone wants a thin camera, they're not willing to accept a DSLR without a colour LCD.

I'm not familiar with Panasonic's offerings, but it looks like the screen of your GH4 is a vari-angle LCD which distorts its dimensions even further.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
MrFotoFool said:
With a new mount I wonder how many people will actually go for it? There is not overwhelming incentive for Nikon users to stick with the brand and why wouldn't people choose the already proven Sony format?

Because it's not the horse they rode in on.

Maintaining AF performance with the Nikkor glass they own is not a small thing. Conversely, having to buy new lenses to replace the performance of the Nikkor ones they no longer can use at the same level (3rd party adapting is not the same) is not a small investment.

Having controls / interface that is consistent with their FX (or DX) SLR experience is also not a small thing.

As for "proven", Nikon's been at this game for a wee bit longer than Sony. Why on earth would pulling a mirror out flush all of Nikon's considerable ability to deliver a strong product go down the drain?

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
TAF said:
There is no compelling technical reason to go to a different mount for a FF mirrorless.

...to you. We are not the market. I'm guessing a large enough portion of the market wants a smaller camera to warrant a thin-mount FF design.

TAF said:
The EF still provides everything Canon requires; the only sacrifice is that the camera is a bit thicker than some people would like. I would suggest that that is not sufficient cause to invest a vast amount of money into the development of a new mount and new lenses.

As we've seen time and time again here (and clearly from the market Sony has created), there is a nontrivial percentage of people who value mirrorless' ability to do the same/similar job in a smaller footprint -- even if that dream is not terribly realizable with larger/faster lenses.

I don't think thinner is necessarily better, but Canon, Nikon, etc. will have a much harder time selling an identically sized mirrorless rig as being functionally better than a same-spec'd SLR than they will showing a product that is (say) 2/3 as big doing the same job. Like it or not, the 'mirrorless is all about being smaller' camp (which I personally disagree with) have a far easier sales pitch to make to the photography community, and I think because of that, that's what manufacturers will lead with.

I agree full EF for Canon would be worlds more practical. I don't think that will be the first FF mirrorless offering Canon (or Nikon) makes.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Adelino said:
I 100% agree that s shallower body is not very important and also there is nothing to stop Canon from offering a mirrorless EF mount and then later ALSO offering a new mirrorless FF mount EF-X as some have called it. That option gives best of all worlds!

Agree that both mounts may be possible for Canon, but again, surely the thinner one would come out first because the elevator 3-second sales pitch is so much simpler:

Sales pitch #1 (for a thin mount): "Check this out! It takes the same pictures your [insert your FF SLR here] takes, but it's 2/3 the size, 2/3 the weight! Please give us $3000."

Sales pitch #2 (for a full EF mount): "We took your SLR, pulled out the mirror, and piped LiveView into the VF. Please give us $3000."

There's obviously more to it than that, but I contend that the simplicity of the sales pitch #1 is:

(a) obvious,

(b) easier to split into messaging points for different levels of the market (beginners: the camera is less intimidating to carry and use, enthusiasts: do more with less size and weight, pros: hard feature sell of completely silent, higher throughput that isn't mirrorbox gated, focusing manual lenses, amplifying light in dark rooms, etc.)

(c) so far, what the market is expecting.

Again: I think both thin and full EF will happen, but thin somewhat sells itself while simply pulling a mirror out of an EF SLR is a harder sell for (candidly) people like us who want to seamlessly use what we have in a new usage context.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Larsskv said:
The same will apply to Canon. Honestly, if Canon releases a FF mirrorless with a new mount, any reasonable Canon user, myself included, should consider the competition, Sony and Nikon, before investing in a new system and a new set of lenses.

Wait, you'd hate perfectly adapting your existing Canon glass more than you'd hate buying an entirely new system made with a completely different ergonomic and control setup?

In other words, if Canon mirrorless isn't utterly, completely seamless with your Canon FF SLR, you'll just jump off a cliff and incur a massive expense and an even less seamless experience with new controls, new ergonomics, new chargers, new batteries, new speedlites, etc. in a competitive ecosystem that also has this mirrorless to SLR disconnect?

Your post only makes sense to me (unless I'm missing something, please forgive me -- I want to understand) if Nikon offers an FX mount FF mirrorless system that would allow a truly seamless SLR / mirrorless experience... which it seems they are not poised to do.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Brown said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
God I hope Canon stands out from the pack and offers a mirrorless body with a native EF mount.

Then what's the point of it being mirrorless?

Camp A is staring at Camp B... and the two camps continue to ask each other why they bother existing at all. ::)

One group see mirrorless as primarily being about being smaller than an SLR.

Another group sees mirrorless as a new (and in some instances, better) way to capture images -- and size has nothing to with it, so they'd prefer to keep the mount they have.

Neither group is right or wrong. They have different needs, desires, etc. We should stop trying to invalidate each other's perpectives here and realize these two different opinions that would likely be best served with two different products. One gets thin mount FF mirrorless, and the other gets EF mount mirrorless. Easy peasy.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Etienne said:
I agree. The switch to mirrorless is long-term, and ultimately mirrors will disappear altogether, like film (there are still some people clinging to film). So the switch to mirrorless will not place priority on the legacy lens mount. They will certainly make a very good adapter, but it will be a new mount and a new set of lenses.

While we're here, there are two polls going on this right now. Input appreciated! :D

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

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35292.0


- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
TAF said:
Since the only reason for a new mount would be to make the camera thinner, at the expense of all of the above objections, it would seem a bad idea to go there.

We shall (hopefully) soon see.

I've litigated a bunch of this in this forum for some time. At this stage -- at least from the CR Forum community, at least -- I contend there are two very different camps on this and neither will budge.

Also, seeing as (a) EF is continential, immense, etc. and (b) the size upsides of mirrorless are minimized for all but perhaps 10-20% of all EF lenses, it makes sense to conclude that EF will in fact not go away after a thin mount mirrorless arrives. If that is true, offering both mounts in mirrorless and only offering a handful of thin mount lenses that make the size savings pop would make sense, IMHO.

- A
 

Attachments

  • mirrorless mount options.jpg_thumb.png
    mirrorless mount options.jpg_thumb.png
    154.5 KB · Views: 712
Jul 23, 2013
332
136
carlsmiller.com
ahsanford said:
Brown said:
CarlMillerPhoto said:
God I hope Canon stands out from the pack and offers a mirrorless body with a native EF mount.

Then what's the point of it being mirrorless?

Camp A is staring at Camp B... and the two camps continue to ask each other why they bother existing at all. ::)

One group see mirrorless as primarily being about being smaller than an SLR.

Another group sees mirrorless as a new (and in some instances, better) way to capture images -- and size has nothing to with it, so they'd prefer to keep the mount they have.

Neither group is right or wrong. They have different needs, desires, etc. We should stop trying to invalidate each other's perpectives here and realize these two different opinions that would likely be best served with two different products. One gets thin mount FF mirrorless, and the other gets EF mount mirrorless. Easy peasy.

- A

ashanford sums it perfectly. Different shooters have different needs. The hope is that Canon caters to both groups ;)

From a business standpoint, it makes sense to pursue both paths until the market decides which is superior (and it's quite possible they can live in harmony; see very bottom). I suspect Canon will introduce a prosumer FF mirrorless with a new mount & lens lineup, following-up with a Pro level mirrorless in EF mount. As somebody who makes 100% of my income from using my camera, I'll explain why the latter is preferable to me:

  • Size just isn't an issue, and smaller isn't necessarily better. I don't know many professional shooters who want to spend a 10-12 hour wedding holding anything with less grip than a DSLR body. Some do, I don't.
  • Adapting EF glass makes for unbalanced cameras and more failure points for weather sealing
  • Body weight difference is negligible. A7III is 650g, 5DIV 800g
  • Lens weight difference is negligible. Sony 24-70 2.8 G Master is bigger & heavier (886g) than Canon 24-70 2.8 II (805g)
  • Obvious one but a biggy....because I have EF glass already
  • Shorter flange difference does not equal technological advance (a la FD to EF mount). Perhaps this new mount will have something else...but flange difference alone is not an "upgrade"

I can't see the majority of CPS members....shooting day in and day out with EF glass in very harsh & demanding conditions...content to use an adapter for the 5-10 years it'll likely take for Canon to offer a comparable lens lineup in a new mount. Since the future is 100% mirrorless, I think Canon might try and use the mount to differentiate between their consumer, prosumer, and professional products:

EF cameras & Lenses - focused on pro features and needs, where ultimate durability/ergonomics/battery life outweigh portability. The mirrorless 1D & 5D. We'll stop seeing non-L EF glass made.
New FF mirrorless (EF-X?) cameras & lenses - best marriage of features, versatility, and portability. Mirrorless 6D sized comparable to the A7 line. The current non-L EF glass will be replaced by lenses in this new mount. Allows small UWA designs and for people to go crazy with adapters.
EF-M - Compactness and portability reigns supreme. All APS-C. Stays on current path. EF-S is killed to build up EF-M.

This approach will bring Canon into the future and avoid alienating its current users. All the while opening the cashflow that is a whole new range of lenses.
 

Aaron D

Hey!
Jul 21, 2016
273
265
Kansas City
www.aarondougherty.com
I can't resist getting sucked into this…

To the "Give me EF or give me death!" crowd:

Why is Canon going to make a bigger than necessary, useless-internal-void-for-a-non-existent-mirror body just so you don't have to buy some new lenses? If you like your old EF lenses, keep buying EF bodies!

Why in the world does a shorter flange distance MAKE THE GRIP TOO SMALL?! How are the two even related? Canon is pretty clever I think. Is a comfortable hand grip on a new-design-from-scratch camera body really such an impossible leap? Sony makes what looks to be a pretty good grip on their A9 (admittedly have never held on in-hand)…why lose sleep over Canon not doing at least as good a job on theirs?

btw, that Nikon is a good looking camera! Sure looks don't matter, but why not a good looking camera?
 

Jaysheldon

EOS M6 Mark II
Dec 23, 2015
91
28
Why not
--keep the EF mount for full frame mirrorless cameras
--keep the EF-M mount for those who want a lighter camera/lens package, including those light F6.3 and f5.6 lenses. (in other words, if you want a 70-200 f4 you have to go full frame. You want light, it means light lenses -- and Canon can market the hell out of lightness. You want big lenses, go with a bigger camera). This mount replaces the EF-S cameras/lenses. (In other words, better to piss off EF-S lens owners than EF lens owners)

The flaw in this, I admit, is it means Canon has to maintain a two-lens line.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
CarlMillerPhoto said:
From a business standpoint, it makes sense to pursue both paths until the market decides which is superior (and it's quite possible they can live in harmony; see very bottom). I suspect Canon will introduce a prosumer FF mirrorless with a new mount & lens lineup, following-up with a Pro level mirrorless in EF mount.

Spot on.

Canon has been waiting for some time for the market to sort out what it wants. Sony is the only non-Leica show in town, and they've hitched their wagons to a thin mount ecosystem -- a logical move given their relatively small market share and lack of a EF-sized portfolio.

But for all of Sony's success at putting product out and starting a conversation with the A7 line, no one else has offered FF mirrorless from a major manufacturer to sort out market preference. Further, Sony hasn't exactly stolen a ton of pros from Canon or Nikon with their thin mount system.

So Canon has waited. I'm guessing they are a bit bummed Nikon hasn't taken a brave move towards either an FX or thinner mount FF mirrorless before them as it may have helped Canon line up the crosshairs better on the market.

- A
 

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
Aaron D said:
I can't resist getting sucked into this…

To the "Give me EF or give me death!" crowd:

Why is Canon going to make a bigger than necessary, useless-internal-void-for-a-non-existent-mirror body just so you don't have to buy some new lenses? If you like your old EF lenses, keep buying EF bodies!

Why in the world does a shorter flange distance MAKE THE GRIP TOO SMALL?! How are the two even related?

The two are related because they both determine how small the body will be. If you want to go small with the flange distance, then you will need to go small with the grip or you gain very little. And if you go small with the grip, you lose a lot of the ergonomics -especially when using longer lenses. So the two are interconnected - if you want to go small, you have to go small with both.

And that useless void where the mirror used to be still gives you a greater flange distance which gives you less of an angle for light hitting the outer portions of the sensor - thus better image quality for most lenses.
 

TAF

EOS RP
CR Pro
Feb 26, 2012
464
148
Aaron D said:
I can't resist getting sucked into this…

To the "Give me EF or give me death!" crowd:

Why is Canon going to make a bigger than necessary, useless-internal-void-for-a-non-existent-mirror body just so you don't have to buy some new lenses? If you like your old EF lenses, keep buying EF bodies!

Engineering trade space. That extra space will be the heat sink that will be necessary in the early models so they don't overheat (later models will use less power as the electronics get even better...that is the way of things electronic). Thus I fully expect the first FF-ML will be EF mount - to ensure reliability.

The case for a second line with a thin mount seems sound, so it is certainly possible if not even probably that they will then go there.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Aaron D said:
Why is Canon going to make a bigger than necessary, useless-internal-void-for-a-non-existent-mirror body just so you don't have to buy some new lenses? If you like your old EF lenses, keep buying EF bodies!

Some folks want to use their EF lenses in a mirrorless context, hate adaptors, etc. They value what mirrorless offers beyond size reduction, so they wonder why new lenses are needed at all.

Aaron D said:
Why in the world does a shorter flange distance MAKE THE GRIP TOO SMALL?! How are the two even related? Canon is pretty clever I think. Is a comfortable hand grip on a new-design-from-scratch camera body really such an impossible leap?

1000% agree. Grip and flange distance are completely independent. Go chunky on the grip, b/c people will bolt f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes on it regardless of the flange distance.

Aaron D said:
Sony makes what looks to be a pretty good grip on their A9 (admittedly have never held on in-hand)…

Oh: hell no. The A7 I,II,II bodies / A9 body have an unmitigated disaster of a grip if you want to put a proper fast FF lens on it. The grip is too small to wield heavy lenses (not massive superwhites, I mean f/2.8 zooms, f/1.4 primes) and, critically, it's too close to the mount! Compare and contrast below. Simply put, it was designed to create that compact footprint with a slower prime. That they continue to grandfather that disaster of a grip through 3 generations now implies that they aren't serious about courting pros yet.

- A
 

Attachments

  • A7R II vs A9.jpg_thumb.png
    A7R II vs A9.jpg_thumb.png
    102.7 KB · Views: 597
  • A7R3 vs 5D4 top.jpg
    A7R3 vs 5D4 top.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 594
  • Sony-24-70mm-GM-Lens-Grip.jpg
    Sony-24-70mm-GM-Lens-Grip.jpg
    60.3 KB · Views: 590

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
excellent! If true, first Nikons i am really interested in. sounds like Nikon listened to me and my much hated wish-list!

* slim new Z mount, f/.95 capable - yes!
* small body - yes!
* IBIS - yes!
* 24-70/4.0 zoom - yes!
* pricing as expected

only mistake i can see is 1 XQD slot instead of 2x CFExpress (personally i'd prefer 2x MicroSD UHS III).

and if true: Canon is late! :)

PS: forget "native EF mount" on Canon FF MILCs. :) :)