Is a native EF mount coming to a Canon full frame mirrorless camera? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Producing two distinct lines of mirrorless cameras with different mounts seems like a risky move, but it might be a way to avoid consumer backlash from everyone whose adopted a large collection of EF glass. I suppose the mirrorless EF mount cameras would likely all conform to the 1D body style: integrated vertical grip, high capacity battery, fast and lag-free EVF, weather sealing, and so on. It wouldn't save much weight over a DSLR aside from losing the pentaprism, but throwing in the extra goodies associated with 1D bodies at a competitive price might make it a tempting proposition if you've already amassed a sizable collection of EF lenses.
On the other hand, a separate mirrorless camera line using a modified EF-M mount could conform to the original merits of mirrorless cameras: compact and light weight. The EF-M lenses seem to perform well for being as small and light as they are, and I would expect the full-frame variants to be no different. But a dedicated mirrorless full-frame camera could forego features like weather sealing and extended battery life to keep the size, weight, and cost of the system down if those features are already being satisfied by an EF mirrorless camera line.
I'm skeptical Canon would launch two concurrent full-frame mirrorless systems, but it's an interesting idea.
On the other hand, a separate mirrorless camera line using a modified EF-M mount could conform to the original merits of mirrorless cameras: compact and light weight. The EF-M lenses seem to perform well for being as small and light as they are, and I would expect the full-frame variants to be no different. But a dedicated mirrorless full-frame camera could forego features like weather sealing and extended battery life to keep the size, weight, and cost of the system down if those features are already being satisfied by an EF mirrorless camera line.
I'm skeptical Canon would launch two concurrent full-frame mirrorless systems, but it's an interesting idea.
Upvote
0
Well - I know this is a CR1, but it makes perfect sense for me, that Canon will make a compact FF ILC mirrorless with a new mount (EF-X?) (and a adaptor for EF-lenses) and then a DSLR sized mirrorless with a EF mount - and maybe the ability to take the new mount (EF-X?) as well, ex. by moving the sensor forward on detection of such a lens - to reduce flange distance.
This will give Canon the chances to see customer needs, and it will give time to build up a new mount lens lineup parallel with existing EF lenses, and maybe - but only maybe - phase EF lenses out years from now, if the market goes in that direction (which I really don't hope).
I will be so pleased if Canon keeps native EF mount for years to come even if mirrorless ILC eventually take over DSLRs
This will give Canon the chances to see customer needs, and it will give time to build up a new mount lens lineup parallel with existing EF lenses, and maybe - but only maybe - phase EF lenses out years from now, if the market goes in that direction (which I really don't hope).
I will be so pleased if Canon keeps native EF mount for years to come even if mirrorless ILC eventually take over DSLRs
Upvote
0
exactly ! - I think this is the right way to go.
Do not make a "one size fits all". Small cameraes for streets and some reportage, and bigger cameras (and lenses) for sports, weddings, nature, studio and so).
Upvote
0
CR1... hard to believe. EF-M is a different segment and it doesn't compete with EF segment.
Consider they have mirrorless EF and mirrorless EF-X cameras. No doubt mirrorless EF will compete with mirrorless EF-X. If somebody releases self-competing products, it's not Canon.
So it's plausible they stick to mirrorless EF only, but two competing mounts? I don't think so.
Consider they have mirrorless EF and mirrorless EF-X cameras. No doubt mirrorless EF will compete with mirrorless EF-X. If somebody releases self-competing products, it's not Canon.
So it's plausible they stick to mirrorless EF only, but two competing mounts? I don't think so.
Upvote
0
I am sure there will be some level of functional differentiation between the two cameras. But, as I think about it, this is a great way to 'bridge" between EF and EF-X. Likely the EF will be more pro-oriented, and perhaps sized between a 6DII and 5DIV. The EF-X version would likely have a thinner flange distance, hence smaller, so would likely be smaller than the 6DII but bigger than the M5.
I expect DSLRs to survive as long as masses of people are buying them (and they still outsell mirrorless by a wide margin). But, say that erodes over time, if this rumor happens, people still have a reason to buy EF glass as there is a native EF mount FF mirrorless body. If you want smaller, you go EF-X. Eventually (and I mean decades), EF-X may replace EF, but in that interim Canon is selling camera bodies and camera lenses.
It makes a lot of sense.
I expect DSLRs to survive as long as masses of people are buying them (and they still outsell mirrorless by a wide margin). But, say that erodes over time, if this rumor happens, people still have a reason to buy EF glass as there is a native EF mount FF mirrorless body. If you want smaller, you go EF-X. Eventually (and I mean decades), EF-X may replace EF, but in that interim Canon is selling camera bodies and camera lenses.
It makes a lot of sense.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think this is inevitable, a 1DX class body with native EF mount and a 6D/5D class (features, not size) in a smaller body with a smaller mount.
Upvote
0
Architect1776
Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
I really like the dual approach. If one has a thinner body like the M series does then think of all the old FD, FL, R and others like Minolta etc. that could be mounted with a simple adapter and not optics in the adapter. In fact it would be awesome if Canon made a chipped adapter that would work with the FD etc. old Canon lenses to provide focus confirmation. This would be very interesting and create some interest in the older lenses.
Just dreaming.
Upvote
0
"Competing" implies the two are given the same offerings to fight over the same customers and customer needs. Canon may not go that route.
EF-X could get just a handful of lenses -- the ones to keep the overall rig small -- and that's it. Done. f/4 UWA zoom, f/4 standard zoom, a handful of small f/2-ish primes and a compact macro. Done. That's it. For everything else, they point you to the adaptor.
EF would get all the traditional resources and support a flagship mount should get.
That won't compete much at all. You'd get the EF-X body and a few of the smaller lenses to build a small & light rig and you'd get the full mount and use your EF lenses on that. Easy peasy.
- A
Upvote
0
If they go with both mounts in mirrorless, I think we're entirely living in the 5D/6D spec space at first. That's where all the units and market energy is, surely.
I think Canon knows better than to offer something half-baked for the uber high standards of the 1-series camp in mirrorless anytime soon. I see them first pleasing the FF masses (i.e. 5D/6D users), improving the technology over time, and then someday offering some A9-like throughput hot rod to the 1-series camp -- but it won't be soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon skipped the 1-series users altogether for the first generation of these mirrorless cameras.
- A
Upvote
0
^^ This ^^
Offering both right out of the gate eliminates the horror of Canon making the wrong call on an impossible 50-50 decision. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but some folks are so wound up about Canon's first foray into FF mirrorless that they will meltdown and leave the fold if this billion dollar decision about an additional 1" in size doesn't go their way.
Offering both does some very nice things:
- Zero chance of pissing off the market if you say yes to both options.
- Clearly keeps EF alive in the long term, and by extension, gives Canon a huge excuse not to have to make the new mount cover every need. Canon doesn't have to wind down a monstrous lens portfolio and replace it. The 10+ year climb to do that would be financially radioactive.
- Some folks really hate adaptors and Canon will have an answer for them. They can scoop up the Nikonians who adamantly did not want to see the F mount die for the same reasons folks here are defending EF so hard.
- It's a clear message of intent to the industry. Small FF folks? We have that. Working pros? We love you, too. We're Canon -- we have something for everyone.
- A
Upvote
0
Disregarding the older pricier Ring USM lenses that Canon is probably done making, EF-S presently has:
- wide zoom
- standard zoom
- longer standard zoom (18-135)
- short tele (55-250)
- compact illuminated macro
- pancake
I know there's talk of a fast prime coming for EF-M (which is awesome), but I'm not convinced that we'll every ever see new 10-22 USM, 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, 15-85 USM lenses ever again. EF-S was a proving ground the first time around (when EF-S was first getting fleshed out in the 2000s), and either between a lack of market interest in pricey crop glass or Canon wanting folks to step up to EF, I don't see that happening again.
- A
Upvote
0
My money is on a clear statement in September on a thin EF-X mount and a statement of intent along the lines of 'don't worry EF users we have an EF version in 6 months'. This would also enable them to effectively trial-run some features based on reviews/response and tweak things for 'the big one' so the pros are happy all in one go.
Canon has so far tried to control release news but I think one thing the 6D2 release told them is that social media takes it out of your hands and you have to take control of the agenda. Which may be why Nikon have gone through this very protracted drip-drip of release news.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
