Is a native EF mount coming to a Canon full frame mirrorless camera? [CR1]

Leigh

I'm New Here
Jun 23, 2014
18
3
Florida
www.leighwax.com
Canon's "problem" competitively, is that the SONY A7R series Camera's already work with Canon EF lens's, & though Adapter's can be cumbersome, & limiting, they continue to improve. Once "someone" becomes familiar, & likes a competing brand camera, there's a viable possibility of them migrating totally to that brand over time.

I think it would be a mistake for Canon to offer it's "Flagship" , FF-M body without some manner of flawless EF compatibility.

I've been on the fence of buying an A7R3 for Landscape work with my EF-L WA lens's; & if Canon doesn't deliver, I'll likely do so.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
359
186
Up or Down, Chicken or Egg?

Which will come first?
The EF or the New.

I say the New comes first, if they release the EF first they risk bad sales of the new body / lens combination.
It's more than that. What does FF mirrorless offer that DSLR doesn't? What advantage does the new mount offer?

If the new mount doesn't offer any significant upgrade over the old mount, people will stay with EF mount for their glass compatability and cheaper used price.

Canon is in precarious situation now. If they have a lackluster FF mirrorless showing, Nikon & Sony are viable alternative. Some may be tire of waiting for Canon FF mirrorless only to be disappointed again - Canon 5D IV, 6D II. At least on specs.

If Nikon new FF mirrorless camera is like the A7III but with better ergonomic, weather sealing, I'll be intrigue. If their new mount is compatible with EF lens, watch out.
 
Last edited:

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
IF Canon really goes with 2 mount (versions) for their mirrorless FF system - which i absolutely doubt - then according to Murphy's law, the first camera/s to be released will be big, fat, expensive with EF mount nozzle - simply because I am waiting for compact, light, affordable, new slim mount camera/s and lenses.
 

Adelino

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
372
244
Two mounts has always seemed likely to me. These mounts would not compete with each other, per se. They would be complimentary in many ways just like the 7D and 80 D compliment a 5D setup. Being Canon this market segmentation would still drive some people nuts. The thin mount people will cry about th EF mirrorless having better battery life, faster FPS, better weather sealing, more lens options etc. The thin mounters will declare the FF X series is intentionally "crippled" (I hate that term especially when applied to a less expensive device). Canon will sell more cameras and more lenses along the way.
Canon loves this kind of market segmentation.
 

hmatthes

EOS-R, RF and EF Lenses of all types.
Bodies are just a support mechanism for glass -- each new generation getting better sensors that show us that our old glass is capable of more than we have previously seen. My 20 year old 70~200 f2.8 delivers far better images on my 6D than it did in my film days on 650, Elan, A2e and others.

I'll buy the first mirrorless if it supports EF either natively or with adapter. Done deal, I want wysiwyg EVF. If it is with an EF adapter, I will try an "new mount" prime but keep all my EF glass.

If the subsequent bodies offer better features, I may well upgrade later.

At a minimum, I want 5D-IV level sensor and AF. If they take it to 50mp, I'll celebrate!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ken

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
1,198
1,061
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
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.
While 6D is enthusiast level, 5D is clearly targeting pros, and many pros are using both 1DX and 5D (II, III, IV). Also if mirrorless EF will only have one option with the price of 1DX, the huge customer base with EF glass + 5D/6D + EF-compatible crops will be disappointed to say the least. Pros with 5D + L glass will be forced to upgrade to 1DX-grade mirorrless? Or downgrade a prospective low-end EF-X mount? I think not.
Another point, mirrorless 1DX in its form factor loses many advantages of mirorrlessness.

New EF-X compatible with EF does makes sense. 'Dual Approach' doesn't.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
Canon's "problem" competitively, is that the SONY A7R series Camera's already work with Canon EF lens's, & though Adapter's can be cumbersome, & limiting, they continue to improve. Once "someone" becomes familiar, & likes a competing brand camera, there's a viable possibility of them migrating totally to that brand over time.

I think it would be a mistake for Canon to offer it's "Flagship" , FF-M body without some manner of flawless EF compatibility.

I've been on the fence of buying an A7R3 for Landscape work with my EF-L WA lens's; & if Canon doesn't deliver, I'll likely do so.
1) What about the EF-M adaptor to EF/EF-S makes you think Canon can't make an excellent adaptor? They write the AF routines and make the lenses, so it should work just fine, correct?

2) If it's just for landscape work, why not just get the Sony? You don't need great AF if you're living in tripod LiveView work, do you? You just need the lenses to mount and communicate with the body for aperture, so any concerns of adaptor AF somewhat go out the window.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
If the new mount doesn't offer any significant upgrade over the old mount, people will stay with EF mount for their glass compatability and cheaper used price.
The new mount must be a "significant upgrade", must be better, etc. are the wrong takes here, IMHO. Canon isn't trying to migrate current users to only use a new mount. That would be madness.

The new mount unlocks possibility to make a smaller overall apparatus and adapt competitive/old/third-party lenses, that's all. You may have no interest in that or only shoot big/fast FF glass that won't really benefit from a smaller body. That's fine -- just wait for the FF mirrorless body with a full EF mount.

But for a large chunk of the prospective mirrorless market (percentage is anyone's guess), mirrorless is all about the perception of being smaller, and a full EF mount cannot deliver that without some zany design shenanigans. For the 'mirrorless is all about being small' camp, it simply has to have a thinner mount or they won't look twice at it.

- A
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bokehmon22

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
New EF-X compatible with EF does makes sense. 'Dual Approach' doesn't.
I think it makes perfect sense if Canon has the resolve to not build too many thin mount lenses. When you think of thin mount mirrorless as a 4-6 lens build and they are done -- everything else requires EF on adaptor -- thin mount mirrorless become a niche line to satisfy the small crowd and the non-Canon lens adapting crowd.

Everything else FF mirrorless would be what we know it is today with SLRs: a tool to wield bigger, heavier glass that will still exist regardless of what happens to the mirror.

But if Canon starts dipping it's toes into 'well we need a 24-70 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4 option in a thin mount' and 'what's the harm in one 70-200', etc. they will (a) sow discord that EF will eventually go away and (b) not save any size at all. I contend that if two mounts happen, Canon will need to be ruthless with any thin mount lens 'portfolio creep'.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
614
401
If true, it makes sense to me. I would prefer a model with the current physical mount that allows all current lenses to give their full performance and use the entire feature set. At the same time, I’d like to see the mount incorporate new connections for a newer lens line for the future.

For those wanting the smaller camera, a different mount would be called for. After all, all camera manufacturers that have two sensor sizes have two lens mounts. It’s not impossible. Supposedly the M mount isn’t suited for FF. Too bad. But a third mount isn’t without reason. Sony has, what five mounts now? Of course, they throw everything against the wall to see what sticks, and most of them haven’t.
 

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
614
401
The new mount must be a "significant upgrade", must be better, etc. are the wrong take here, IMHO. Canon isn't trying to migrate current users to only use a new mount. That would be madness.

The new mount unlocks possibility to make a smaller overall apparatus and adapt competitive/old/third-party lenses, that's all. You may have no interest in that or only shoot big/fast FF glass that won't really benefit from a smaller body. That's fine -- just wait for the FF mirrorless body with a full EF mount.

But for a large chunk of the prospective mirrorless market (percentage is anyone's guess), mirrorless is all about the perception of being smaller, and a full EF mount cannot deliver that without some zany design shenanigans. For the 'mirrorless is all about being small' camp, it simply has to have a thinner mount or they won't look twice at it.

- A
I keep on saying that not everyone wants a smaller, lighter camera. It’s true. If Canon comes out with a more pro level model, size and weight aren’t much of a factor, if it’s a factor at all. The very popular 5D series isn’t small and light. The top model 1D is bigger and heavier. Same thing for Nikon’s 850 and D5.

The idea that every mirrorless camera has to be smaller and lighter simply isn’t true, and distorts the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ken

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
for a large chunk of the prospective mirrorless market (percentage is anyone's guess), mirrorless is all about the perception of being smaller, and a full EF mount cannot deliver that without some zany design shenanigans. For the 'mirrorless is all about being small' camp, it simply has to have a thinner mount or they won't look twice at it.
The idea that every mirrorless camera has to be smaller and lighter simply isn’t true, and distorts the discussion.
I'm sorry, when did I say 'every mirrorless camera has to be smaller'? I'm saying there are (principally) two camps of form factor devotees here -- people who care about it being smaller and those that don't.

Let's say Canon had market data that said that:

40% of folks will not touch FF mirrorless unless it has a thin mount.​
20% of folks who don't care about mount and are simply interested in FF mirrorless in general​
40% of folks will not touch FF mirrorless unless it has a full EF mount.​

All of this forum's lengthy, correct, practical statements (about size savings being meaningless when you think about FF lenses, why adaptors are a pain, that all the current EF users will be bummed, etc.) will be true, but Canon will still be out in the cold for 40% of the market.

Some feature-based A or B decisions are so difficult to call that the 'or' becomes an 'and'. I contend that this is absolutely one of those decisions, and that Canon is big enough and ambitious enough to make that 'and' a reality.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: wolfgang_guelcker
Aug 2, 2018
1
0
Really hope this rumor is true. I prefer the ergonomics and design of the bigger camera bodies and lenses. Cameras with interchangeable lenses will never be pocketable, so in this class of cameras size is not a big issue for me. Why should mirrorless bodies be slimmer? I like the combination of a big camera for serious photography and one for every day use that fits in my pocket.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,063
341
Vancouver, BC
^^ 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.
I personally still think thin will come first and full EF may follow -- either on day one they announce that someday full EF is coming or it's a painful Plan B / course correction in response to the market freaking out.

- A
It's an easy way to make everyone happy :) And besides, there will be those who buy both a thin mount and an EF mount FF mirrorless, and also mix in lenses of two series, so why not? It's like having Coke Classic and Cherry Coke!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,647
2,167
I'm most interested to find out what happens to the M system if they develop two new lines for full frame. It seems that development of M lenses has gone from slow to stagnant... I hope that there is some sort of commitment to the M line...
Canon is #1 domestically and #2 globally in MILC sales...that’s the M line. It baffles me that anyone would question their commitment to that line.

OTOH, what some people mean by ‘commitment to the M line’ is making the specific lens(es) they want in the EF-M mount, be that a telephoto prime, a TS-E lens, or whatever. Those people should understand that it’s not Canon’s goal to make everyone happy, it’s to sell lots of cameras and to make a profit. To that end, expect mostly ‘consumer-level’ lenses for the M line, just Ike we’ve seen with the EF-S line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford