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

denstore

EOS M50
May 4, 2018
35
5
51
Lund, Sweden
What I worry about the most, is that Canon will be hamstringing themselves with a too small mount, like the EF-M. It will not be as versatile as the larger throat EF.
And looking at Nikon’s new 65mm throat mount, they will be able to develop faster glass, and maybe medium format as well. Canon should consider that path as well. To me, a new larger mount, ready for heavy, fast glass, and with a close to native functionality EF mount adapter would be the best solution.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
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.
+1. Spot on.

There's a zero chance EF-M goes away. That's absurd to contemplate for the reasons Neuro points out.

But there's also a zero chance EF-M blossoms into a Fuji X sort of lens portfolio. Never going to happen.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: nchoh

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
What I worry about the most, is that Canon will be hamstringing themselves with a too small mount, like the EF-M. It will not be as versatile as the larger throat EF.

And looking at Nikon’s new 65mm throat mount, they will be able to develop faster glass, and maybe medium format as well.
We do not know how big the Nikon FF mirrorless mount is.

Everyone is guessing because there are no reliably sized features to scale the mount with -- because it's a cleverly shot ad that deliberately obfuscated the hotshoe. It's likely bigger than F for a host of reasons, but no one knows just how big.

- A
 

denstore

EOS M50
May 4, 2018
35
5
51
Lund, Sweden
We do not know how big the Nikon FF mirrorless mount is.

Everyone is guessing because there are no reliably sized features to scale the mount with -- because it's a cleverly shot ad that deliberately obfuscated the hotshoe. It's likely bigger than F for a host of reasons, but no one knows just how big.

- A
Possible. But there has been quite a lot of extrapolated calculations, and not all of the that far from logic and reason. I believe it will be large and if they start making cameras that fit my hands, and have fast glass available, like the rumoured 50/0,95, I might pick up a Nikon before a dinky sized Canon with mostly f/4 lenses available. The prime reason that I’ve stayed away fron the M-series so far is that the available glass is slow, and if I use EF glass and an adapter, it’s not better than any other APS-S body.
 

takesome1

EOS R
Aug 23, 2013
1,490
122
99
Licking, Missouri
It's more than that. What does FF mirrorless offer that DSLR doesn't? What advantage does the new mount offer?
In the instance of a new mount, a smaller more compact package.

In the instance of a mirrorless EF mount, what would it offer that you will not be able to get with a dSLR?
I can go to live view and shoot without a mirror now.
 

Uneternal

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 25, 2016
64
34
I don't think that they're going a dual route. That would mean the big model would be EF and the small one EF-X, so people who are willing to spend less money would be screwed. Also in earlier rumors it's been mentioned Canon has a "sexy solution" for adapting lenses. We've also seen patents suggesting the new mount can take EF lenses as well. IMO we get an updated EF mount and the camera will fix the flange distance somehow automatically (hopefully not with a lens).
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
In the instance of a mirrorless EF mount, what would it offer that you will not be able to get with a dSLR?
I can go to live view and shoot without a mirror now.
...like one captures images with an iPad. :rolleyes:

Imagine doing what's shown below with an f/2.8 zoom or f/1.4 prime. That has the ergonomic sensibilities of a selfie stick. Hard, hard pass.



I want a camera up to my eye. It is more stable, more intutive for framing, I can operate controls without needing to look at them, etc.

- A
 
Last edited:

takesome1

EOS R
Aug 23, 2013
1,490
122
99
Licking, Missouri
...like one captures images with an iPad. Imagine doing what's shown below with an f/2.8 zoom or f/1.4 prime. That has the ergonomic sensibilities of a selfie stick. Hard, hard pass.



I want a camera up to my eye. It is more stable, more intutive for framing, I can operate controls without needing to look at them, etc.

- A
Tilt screen for the win in this discussion.
Imagine doing it with a tilt screen and holding at your chest, far more stable than holding your arms high to get to the camera to your eye. Keeping your face free to look around and see the world. Off your face is often a better perspective.

With the M people asked for a mirrorless then complained because it didn't have a viewfinder. What is the point to own a mirrorless if you are going to have it at your face all day? Only size and weight.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,647
2,167
Tilt screen for the wind in this discussion.
Imagine doing it with a tilt screen and holding at your chest, far more stable than holding your arms high to get to the camera to your eye. Keeping your face free to look around and see the world. Off your face is often a better perspective.
What camera(s) have a tilt screen configuration that you can see from the top down with the camera stabilized against your chest? The only ‘top down’ view that comes to mind is the one on my first camera.

 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
Tilt screen for the wind in this discussion.
With the M people asked for a mirrorless then complained because it didn't have a viewfinder. What is the point to own a mirrorless if you are going to have it at your face all day? Only size and weight.
  • MF assist in the age of disappearing manual focus screens
  • Elimination of mirror slap
  • Ability to use AF in a much larger part of the frame
  • Unlocking mroe affordable f/6.3 max aperture lenses (e.g. 150-600 f/6.3 IS STM for $1500, anyone?)
  • Amplifying VF light in dark rooms
  • Silent operation
  • Adapting third party / FD / competitive lenses
  • Removing the mirror box from being rate-limiting for fps
  • Elimination of AFMA
But yeah, not much besides size and weight. You're totally right. ;)

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quackator

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
Tilt screen for the win in this discussion.
Imagine doing it with a tilt screen and holding at your chest, far more stable than holding your arms high to get to the camera to your eye. Keeping your face free to look around and see the world. Off your face is often a better perspective.
FTR, tilt-screen liveview work is a very cool option for SLR or mirrorless cameras. I just don't want it as my primary option with which to shoot in a mirrorless fashion.

- A
 

takesome1

EOS R
Aug 23, 2013
1,490
122
99
Licking, Missouri
What camera(s) have a tilt screen configuration that you can see from the top down with the camera stabilized against your chest? The only ‘top down’ view that comes to mind is the one on my first camera.

Imagine it without the flash.
Far less intrusive for street photography.

For our last vacation I found the wife's M50 to be great for walking around taking street photo's at chest level. Far less of a distraction than using the 5DsR and 24-70 II.
 

applecider

EOS RP
May 20, 2012
488
43
Portland Oregon, Cape Cod
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.
I’d give you the 1D body with EF, but I’ll call you on the 5D with non-EF. Perhaps the demarcation point should be with the 1s, 5s, and 7s having native EF with the new camera or the 6 being the lite version. This because anytime you deal with a heavy lens a bigger body feels better. YMMV.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
I’d give you the 1D body with EF, but I’ll call you on the 5D with non-EF. Perhaps the demarcation point should be with the 1s, 5s, and 7s having native EF with the new camera or the 6 being the lite version. This because anytime you deal with a heavy lens a bigger body feels better. YMMV.
Thin doesn't have to be small. They could put a big chunky grip on a thin mount body, because even a kit zoom or small prime would protrude past the front-back distance of the 5D grip -- i.e. leave any lens other than a pancake on a thin mount body and you would take no less space in your bag than if you had a chunky grip.

Mirrorless grip copy.jpg
So give it a chunky grip with proper spacing for your fingers from the mount. :cool:

- A
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
24,647
2,167
Imagine it without the flash.
Far less intrusive for street photography.

For our last vacation I found the wife's M50 to be great for walking around taking street photo's at chest level. Far less of a distraction than using the 5DsR and 24-70 II.
I think you’re missing ahsanford’s point. A viewfinder has an eyecup, and that provides a third contact point for stabilizng the camera during a shot. Holding a camera down at chest level is more stable than holding it out in front of your face, but you’ve still got only 2 contact points. With the TLR, you could hold it against your chest – very stable – and look down into the VF. What I was asking (and what you didn’t answer) is if there’s a MILC with a tilt screen that allows the stability of a 3rd contact point without a VF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

takesome1

EOS R
Aug 23, 2013
1,490
122
99
Licking, Missouri
I think you’re missing ahsanford’s point. A viewfinder has an eyecup, and that provides a third contact point for stabilizng the camera during a shot. Holding a camera down at chest level is more stable than holding it out in front of your face, but you’ve still got only 2 contact points. With the TLR, you could hold it against your chest – very stable – and look down into the VF. What I was asking (and what you didn’t answer) is if there’s a MILC with a tilt screen that allows the stability of a 3rd contact point without a VF.
Neck,chest and hand. Your neck bears the weight, chest rests and hand stabilizes. The viewfinder of the M50 is in contact with your chest for stability. Are you assuming that you can not do this and you have to hold it away from your body? I didn't have an issue, in fact it feels very locked in doing it this way.
It probably wouldn't have worked with a black rapid but the strap it comes with works well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nchoh

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
I think you’re missing ahsanford’s point. A viewfinder has an eyecup, and that provides a third contact point for stabilizng the camera during a shot. Holding a camera down at chest level is more stable than holding it out in front of your face, but you’ve still got only 2 contact points. With the TLR, you could hold it against your chest – very stable – and look down into the VF. What I was asking (and what you didn’t answer) is if there’s a MILC with a tilt screen that allows the stability of a 3rd contact point without a VF.
Not an MILC, but a hack of the PowerShot N has popped up in a similar usage application a few times now:

The easy way:​
The hard way:​

My dad would totally dig these if he still shot -- he rocked a Rolleiflex in the military and then afterwards in civilian life.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,616
1,627
Neck,chest and hand. Your neck bears the weight, chest rests and hand stabilizes. The viewfinder of the M50 is in contact with your chest for stability. Are you assuming that you can not do this and you have to hold it away from your body? I didn't have an issue, in fact it feels very locked in doing it this way.
It probably wouldn't have worked with a black rapid but the strap it comes with works well.
Takesome, I take your point -- there are many ways to use a camera and I'm sure I could reel in something decent with the method you are describing. I'm just saying that I don't prefer to use it that way -- especially with heavier FF glass -- and surely I'm not the only one.

That doesn't mean waist-level liveview work is without value, I just think it shouldn't be the primary means to get at all the LiveView/mirrorless good stuff.

- A
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,712
575
Davidson, NC
...like one captures images with an iPad. :rolleyes:

Imagine doing what's shown below with an f/2.8 zoom or f/1.4 prime. That has the ergonomic sensibilities of a selfie stick. Hard, hard pass.



I want a camera up to my eye. It is more stable, more intutive for framing, I can operate controls without needing to look at them, etc.

- A
Sure, I prefer to look through the OVF when that is practical. Other than for video, I use Live View when the camera is on a tripod or when holding the camera to my face would put me lying in the mud or the like, when I need the tilty flippy view. Oh, and obviously when I shoot with the G7X II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jamesraj