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

[ahsanford]

Now considering that our lenses project a CIRCULAR image upon the sensor, why not sell a camera with a square sensor of 36mm by 36mm?

But think of all the lost vertical grip sales!

I kid.

Also, I think your trig is a little off there. 36 only works because 24 is in the picture -- it's an inscribed rectangle, right? So a square 36x36 wouldn't be covered by the EF image circle and all new lenses would be required.

The idea could work, but it would have to be a slightly different sized square sensor. Rough calcs on a piece of paper imply it would be more like 30x30 without increasing the image circle size.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Your reasoning as to when it is OK for a 6 series to best the 5 series seems highly suspect to me.

Forgive me, I meant to say: The 6D should never one-up the 5D in the beefier top-line horsepower specs. The 5-series should undeniably have better AF, a better sensor, better throughput, etc. and that could not be said for the 6D1 vs. 5D3 comparison. Canon will never do that again -- 6D money should never get you into the 5D party or people will wonder why the 5D party is worth paying for.

Should have the 5D4 have had a tilty-flippy? Absolutely. That was a poor call from Canon.

But with the 5D4 getting +4 MP, DPRAW, an on-chip ADC sensor and a 1DX2-like AF setup, few folks today are alleging the 6D2 is a better overall camera than the 5D4. Canon, in really broad strokes, solved their prestige/price points problem this go round. I think they laid a horrible egg with no tilty-flippy and only 7 fps, but they spiked the punch on the 6D2 enough to leave the two products fairly well differentiated.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

With crop sensor cameras (80D), I can build my system with EF and then upgrade eventually to FF. Also I can have say 5DmkIV and a backup 80D and use the same lenses.
If 'dual approach' separates hi-end and low-end markets (and also separates EF-M mount from EF-X), it makes it virtually impossible to migrate and upgrade. And still this low-end EF-X will compete with 6D and partially with M50.

Fair, but your buying of EF glass instead of EF-S glass with your 80D was a choice. In the FF scenario, the same choice would apply. You could buy the new thin FF mirrorless body and just buy EF lens to future proof all your lens purchases. (You could do the same thing and just buy EF lenses for an EF-M mirrorless for the same reason as well.)

My guess is that folks who might own a thin mount FF mirrorless and either an FF SLR or (down the road) Full EF mirrorless probably will only own 1-2 thin mount lenses and rely heavily on an adaptor to use their EF glass. In other words, if you're vested in EF (say 5-10+ EF lenses), even if you want a thin mount mirrorless, you're still largely going to shoot EF because you already own it.

But no one said small meant beginner / enthusiast and big is only for pros. Canon loves their price points. They very well might try to build a 6D / 5D / 5DS hierarchy in thin mount and full EF mirrorless if the market is willing to pay for it.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

And a bilge pump.

Ha! That A7 battery lid should come with one.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

What if Canon were to REALLY be innovative while continuing the EF line of lens AND giving us much more image?
I started this madness in the fifties shooting 120 roll film twin lens reflex (TLR) cameras. No need for landscape versus portrait, the film was square!

Now considering that our lenses project a CIRCULAR image upon the sensor, why not sell a camera with a square sensor of 36mm by 36mm?

Same lens with new sensor processing = 50% more area! The len's perspective remain unchanged (even though math gives me a crop factor of 0.85) but more image is delivered. {Someone check my math -- I feel that crop factor is the ratio of image circle radius}

No more turning the camera for portrait mode. Camera could do it for us (if we didn't want square) -- or we crop in post.

View attachment 179403

You may want to pick up a geometry textbook and read through it. Pay close attention to the section on squares inscribed within circles. When you do the math, you'll find the largest square that can be inscribed within a 43 mm diameter circle (the EF lens image circle) has sides of 30.6 mm. Crop a 3:2 rectangle out of that and you'll have much less sensor area than full frame offers.

 

[tron]

The ‘replacement’ was the EF-S 10-18mm IS.

We won’t see USM, STM is the path forward for consumer-level lenses.

And the 10-18 is a very nice sharp little wide angle lens. Its only drawback is that it can't handle reflections well (speaking out of experience after a night shooting). But for daily landscape use it's really very good. And its value for money is excellent. I guess an updated 10-22 would serve mainly for the f/3.5 at the wide end. Also I believe USM or STM doesn't seem really important for a wide angle lens.

 

[dak723]

Agree of course, but I still think a good chunk of the market is poised to ridicule an EF offering and dismiss it outright as 'typical Canon innovation' regardless of specs or feature-set.

Canon doesn't really give two hoots about perception in that regard -- provided it sells. But a thinner mount instantly defines the product as a new offering far more straightforwardly than full EF might.

As I've said many times, both offering thin and full EF would be wise. Not having a thin option leaves considerably difficult-to-earn money (without a thin mount) on the table.

- A

Canon will get ridiculed by the internet and social media crowd regardless of what it does. The question for Canon - and unfortunately many others is - should you care about what the knee-jerk reaction of the internet is, especially considering that knee jerk reaction is usually ignorant and incompetent.

Personally, I have always agreed with your assessment that two mirrorless mounts is the way to go. There definitely seem to be two very different target groups that can't be satisfied with one solution.

 

[tron]

As long as they make an EF mount camera they can get ridiculed by the stupid social media crowd. They will still sell well and they will get recognition by the professionals and the Canon lens owners...

 

[eosuser1234]

The EF-M mount in itself is perfectly capable of full frame performance. However, none of the EF-M lenses produced to date would be capable of full frame coverage. The EF-M mount is simply the electronics, physical mount dimensions and flange focal distance. Which is the same flange focal distance which Sony is using in their full frame mirrorless. They may change the name to EF-FM, but the lenses mount in itself is the same. What will be the question is if you can use the APS-C EF-M line on the new FF camera and it has auto crop to aps-c mode.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Forgive me, I meant to say: The 6D should never one-up the 5D in the beefier top-line horsepower specs.

On the Canon website, when you filter out cameras by level, it shows 1DX MkII, 5Ds(r), 5DMkIV and, surprisingly, 6DMkII under the 'professional' tab. 6DMkII is also under the 'enthusiast' tab.
That's how Canon themselves position their cameras. If they split EF mirrorless and EF-X mirrorless, according to this theory, they should create (eventually) analogues of 6D, 5D and 1DX as EF mirrorless.

Initially it'll likely be a continuation of the 5D line, whether it's a mirrorless EF or EF-X.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

The EF-M mount in itself is perfectly capable of full frame performance.

Maybe it's capable of FF performance in theory, but it's 7mm narrower than the EF mount. So if the new FF morrorless mount is a EF-M derivative, it won't be compatible with EF lenses even through an adapter.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

I said it 12 months ago, they could release two versions with the EF mount version the stepping stone they need whilst building native mirrorless lens line-up. The EF version will be thicker, but still lighter and have all the other benefits of mirorless. Will be interesting though to see if Nikon's adapter allows full speed AF with legacy glass on it's mirrorless, if so, there is no need for the EF version IMO as Canon should be able to do the same thing. Ok it might be quite as fast as native mirrorless glass but it should be a small penalty.

 

[nchoh]

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

I think you almost got it right in this post and others...

I think Canon has data that says (roughly);

60% of folk want a small form factor ILC regardless of DSLR/mirrorless - this is what EOS-M is targeting.
20% of folk don't care about mount and are simply interested in a FF mirrorless that provides improvements - pro users.
20% of folk hope that the new FF mirrorless will us EF lenses - these are the enthusiasts who have a collection of EF lenses.

Yes, I your latter comment about the EOS-M hits the spot, EOS-M is not going away as per above.

Question is: EF-X for the pros... how will it be designed to bring improvements to photography???

 

[ahsanford]

Also I believe USM or STM doesn't seem really important for a wide angle lens.

Which is why all FF 16-35 lenses (same FOV as the 10-22) have no AF tech at all, just the old sqeaky microm--

Oh. Hold on a minute.

Not everyone is shooting landscapes with their ultra-wides. If you are shooting people, candids, travel, photojourno, football coaches shaking hands after the game, environmental portraiture, etc. quick AF is a really nice thing to have. I loved my 10-22, but my move to FF saw me give it away to a friend.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I said it 12 months ago, they could release two versions with the EF mount version the stepping stone they need whilst building native mirrorless lens line-up.

This is the part I'm definitely in the minority on: why will Canon build up a new FF mirrorless mount portfolio of lenses when a smaller overall rig will only be made from a handful of those lenses? In other words, making a 24 2.8, 50 2, 85 1.8, etc. in a thin mirrorless format will save space overall when bolted on the lens. But put a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 135 2, heck probably even f/4 zooms, etc. on there and you don't save a lick of space. You are effectively re-doing EF... for what? Will the lens magically be lighter? Sharper? Focus faster? I'm not so sure.

Remember, the space savings we are talking about is about 25mm, i.e. one inch front to back.

So why do it? Why spend countless millions to make all your lenses (maybe) an inch shorter? Why not just offer 2-3 tiny primes, an ultracompact f/5.6-6.3-ish standard zoom, a compact macro and just call it good?

- A

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I think you almost got it right in this post and others...

I think Canon has data that says (roughly);

60% of folk want a small form factor ILC regardless of DSLR/mirrorless - this is what EOS-M is targeting.
20% of folk don't care about mount and are simply interested in a FF mirrorless that provides improvements - pro users.
20% of folk hope that the new FF mirrorless will us EF lenses - these are the enthusiasts who have a collection of EF lenses.

Pro users don't care about the mount? Especially those who have the EF beasts like this https://store.canon.com.au/lenses/telephoto-lenses/ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm.html. They don't care at all!

 

[nchoh]

Your reasoning as to when it is OK for a 6 series to best the 5 series seems highly suspect to me. Flip screen, Wifi, GPS... so those (at various times) were all OK. The flip screen omission was wise?!? The 5D4 should absolutely have had the flip screen. At least they gave it Wifi. I would own one if it had the flip screen, and I probably wouldn't be nearly as curious as to what is happening in mirrorless. And my Canon lens collection would most certainly have grown by now as well. The feature segmentation for the consumer is maddening when you want some features of the higher model and some features of the lower model.

Canon should take a lesson from car manufacturers. If you're going to coax a consumer up a trim level for a specific feature, the consumer shouldn't be giving up key features of the lower trim level. When I look at an Audi Prestige trim level, I know there's nothing from the lower Premium level that I'd be giving up. (Well... there are exceptions based on engineering constraints. Sometimes one feature consumes too much space to preserve another.) But if Audi asked for a bunch of arbitrary compromises, I'd need to go look at the Acura.

I hope this is the direction Canon is heading. I will gladly pay for the premium trim level if they do.

How many times have you heard "My back up camera is a ..."?
How many time have you heard "My backup car is a ..."?

 

[nchoh]

Pro users don't care about the mount? Especially those who have the EF beasts like this https://store.canon.com.au/lenses/telephoto-lenses/ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm.html. They don't care at all!

Yup, IMO, if the new mount gives them competitive advantage (for example, a bigger better sensor) over their competitors, they won't care at all. Hence my question. What advantage will the new mount bring?

 

[takesome1]

Canon should take a lesson from car manufacturers. If you're going to coax a consumer up a trim level for a specific feature, the consumer shouldn't be giving up key features of the lower trim level. When I look at an Audi Prestige trim level, I know there's nothing from the lower Premium level that I'd be giving up. (Well... there are exceptions based on engineering constraints. Sometimes one feature consumes too much space to preserve another.) But if Audi asked for a bunch of arbitrary compromises, I'd need to go look at the Acura.

My wife didn't want the fully loaded Ford Raptor because they couldn't have vibrating seats.
She settled for the fully loaded King Ranch.
She drives my Raptor and sometimes she regrets that decision.

You are comparing convenience trim features of cameras that coax the common consumer to those of advance users. If you look at the 1D series it is built for professional work in adverse conditions. If your at the level to shoot with this body you really do not need the running man and mountain option on your camera. Needs are different at different levels. Different features for different tasks.

 

[takesome1]

How many times have you heard "My back up camera is a ..."?
How many time have you heard "My backup car is a ..."?

I have a back up camera in my car.