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

[ahsanford]

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

Sure, but Ken raises a fair point. In other industries, there a very clear delineation of good / better / best.

$X gets you Good.
$X + $Y gets you Better, which offers everything that Good did and then adds some stuff
$X + $Y + $Z gets you Best, which offers everything that Good + Better did and then adds some more stuff

Canon is usually pretty good at this, but they don't always do this. Sometimes it's for segmentation reasons (wildlifers need fps, not MP as one example) or sometimes because they arugably drop the ball. In 2012, some folks ponied up a lot of money for a 5D3 as the only FF option other than the 1DX1 -- quite possibly buying more camera than they needed -- and then Canon put out the 6D1 at 60% of the price. Surely the superlative 5D3 would run circles around the cheaper product, right? (In fairness, largely it did, but one could certainly make a parity argument on the most important component inside.)

Canon either listened to peoples' complaints (unlikely) or saw unit sales values which more heavily favored the 6D1 than the 5D3, and they (apparently) vowed to not repeat that error with the 5D4 vs. 6D2. Job done.

- A

 

[nchoh]

Sure, but Ken raises a fair point. In other industries, there a very clear delineation of good / better / best.

$X gets you Good.
$X + $Y gets you Better, which offers everything that Good did and then adds some stuff
$X + $Y + $Z gets you Best, which offers everything that Good + Better did and then adds some more stuff

Canon is usually pretty good at this, but they don't always do this. Sometimes it's for segmentation reasons (wildlifers need fps, not MP as one example) or sometimes because they arugably drop the ball. In 2012, some folks ponied up a lot of money for a 5D3 as the only FF option other than the 1DX1 -- quite possibly buying more camera than they needed -- and then Canon put out the 6D1 at 60% of the price. Surely the superlative 5D3 would run circles around the cheaper product, right? (In fairness, largely it did, but one could certainly make a parity argument on the most important component inside.)

Canon either listened to peoples' complaints (unlikely) or saw unit sales values which more heavily favored the 6D1 than the 5D3, and they (apparently) vowed to not repeat that error with the 5D4 vs. 6D2. Job done.

- A

You made my point for me. In cameras there tends to be trade offs. Bigger sensor, bigger file size. More mp bigger file size, longer write time. AA filter, less moire, less sharp image. For cars, not so much, pick type, pick size of car, pick trim level. A3, A5, A7 for sedans. Q3, Q5, SQ5 for SUV. Basic, standard, premium or what ever name to want to give your trim levels.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

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?

New mount won't give them a competitive advantage that's worth up to $$15000. So if the new mount isn't EF-compatible one way or another, that's pros who will be frustrated the most, not casual users. Often it's not a person but a company who owns the expensive gear - they will be frustrated too.

 

[nchoh]

New mount won't give them a competitive advantage that's worth up to $$15000. So if the new mount isn't EF-compatible one way or another, that's pros who will be frustrated the most, not casual users. Often it's not a person but a company who owns the expensive gear - they will be frustrated too.

How do you know the new mount won't give or enable competitive advantages? I don't know, but I do suspect that Canon R&D knows. They might be going after sports or they might be going after portrait/wedding/landscape photographers.

 

[nchoh]

Let's say the the new mount allows for a sensor 1.2 x FF, shorter flange distance with the result of better low light performance and longer zoom range at the same weight and costs of existing lense. Would professional sports photographers not upgrade? Tough choice for a professional to just sit on the sidelines and watch their competitors pull in the money.

 

[ahsanford]

Here's how a mount -- by itself -- could change the game for users:

• It is larger, such that larger max aperture lenses can be developed. (Many believe Nikon is going to do this, btw)
• It is much much larger, such that it could support a larger sensor, like 44x33 or 645 medium format. Not happening.
• It communicates with lenses in an improved manner to do something heretofore impossible (IDK... automated focus stacking, a means to firmware update lenses without a dock?). Seems possible, but I'm looking for a killer application here.
• The mount physically moves front to back to work with both thin mount and full EF lenses without adaptor. There are other options that surely are more mechanically reliable than this if Canon is hellbent on a super camera with both Full EF and a small form factor.
• The mount is stepped/nested to allow (IDK) crop lenses to tuck inside the FF mount. ...Yay?

Can someone tell me if any of those at all are on the docket for Canon?

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the mount itself is potentially magical. The impact of the mount decision is colossal on a host of fronts: strategic, competitive positioning, user costs, lens inventory, etc. But the mount itself? It's a mount. It's a means to an end and I'm sure Canon will make one that works.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Let's say the the new mount allows for a sensor 1.2 x FF, shorter flange distance with the result of better low light performance and longer zoom range at the same weight and costs of existing lense. Would professional sports photographers not upgrade? Tough choice for a professional to just sit on the sidelines and watch their competitors pull in the money.

1) You are conflating the mount and the sensor into 'the mount could deliver this' -- that's a bit misleading. But yes, a different sized sensor could change the game, absolutely.

2) You need to explain your idea, b/c it kind of sounds like a 1.2x larger sensor than FF that somehow gives you more zoom range. It doesn't work that way. I must be missing something -- please set me straight.

• Canon could go with a smaller than FF sensor that works with either new lenses or EF on adaptors -- let's resurrect APS-H as an example -- and yes, sports users would enjoy a nice little 1.3x bump in their effective FL. But that smaller sensor would be worse in low light for a given resolution (see crop vs. FF low light performance as an example.
• Canon could go with a larger than FF sensor, but it gets complicated. Those sensors will cost a lot more and that cost will get passed on to us. New lenses with a larger image circle would be needed to use that sensor to its utmost, and those lenses would actually be bigger and heavier than EF lenses. EF lenses (via adaptor) would not change their zoom with this -- they'd just use the central parts of that sensor and would work as they do on FF.

I'm not saying there isn't something slick Canon could with the mount/sensor decision. They could. I don't think they will. The sensor defines this market because is provides ideal access to a massive slate of EF glass -- Canon's #1 competitive advantage. So I don't see them pulling out an APS-H or 44x33 medium format sort of surprise on us.

- A

 

[ThailandEyes]

My issue is the possible loss of the optical viewfinder ... my old eyes don't do EVF all that well ...

With the optical I was able to add a diopter adjustment to suit my focus without glasses ...

 

[Quarkcharmed]

How do you know the new mount won't give or enable competitive advantages? I don't know, but I do suspect that Canon R&D knows. They might be going after sports or they might be going after portrait/wedding/landscape photographers.

Suppose I have a fleet of very expensive lenses (I can be a rich photog or a company). If the new mount is not EF compatible, what do I do with my $15000 lenses? Also how long should I wait for the new mount lenses to arrive, e.g. 400mm, 800mm etc?

 

[3kramd5]

Suppose I have a fleet of very expensive lenses (I can be a rich photog or a company). If the new mount is not EF compatible, what do I do with my $15000 lenses? Also how long should I wait for the new mount lenses to arrive, e.g. 400mm, 800mm etc?

You should wait until there is a compelling reason to update your fleet, and keep using them until then. Same answer with series I to II, and II to III.

 

[mb66energy]

My issue is the possible loss of the optical viewfinder ... my old eyes don't do EVF all that well ...

With the optical I was able to add a diopter adjustment to suit my focus without glasses ...

On the M50 the EVF has diopter adjustment (a slider being a little bit fiddly but it works).
I never thought that I would accept an EVF within minutes but just the EVF of that plastic fantastic is very usable if not very good. The colors and color transitions on the back display are definitely better but I really like (1) exposure simulation, (2) advanced info, (3) preview and (4) visible video viewfinder with EVF.
Only in very bright conditions the OVF is much much better. Maybe only a matter of time if OLED displays can show 100x brighter images.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

You should wait until there is a compelling reason to update your fleet, and keep using them until then. Same answer with series I to II, and II to III.

That's exactly the point. I was answering the claim that pros don't care about the mount.
If I have lenses much more expensive than any top pro Canon camera, why would I buy a new incompatible camera? I do care about compatibility and about the mount.

 

[fingerstein]

When you have no news from Canon, you have to fabricate one.... The fact is: we are hearing nothing from Canon.

 

[fullstop]

EF lenses will definitely remain fully functional on all upcoming Canon FF mirrorfree cameras. with or without (simple, inexpensive, solid, little, glass-free) OEM adapter is the only open question.

but ... even if Canon were to bring (some) FF mirrorfree camera/s with EF mount, AF performance of (most) existing EF lenses would not be as good as
1. it is on DSLRs (in mirror mode, separate phase-af sensor) and
2. not as good as new lenses with dual, triple or quadruple LEM AF drives and more CPU/AI, better algorithms built in, designed exclusively for mirrorless, on-sensor DP-AF operation.

that's why Canon will develop (almost) all lenses in new versions, optimized for mirrorfree operation. therefore, instead of launching "EF Mk. III for mirrorfree" they may as well fully utilize ALL advantages of mirrorbox elimination: 1. more freedoms in optical formulae and 2. more compact designs across entire most frequently used focal length range - by introducing a new mount with shorter flange focal distance (and backwards compatibility with all EF glass via little adapter) .

because of these facts i do not believe in 2 different mounts for Canon FF mirrorfree lineup.

All existing EF glass with possible exception of STM (40/2.8, 50/1.8) and Nano-USM (70-300 IS II) will be "legacy" the very moment Canon's first FF mirrorfree camera appears, irrespective of mount used. residual resale value of EF glass will drop - like it or not.

and once again: EF-M mount is APS-C only. the very people at Canon who designed it, said so publicly. FF use might theoretically be possible, but it would be as compromise-fraught as Sony's E-mount. Which is Sony's greatest achilles heel. Canon is nit so stupid and will avoid this grave mistake.

Canon is evidently (!) planning a smooth transition from 1 FF and 1 crop mount in their mirrorslapping past (EF, EF-S) to 1 FF and 1 crop mount in their mirrorfree, bright future: "EF-X" and EF-M.

even i as fairly Canon critical observer have to applaud them on this strategy and say "SMART move, well played, Canon". you will sell millions of new cameras, multi-millions of new lenses abd lead sales stats and market shares for many years to come. much to canon forum fanbois' delight and neuronal pleasure.

 

[Kit.]

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

That's not a problem, one can crop the rest out (selecting the needed crop in postprocessing: 2:1 or 3:2 or 4:3 or 1:1 or 3:4... you got it). But the sensor will still not provide some pixels that EF lenses can render. 43 by 43 sensor is better. Or actually a round sensor with 43mm diameter.

 

[Mikehit]

How do you know the new mount won't give or enable competitive advantages? I don't know, but I do suspect that Canon R&D knows. They might be going after sports or they might be going after portrait/wedding/landscape photographers.

The problem Canon (and any company in fact) now face, is that we are seeing an increasing disparity between what the designers see as an advance and what the twitterati will hail as an advance.
Pros are somewhat different - they know what they need and need what they know and they are usually too busy taking photos to join the baying mobs which ends up with an unbalanced internet view of what is important.

 

[neuroanatomist]

• It communicates with lenses in an improved manner to do something heretofore impossible (IDK... automated focus stacking, a means to firmware update lenses without a dock?). Seems possible, but I'm looking for a killer application here.

Can someone tell me if any of those at all are on the docket for Canon?

Current mount is fine for those. Magic Lantern can do automatic focus stacking, lens firmware updates can be applied via camera body now (starting with bodies from ~2012, IIRC).

 

[michaelichiro]

EF mount mirrorless sounds good. This system perfectly support all range of lens immediately. Although the size of camera cannot reduce too much, but i think it is acceptable of DSLR user.

 

[snoke]

EOS 1Dm
Pro do weddings? No noise.
Tennis same.

 

[Stuart]

Well they have releases a lot of EF glass recently - so that would be odd if they were dropping EF mounts