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

[neonlight]

EF glass will anyways be "legacy" the second Canon launches their mirrorfree cameras - totally irrespective of mount - due to AF performance and functionality. AT best, EF glass will have AF performance as in mirrorless mode on a DSLR. Which is not as good as with detached Phase-AF (in mirror mode), which is what they were excleuively designed for [with a few recent exceptions]. Even when most of the "keep EF mount at all cost" folks are not aware of this or try to ignore it.

What is it in the lens which makes it designed for phase AF? Phase AF is in the body and works on a split of the light, which isn't necessary for MILC.

 

[fullstop]

there was a significant increase in bulk from Sony A7 1st gen to II and then another, smaller increase to gen III.

Only upside from my perspective is higher capacity battery in Mk. III. However, it may also have fit into 1st gen body size; along with 2 Micro SD slots.

 

[fullstop]

What is it in the lens which makes it designed for phase AF? Phase AF is in the body and works on a split of the light, which isn't necessary for MILC.

Same principle is also used and necessary in all MILCs with (on-sensor) phase AF (including Canon DP-AF) or Hybrid AF (PD + Contrast-Detect).

Nature of the AF drive in lens and its control makes the difference. On-sensor Phase-Af like Canon DP-AF gives a different signal compared to separate DSLR Phase AF sensor. Modern lenses designed for mirrorfree camera systems with on-sensor AF typically are focus-by-wire and have linear electromagnetic drives, rather than rotational AF drives plus mechanically coupled manual focussing gear as in almost all EF / L lenses.

I have not yet looked for videos, but I'd expect there are some showing difference in AF performance for an EF L lens when used on a Canon DSLR (eg 5D IV) in A.) mirror-mode and B) DP-AF liveview mode. There may be less of a difference or none at all for EF lens with Nano-USM drive [70-300 IS II] or EF lenses with STM drive [eg 40/2.8, 50/1.8 STM]. And maybe focus-by-wire EF 85/1.2 L II also has equally (slow) AF performance in DSLR mirror mode and DP-AF liveview. But again, not checked yet.

 

[3kramd5]

Because Sony A7 1st (and II gen) have serious flaws that make them very unattractive, despite attractive body size.

Like what (genuinely curious)? The only thing I remember was shutter shock, but that was an A7R issue.

unattractive Sony FE lenses - too big, way too expensive

But it was stipulated in the “magma carta” that small lenses would be used mostly, with large lenses for specific tasks. There are a host of small lenses that will mount to E. When a specific task calls for full format quality or long or fast glass, then take the weight/size penalty.

 

[3kramd5]

On-sensor Phase-Af like Canon DP-AF gives a different signal compared to separate DSLR Phase AF sensor.

If that were true, AF would not work with SLR lenses in live view. The main difference may be how frequently focus commands are given. Presumably they come more often from sensor-based AF, and older lens motors aren’t designed to work that way.

 

[fullstop]

yes, some difference/s in the signal causing lower AF performance with (most?) EF lenses in liveview operation. Maybe frequency only, maybe other differences. Unknown, since Canon keeps it highly proprietary/confidential/intransparent.

 

[3kramd5]

There are certainly protocol differences, but when it comes to the electrical interface, since old lenses react to DPAF, we must conclude that the same commands are used.

 

[fullstop]

There are certainly protocol differences, but when it comes to the electrical interface, since old lenses react to DPAF, we must conclude that the same commands are used.

yes, af works. but performance is better in mirror-mode (separate af sensor) than in liveview mode (dp-af and previous on-sensor AF implementations).

 

[neuroanatomist]

yes, af works. but performance is better in mirror-mode (separate af sensor) than in liveview mode (dp-af and previous on-sensor AF implementations).

What evidence do you have that the performance difference results from the lens' AF motor/etc., as opposed resulting from intrinsic differences in the body AF systems (on-sensor vs. dedicated AF sensor)?

 

[denstore]

Ok, but you’re talking f 2.8. We’re talking f 1.2 and faster.

Yes, I’m talking about 1,2. They might be large, but not much larger than most 2.8 zooms. I don’t see people having much trouble toting them around. My guess would be that the 70-200/2.8L is a quite common ingredient in many photographers kit bags. The 50/1.0L is almost identical in size to the 85/1.2L. I don’t hear that many owners of the 85 complaining about its size.

F 1.0 is nuts, quite frankly. Those old lenses weren’t very good either. A bit more than you should? How many extra thousands qualifies as “a bit more” in your book? And since extremely fast lenses won’t ever focus accurately unless you want to take the time to look at the big screen directly, how much time are you willing to devote to focus?

They weren’t that bad either. I’ve not had the opportunity to try the 50/1.0, but from what I’ve heard, it isn’t worse than the first version 85/1.2, which I have owned. It was a bit slow, and not spot on in every picture, but it worked when you got used to it. And I really hope that some things have evolved, and that AF will be better on a lens of 2019 than one from 1989.
Is it worth it? Isn’t that something each my answer for themselves? My guess is that a new 50/1.0L would probably cost something like $2500-3000. Would I find it hard to get that kind of cash together? Probably. But not impossible. And I’m sure I would use it a lot more than, as an example, a $6000 300/2.8 IS, a lens that isn’t that uncommon among pros and enthusiasts, and that probably costs 2x more than a new 50/1.0L would.

What is this discussion really about? If Canon would loose to much from changing from EF to something else, isn’t it? Who would Canon worry about losing? Most users wouldn’t be that troubled about a new mount. Two or three lenses to sell, and then investing in a couple of new lenses. Acceptable. No problem. What Canon probably do worry about is how the pros and enthusiasts would react to a new mount. Many have lots of money invested in the EF system, and for them to consider changing, there need to be incitement for doing so. Super fast primes might do it. Significantly better Image quality might do it as well. In body stabilisation? A step or two of dynamic range? I doubt it. Smaller size? Not a chance in h*ll.
So, are the pros worth it? Canon probably sells a lot more to low and mid end users anyway. But for the brand, the pros mean a lot. Canon want people to know that all (or most, at least) those white lenses at sports events are Canon. They want the pros to be happy, because it boosts sales in the lower segments as well.

 

[Kit.]

Except that we’re talking about FF here.

Actually, we were talking about round sensor format there.

Ah, no. Most people will not be willing to pay for features. Yes, as to how many would in a discussion forum. But not in real life. There, very few would.

Do you remember how much EOS 5 costed just 20 years ago?

I doubt most would buy a product that costs $10,000, even with most of those features, if a similar model without most cost $3,000.

But the only reason why it would cost $10,000 would be because people would be buying it at this price. Purely marketing reason.

Sensor manufacturing by itself doesn't cost that much of the difference (it's actually almost negligible in the long run). The cost of manufacturing for one wafer of sensors is below $1000. The rest is R&D, marketing, top management pay, and profit.

 

[Architect1776]

• 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

I would like to see some way of mounting FD lenses on a Canon FF mirrorless. I can now on the M5 but on a FF would be most excellent without a piece of glass.

 

[3kramd5]

The cost of manufacturing for one wafer of sensors is below $1000.

I’ve never seen good numbers for fab cost.

At what level of production does one expect $1000/wafer? Does it include amortizing capital expenses on equipment, or is it labor, raw material, and overhead (recurring)?

 

[cayenne]

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.

I might posit that selling 2x cameras with different mounts to allow for different sizing MIGHT actually help double sales to pros.

I mean, you have people that shoot at concerts, for example with 2 full sized cameras...they might opt later for one big and one small, or even add the small as a 3rd camera...etc.

Just a thought....

cayenne

 

[melgross]

All manufacturers have made the 'grave mistake' of not making the specific camera and lenses that AvTvM/fullstop wants.

Eh! They do what they think is best. They’re not always right. It’s only a grave mistake if it means they take extended losses, or go out of business because of it.

 

[melgross]

Yes, I’m talking about 1,2. They might be large, but not much larger than most 2.8 zooms. I don’t see people having much trouble toting them around. My guess would be that the 70-200/2.8L is a quite common ingredient in many photographers kit bags. The 50/1.0L is almost identical in size to the 85/1.2L. I don’t hear that many owners of the 85 complaining about its size.




They weren’t that bad either. I’ve not had the opportunity to try the 50/1.0, but from what I’ve heard, it isn’t worse than the first version 85/1.2, which I have owned. It was a bit slow, and not spot on in every picture, but it worked when you got used to it. And I really hope that some things have evolved, and that AF will be better on a lens of 2019 than one from 1989.
Is it worth it? Isn’t that something each my answer for themselves? My guess is that a new 50/1.0L would probably cost something like $2500-3000. Would I find it hard to get that kind of cash together? Probably. But not impossible. And I’m sure I would use it a lot more than, as an example, a $6000 300/2.8 IS, a lens that isn’t that uncommon among pros and enthusiasts, and that probably costs 2x more than a new 50/1.0L would.

What is this discussion really about? If Canon would loose to much from changing from EF to something else, isn’t it? Who would Canon worry about losing? Most users wouldn’t be that troubled about a new mount. Two or three lenses to sell, and then investing in a couple of new lenses. Acceptable. No problem. What Canon probably do worry about is how the pros and enthusiasts would react to a new mount. Many have lots of money invested in the EF system, and for them to consider changing, there need to be incitement for doing so. Super fast primes might do it. Significantly better Image quality might do it as well. In body stabilisation? A step or two of dynamic range? I doubt it. Smaller size? Not a chance in h*ll.
So, are the pros worth it? Canon probably sells a lot more to low and mid end users anyway. But for the brand, the pros mean a lot. Canon want people to know that all (or most, at least) those white lenses at sports events are Canon. They want the pros to be happy, because it boosts sales in the lower segments as well.

And what purpose would that extra half stop serve? Focus would be poor. Even now, auto focus struggles with f 1.4. Manual focus these days is a joke.

 

[melgross]

Actually, we were talking about round sensor format there.


Do you remember how much EOS 5 costed just 20 years ago?


But the only reason why it would cost $10,000 would be because people would be buying it at this price. Purely marketing reason.

Sensor manufacturing by itself doesn't cost that much of the difference (it's actually almost negligible in the long run). The cost of manufacturing for one wafer of sensors is below $1000. The rest is R&D, marketing, top management pay, and profit.

Well, round sensors isn’t the discussion. It’s an abberent post. I replied because it’s just not practical.

The main reason why digital cameras with large sensors cost what they do is because of the cost of the sensor.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Eh! They do what they think is best. They’re not always right. It’s only a grave mistake if it means they take extended losses, or go out of business because of it.

Obviously. I guess I need to go back to the old forum and find the /sarcasm/ tags that I inadvertently left behind.

 

[Kit.]

I’ve never seen good numbers for fab cost.

At what level of production does one expect $1000/wafer? Does it include amortizing capital expenses on equipment, or is it labor, raw material, and overhead (recurring)?

Honestly, I haven't seen the hard numbers, but my understanding that it is the kind of price you can expect from foundries that do CMOS sensors for you. R&D and having a luxury of running your own fab grossly under its capacity are extra, but once the sensor technology matures, they won't be a big deal either.

Well, round sensors isn’t the discussion. It’s an abberent post. I replied because it’s just not practical.

You claimed (or at least suggested) that the cameras for such sensors (using EF optics) must be too big, too heavy and too expensive. Which is not the case.

The main reason why digital cameras with large sensors cost what they do is because of the cost of the sensor.

No, they are generally harder to sell, in particular, because of a very small choice of compatible modern lenses, which are also very heavy and expensive, and that's what makes the sensor expensive (R&D and fab setup costs split between a tiny amount of sensors).

If a sensor flawlessly works with almost all big (and small; at least everything that accepts a teleconverter) whites, that would not be a problem.

 

[ahsanford]

The main reason why digital cameras with large sensors cost what they do is because of the cost of the sensor.

Sure, the component cost of the sensor is much higher with FF than crop, but the decision to use a FF sensor means that you need:

• Larger pentaprism / OVF
• Larger, potentially more robust/complicated mirrorbox assembly
• Larger, potentially more robust/complicated shutter
• (possibly) A larger, more complicated / expensive AF setup, though it may be that it may not be that different between a 5-series and (say) a 7-series for that; a 7-series covers more of the frame than a 5-series, so it may just be a similar setup covering more of a crop sensor's real estate than a FF sensor's real estate. I defer to the AF scholars here.

So yes, the sensor figures prominently in cost, but it brings in a lot of additional cost along for the ride to make use of that larger sensor.

- A