More Full Frame Mirrorless Talk, Maybe Some Surprises? [CR1]

[Don Haines]

Will the lens adapter needed for EF to EF-M to FF sensor configuration be sturdy and durable enough for field work with heavy long telephoto lenses? That's something that probably needs extensive testing.

Remember, once you get into the big whites, it’s not so much mounting the lens on the camera as it is mounting the camera on the lens

 

[Kit.]

Will the lens adapter needed for EF to EF-M to FF sensor configuration be sturdy and durable enough for field work with heavy long telephoto lenses? That's something that probably needs extensive testing.

Remember, once you get into the big whites, it’s not so much mounting the lens on the camera as it is mounting the camera on the lens

Static load for a camera+lens combo on a tripod is by far not the heaviest load suffered by an adapter during its routine [ab]use.

 

[melgross]

We’re certainly not expecting the M series mount for full frame.

Not sure who the "we" is of which you speak, but I think a good % of those who have been paying attention here are expecting exactly that.

That would be nuts. The M mount is for an app-c size sensor. It would be, in no way, appropriate for a full size sensor. Why would someone think that work?

 

[CanonGrunt]

I would be very surprised if the CANON FF mirroless is not focused on Video more than stills. They are going to want to make up opportunity lost to the Sony a7 series and cameras like the GH5.

 

[BillB]

We’re certainly not expecting the M series mount for full frame.

Not sure who the "we" is of which you speak, but I think a good % of those who have been paying attention here are expecting exactly that.

That would be nuts. The M mount is for an app-c size sensor. It would be, in no way, appropriate for a full size sensor. Why would someone think that work?

Well, the EF-M has almost exactly the same throat diameter and flange distance as the E mount that Sony is using on its full frame cameras. Since the measurements work for Sony, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that Canon could use EF-M mount for fullframe mirrorless as well.

 

[Don Haines]

We’re certainly not expecting the M series mount for full frame.

Not sure who the "we" is of which you speak, but I think a good % of those who have been paying attention here are expecting exactly that.

That would be nuts. The M mount is for an app-c size sensor. It would be, in no way, appropriate for a full size sensor. Why would someone think that work?

Well, the EF-M has almost exactly the same throat diameter and flange distance as the E mount that Sony is using on its full frame cameras. Since the measurements work for Sony, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that Canon could use EF-M mount for fullframe mirrorless as well.

and sony gives you more vignetting at longer focal lengths...

 

[fullstop]

Canon EF-M mount might possibly be "force-fit" for FF [similar to Sony E-mount, involving major design compromises], but it was definitely developed for APS-C only and not with FF in mind. At least that's what the Canon people in charge of EOS M / EF-M said.

- Where is the most important factor in developing a new mount called "EF - M"?
Nakamura: It is a mount diameter that satisfies the APS - C size image circle properly, but also to make it possible to realize small size and light weight. In addition, the operation feeling such as attaching and detaching the lens is designed to be the same as the EF mount.

- EF-M mount. The mount diameter is also reduced from the EF mount
Can the EF-M mount correspond to sensors larger than APS - C size, eg 35 mm full size sensor?
Kikuchi: I think that I can not do that. I can not say that if I do something strange, I will not physically enter ... .... It is a level that the amount of marginal light falls considerably or that you do not know what the image will look like.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20120810_551672.html

 

[captainkanji]

A mirrorless in a 5DIV body would be cool. You could put something like internal ND filters in between the lens and sensor with the saved space. Maybe that's crazy science fiction talk.

 

[sanj]

Why make a DSLR form factor with focus on video??? Such form factor cameras are for photography first....

Whats not to like: Interchangeable lens video camera in a much smaller package. Does both photos and videos well and easily. One camera to do it all reasonably well... Sounds great to me

Do you shoot video much? I mean have you shot video with a dedicated video camera? DSLR form factor is for still photos first.

 

[Talys]

To think of 5d4 mirrorless, but NOT part of EOS - now THAT is going to be a challenging task. wtf.

Exactly what I was thinking - how do you reconcile that it will be like a mirrorless 5dIV but not part of the EOS system?

Maybe because it doesn't LOOK like an EOS?

A video-centric EFM full frame that's like a 5DIV is cool; but whether I'm interested would depend on how much like a 5DIV it is:

1) how well it works as a stills camera
2) how much it works like a 5DIV (the more, the better), and how similar the controls are to it (particularly, the right hand controls)
3) how ergonomically and technically well it works with larger EF lenses

With regards to the video-centric part, it could do a cropped 640x480 1 fps in 8 shades of grey and I'd be ok with it

 

[fullstop]

With regards to the video-centric part, it could do a cropped 640x480 1 fps in 8 shades of grey and I'd be ok with it

hehe, you talking 'bout da "4k video" on EOS M50? ;-) ;D

other than that, my video needs are the same as yours. so we are 2 already. and maybe there are millions of other Canon users who also see "video in stills cameras" that way?! ;-)

 

[jolyonralph]

Well, I'm expecting the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 to mount perfectly fine on my M5.

I haven't checked the patents to see if there's been anything posted about this particular lens, but there is of course the possibility at least that this will be the first full-frame EF-M lens. It'll still fit perfectly fine on the M5, and the offset in extra weight will more than be compensated by the extra lightening of your wallet

 

[Etienne]

Why make a DSLR form factor with focus on video??? Such form factor cameras are for photography first....

Whats not to like: Interchangeable lens video camera in a much smaller package. Does both photos and videos well and easily. One camera to do it all reasonably well... Sounds great to me

Do you shoot video much? I mean have you shot video with a dedicated video camera? DSLR form factor is for still photos first.

I shoot quite a lot of video with dedicated video cameras, and I shoot a lot of photos and video with DSLR/mirrorless cameras. The DSLR and mirrorless format works very well. It is much more portable, especially when compared large sensor video cameras. In fact virtually every videographer that I know uses DSLR/mirrorless form factor cameras for video in addition to dedicated video cameras. You only illustrate you ignorance when you say " DSLR form factor is for still photos first," and you must have been asleep for the past 10 years. Creative professionals are not so narrow minded.

 

[CanoKnight]

Too little too late. The A7 III is now the gold standard.

 

[CanonGrunt]

Why make a DSLR form factor with focus on video??? Such form factor cameras are for photography first....

Whats not to like: Interchangeable lens video camera in a much smaller package. Does both photos and videos well and easily. One camera to do it all reasonably well... Sounds great to me

.

Do you shoot video much? I mean have you shot video with a dedicated video camera? DSLR form factor is for still photos first.

I shoot quite a lot of video with dedicated video cameras, and I shoot a lot of photos and video with DSLR/mirrorless cameras. The DSLR and mirrorless format works very well. It is much more portable, especially when compared large sensor video cameras. In fact virtually every videographer that I know uses DSLR/mirrorless form factor cameras for video in addition to dedicated video cameras. You only illustrate you ignorance when you say " DSLR form factor is for still photos first," and you must have been asleep for the past 10 years. Creative professionals are not so narrow minded.

Yeah, and sometimes you need to get into tight spaces and that’s not as easy on a cinema camera. That was what cinematographers loved about the 5D MK II when it came out. It made a great “C” Cam. I think they went through about 50 of em when they filmed transformers. The memory cards survived, but the 5D not so much. But they did the job in those crash scenes.

I also know a ton of film students and you tubers that film every day, and they prefer the dslr form factor. They are used to it, and do great work with it, and don’t need a full crew for most of their work. It used to be I saw them all getting the 5D III, and these days it’s all A7’s and GH5s. That’s a lot of people buying those instead of canon, and expressly for video, when you add them all up.

I have a lot of issues with sony, but they are great in low light. They beat the 5D MK IV there. Personally I’m still hooked on Canon, but they’ll have to improve the video specs to get those customers back.

 

[brad-man]

Well, I'm expecting the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 to mount perfectly fine on my M5.

I haven't checked the patents to see if there's been anything posted about this particular lens, but there is of course the possibility at least that this will be the first full-frame EF-M lens. It'll still fit perfectly fine on the M5, and the offset in extra weight will more than be compensated by the extra lightening of your wallet

I don't happen to believe that the EF-M mount will be servicing the upcoming Canon FF MILC, so my future purchase of the EF-M 32 is strictly for use on my M cameras with their itty-bitty sensors. If the lens is "compatible" with a FF sensor, then that would give me pause since it would be much larger/heavier/expensive to cover the size of the image circle. As for the weight imbalance, if I had to rely on my wallet to counterbalance my lenses, I would fall down a lot.

 

[Talys]

As for the weight imbalance, if I had to rely on my wallet to counterbalance my lenses, I would fall down a lot.

LOL ;D

Good one!

 

[melgross]

We’re certainly not expecting the M series mount for full frame.

Not sure who the "we" is of which you speak, but I think a good % of those who have been paying attention here are expecting exactly that.

That would be nuts. The M mount is for an app-c size sensor. It would be, in no way, appropriate for a full size sensor. Why would someone think that work?

Well, the EF-M has almost exactly the same throat diameter and flange distance as the E mount that Sony is using on its full frame cameras. Since the measurements work for Sony, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that Canon could use EF-M mount for fullframe mirrorless as well.

It’s still too small. One reason for Canon’s success with EOS was because of the rather large mount. Same thing for their DSLRs. A few mm makes a big difference. I would hope to see a mount that allowed for extreme lens advantages over the coming years, not small ones.

A mount is a major decision. I would like to see Canon do it as well as possible. Let’s not say that Sony’s mount is the best that’s possible.

 

[melgross]

Canon EF-M mount might possibly be "force-fit" for FF [similar to Sony E-mount, involving major design compromises], but it was definitely developed for APS-C only and not with FF in mind. At least that's what the Canon people in charge of EOS M / EF-M said.

- Where is the most important factor in developing a new mount called "EF - M"?
Nakamura: It is a mount diameter that satisfies the APS - C size image circle properly, but also to make it possible to realize small size and light weight. In addition, the operation feeling such as attaching and detaching the lens is designed to be the same as the EF mount.

- EF-M mount. The mount diameter is also reduced from the EF mount
Can the EF-M mount correspond to sensors larger than APS - C size, eg 35 mm full size sensor?
Kikuchi: I think that I can not do that. I can not say that if I do something strange, I will not physically enter ... .... It is a level that the amount of marginal light falls considerably or that you do not know what the image will look like.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20120810_551672.html

Exactly! It’s just too small.

Look, if Canon wants to replace their top pro cameras, and they said that they did, just not yet, then they need to have the very best possible mount, not a compromise.

I’m tired of reading that mirrorless means smaller and lighter. There’s nothing wrong with the bigger, and heavier Pro camera bodies now. Many of us prefer that size and weight class.

But to compromise from the very beginning, limits everything for the future. When, eventually, I replace my 5Dmk IV with mirrorless, I want to replace it with something that will be comfortable with my bigger tele’s. We all know that big lenses on small bodies aren’t a good match. So Canon should make something robust.

Canon also makes small, and light DSLRs with the current mount. That means they can do it with a bigger mirrorless mount too. I wouldn’t even argue if they kept the current mount.

 

[melgross]

Too little too late. The A7 III is now the gold standard.

I hope you’re kidding. Really.

The Sony is good, but that doesn’t mean it’s a standard of any sort.