More Than One Active Full Frame Mirrorless Project at Canon? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
One thing is clear to me. There are those who think clearly/logically and those who don't, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.
An awful lot of what I've read over the years relating to mirrorless promoted the advantage of small size and that clearly is only the case if the lenses are also small, which precludes serious telephotos. So, it might make sense to have a small camera and lenses in the shorter focal length range designed together as previously mentioned system but that becomes a niche market competing with cell phones, which do very well in those focal lengths and no doubt will be getting even better.
What I predict is a camera incorporated in the eyeball with added memory in the brain for perfect storage/recall. It will transmit images wirelessly by a concentrated thought and ...
Jack
An awful lot of what I've read over the years relating to mirrorless promoted the advantage of small size and that clearly is only the case if the lenses are also small, which precludes serious telephotos. So, it might make sense to have a small camera and lenses in the shorter focal length range designed together as previously mentioned system but that becomes a niche market competing with cell phones, which do very well in those focal lengths and no doubt will be getting even better.
What I predict is a camera incorporated in the eyeball with added memory in the brain for perfect storage/recall. It will transmit images wirelessly by a concentrated thought and ...
Jack
Upvote
0
I've been using my EOS M5 more, and I'm wondering if I've been wrong about the FF mirrorless.
The more I use the M5, the more I realise there may not be a need for a compact FF mirrorless if the quality of APS-C sensors keeps improving as it has.
Back when I got serious into photography, I had the 500D, and that was a dreadful camera. The upgrade to the 5D Mark III was astonishing. The difference is night and day. But I compare photos I've taken with the M5 with photos I've taken on my full-frame cameras, and the difference isn't always as obvious. In particular, focus accuracy on the M5 is pretty damn good, one of the biggest reasons I loved the upgrade from the poor 500D to the 5D III.
APS-C mirrorless allows even smaller and lighter lenses than a dedicated FF mirrorless mount plus it's already here, tried and tested. It'd be nice for more EF-M lenses, but I'm sure they'll come eventually.
So, perhaps it is better for a future FF mirrorless camera to be aimed at a different market entirely. Perhaps as an A9-killer. It won't necessarily be what I need, but that doesn't make it the wrong choice.
And maybe instead of a compact FF mirrorless all we really need is a seriously good set of quality prime EF-M APS-C lenses.
The more I use the M5, the more I realise there may not be a need for a compact FF mirrorless if the quality of APS-C sensors keeps improving as it has.
Back when I got serious into photography, I had the 500D, and that was a dreadful camera. The upgrade to the 5D Mark III was astonishing. The difference is night and day. But I compare photos I've taken with the M5 with photos I've taken on my full-frame cameras, and the difference isn't always as obvious. In particular, focus accuracy on the M5 is pretty damn good, one of the biggest reasons I loved the upgrade from the poor 500D to the 5D III.
APS-C mirrorless allows even smaller and lighter lenses than a dedicated FF mirrorless mount plus it's already here, tried and tested. It'd be nice for more EF-M lenses, but I'm sure they'll come eventually.
So, perhaps it is better for a future FF mirrorless camera to be aimed at a different market entirely. Perhaps as an A9-killer. It won't necessarily be what I need, but that doesn't make it the wrong choice.
And maybe instead of a compact FF mirrorless all we really need is a seriously good set of quality prime EF-M APS-C lenses.
Upvote
0
SecureGSM said:
I see a compact mirrorless camera such as the M5 as a secondary camera. If I'm shooting in more challenging conditions I wouldn't use the M5.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
jolyonralph said:
I like my M6, but there's no doubt that FF IQ is better. That's physics.
However, you may be right that there's no need for a compact FF MILC. For me, the M6 is a compromise – I know I'm trading IQ for portability. Even a compact FF MILC will be substantially bigger than the M6. FF lenses from wide to short tele, even dedicated MILC versions, are bigger than their APS-C counterparts. All of that adds up to a lack of portability, which defeats the purpose of a compact system.
Upvote
0
Oh, that does make sense if you are prepared carting around two sets of cameras: one for challenging conditions and second one crop MILC.
Else, a 6d-ish sized FF MILC with Canon EF Mount coupled with half-decent zoom lens.
Else, a 6d-ish sized FF MILC with Canon EF Mount coupled with half-decent zoom lens.
jolyonralph said:
Upvote
0
jolyonralph said:
Primes may be especially import for aps-c compacts. The zooms are slowish except for the 17-55 f2.8, which pretty much proves the point about size and cost. (and it isn't EF-M anyway) Also, aps-c cameras are not happy at higher ISO's, which increases the importance of fast lenses. For me the key lens already exists, the 22mm F2, so the question is how many more are needed. Another critical focal length for me is 50mm (85mm FF equivalent), and there is now the 50mm F1.8, but it would be nice to have something native. Around 30mm, there is the 28mm macro, which is native, but not all that fast. There isn't anything at 15mm, so that is a hole. So, maybe the glass is half full on the primes (or half empty).
Upvote
0
SecureGSM said:
Sometimes you can plan ahead and choose the right gear for the trip. Otherwise I'd be taking several bodies and dozens of lenses every time I went out.
Upvote
0
BillB said:
For APS-C I'd like to see a fast 15mm/16mm prime of AT LEAST f/2.8. I'd like to see a high quality native 50mm EF-M, for example an f/1.4 with IS. A 35mm f/1.8 wouldn't be a bad thing too.
Upvote
0
Must resist GAS and hold off on any new camera purchases until Canon lets us know what they have planned.
So EFM and EF full frame cameras to make everyone happy.
So EFM and EF full frame cameras to make everyone happy.
Upvote
0
scrup said:
On that note, I've seen a number of folks here speak up about the EF-M mount being large enough to cover FF.
If Canon did this -- if they went 'thin' with the FF mirrorless mount and that mount was EF-M -- what would that look like?
- How would we tell the lenses apart? Would we be in a Sony E vs. FE situation? Would Canon need to invent a letter modifier in the name so that we know what is designed for crop vs. FF? EF-M and EF-MX, -MF, -M(pick a letter), perhaps?
- Could you mount the tiny (current, crop) EF-M lenses on such a FF mount and just get an undersized image circle for the sensor? Would the AF still work if you did that? Would the FF camera automatically jump to a 'crop mode' or would it actually capture a frame with darkened corners like those folks tinkering with Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 crop lenses on their 6D?
- Presume that putting the FF EF-M lenses on a Crop EF-M body would work fine, but output would be cropped, like EF glass on EF-S or EF-M bodies today. Good presumption, or is there some other consideration that would prevent that?
I wasn't sure how the EF-M mount would play out in FF. Please educate me, thx.
- A
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Not quite. I am more for the a compromise consisting of "best possible FF sensor" combined with "compact, moderately fast primes and zooms" in as small a package as possible. It does not have to be bigger than M6. Sony RX1R II is smaller than M6. Yes, FF glass will be somewhat bigger than APS-C, but on FF sensor I am happy with f/2.0 primes and constant f/4.0 zooms. I want to shed the weight and bulk of my FF mirrorslapper and use my EF L glass [on a slim MILC] only when it is really, really needed = on planned shootings. And I want consolidate to only 1 camera system instead of 2 [APS-C and FF]. A slim FF MILC will allow me to do just that, without having to compromise on IQ.
Yes that's me and my wishlist. But I know from talking to others that I am by far not the only one. Even without market research data I am confident there are enough people who want exactly the same thing to make it worthwhile for Canon. And there is not even "product cannibalizing" going on, since I will definitely not buy another mirrorslapper in my life, no matter what. Done with them.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
1) I happen to agree with you on f/2 primes and f/4 zooms, but as the Sony A7 experiment shows, that will only placate some of the market. Lots of folks buy FF cameras expressly (or very high on their priority list) to pursue small DOF opportunities.
2) Have a look below. That's an RX1R II (35 f/2 lens) vs. an A7R II + 35 f/2.8 lens with both lined up to their back edges and disregarding the eyepiece. Even Sony, the masters of small, when granted an extra stop slower of a lens to keep it small, still could not match the RX1R II form factor. That is due to the fixed lens RX1R II design which buries the lens in the body. So a super thin FF ILC rig -- if you set the RX1R II as your goal for 'super thin' -- would require something even slower than an f/2.8 prime.
- A
Attachments
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
where's da problem? AT their choice they can use A) existing EF glass anything up to and including f/1.2 ... or B.) buy new native, further improved f/1.4 etc. lenses for FF MILC or C) use adapted glass from many makers, incluing Nikon, Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, whatever.
Of course faster glass will be larger/heavier. But in most frequently used focal range it can still be made smaller than the same lens for DSLR - provided new mirrorless mount parameters are well chosen.
Upvote
0
I still don't get it. What exactly is so great about extra small if it can't fit in your pocket. Sure a little saving on an airplane and a bit less weight wandering around site seeing but it's still dangling and in that sense a nuisance.
Obviously the expressed desires are associated with particular personal needs of the individual, which may not match the needs of another shooter. Please make your prediction of how many years until we see all the shooters at the Olympics holding tiny mirrorless cameras.
Jack
Obviously the expressed desires are associated with particular personal needs of the individual, which may not match the needs of another shooter. Please make your prediction of how many years until we see all the shooters at the Olympics holding tiny mirrorless cameras.
Jack
Upvote
0
Jack Douglas said:
It will fit into my coat pocket with a 35/2.0 pancake on it. And it will fit into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 fixed to my backpack strap when I am in the mountains. And in all other circumstances my bag will be apprecuiably lighter and less bulky than with a DSLR setup.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
