More Than One Active Full Frame Mirrorless Project at Canon? [CR1]

[Aaron D]

Why such a line in the sand for an EF mount? If they build an EF mount into a mirrorless body, they're building in that mirror-box space even though it's not needed--no mirror! Compactness is one of the best reasons to go mirrorless, but if you build in dead space, you're stuck with it. Small flange distance is the other best reason for mirrorless, small space behind the inner-most element is possible. Sure you can poke your glass out the back of the lens, but tiny pancake styles are designed out or the picture at the get go! And then there's that glass sticking out the back of your lens!

Just include an EF to M (or whatever) adapter and everybody's happy!

A

 

[BillB]

The older fixed frame cameras had leaf shutters integrated into the lens, rather than the focal plane shutters in interchangeable lens cameras, but I don't know whether that is a consideration anymore.

I want to say a few of the RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and Leica Q designs indeed put leaf-shutters in those embedded fixed lens designs -- they enjoy a screamingly fast sync speed as a result, like 1/2000s or so.

Then there's the whole 'never need AFMA' as (presumably) that can completely be dialed in at the factory. :

Again, fixed lens won't set the world alight, but (a) it's awesome FF batting practice for Canon to dial in a future FF ILC platform, and (b) a way to offer a pricey / bougie $3k+ prestige item with high margins if Canon wants to.

- A

Why do you need AFMA with a mirrorless camera? If the lens is worth $500 or so (35mm F2.0), that would put the price of the body around $2500.

 

[Loswr]

Just include an EF to M (or whatever) adapter and everybody's happy!

Nice that you can speak for 'everybody'. 'Round here, we call that hubris. Personally, I would not be happy. If you look back a page, you'll see that CRguy would also not be happy.

Look down on a camera that's considered 'comfortable' to hold, from something large like a 1- or 5-series, down to something small like the SL2. Notice that the hand grip actually sticks out further than the lens mount, and that lens mount has the EF flange focal distance. Try holding a compact MILC all day, I don't know about you but my hand hurts after that...whereas after a day holding a 1D X, no hand issues at all. Ergonomics matter, the 'professional' dSLR shape has evolved for a reason.

 

[ahsanford]

Just include an EF to M (or whatever) adapter and everybody's happy!

A

We've been down this road a hundred times. See chart -- it's not perfect, but you get the idea. If only one of 'keep it small' or 'keep it seamless' is chosen, half of us will meltdown and scream "WHY?!"

Some of us see mirrorless as a chance to do things better than SLRs -- using the EVF to get MF focus assistance, dark room illumination, realtime histo in the VF, etc. This appeals best to big and stout f/1.4 prime and f/2.8 zoom toting professionals, wildlifers/birders, concert/wedding photogs working low light events, and folks who love their big/comprehensive ergonomic setup and grips of the 5D and 1D line. This also is the right move for a second body to be shot alongside a first body SLR -- the transition between the two bodies in realtime could be seamless.

Other see mirrorless as a chance to do things smaller than SLRs or to repurpose the mirror space with adapters of (say) FD, Nikkor, or old-timey vintage lenses. If you want a dream compact travel setup, if you hike, if you shoot street, if you just want less stuff to pack in your bag to do a similar IQ-level job as a larger SLR, this pathway is probably your choice.

There is no 'best for everyone' answer other than Canon doing both, and I just don't see them doing that with their first go at FF mirrorless. I believe they will choose one and course-correct to offer the second laterif the overall demand is there.

- A

 

[Rocky]

EF mount on the FF mirrorless is a baggage carry over from the SLR. EF mount (44mm) flange distance will force the lenses that are shorter than 50mm to be bigger than what they should be due to the necessity of the inverted telephoto design of the lenses at these focal lengthes. However. the inverted telephoto will also force the incident angle of the light rays to be closer to vertical to improve the corner illumination. The best of both world will be off-set micro lens at the corner ( Canon might need to talk to Leica about this) and a shorter flange distance than EF mount.

 

[Cory]

I'd pre-order the fixed lens one right now.

 

[Aaron D]

OK CR Geek you gotta know I'm being facetious--nobody's going to be happy, right?

And why does short flange distance preclude a comfortable grip? Besides which, who carries a camera around all day by the grip? I'm a professional photographer and I don't. (not part-time or semi-professional, mind you). Not speaking for everyone of course, but I personally use a neck strap. I myself would love to have all the same IQ as my 5D's in a lighter camera.

And how about Canon gives us the option to screw the adapter down permanently (or for the literal-ists: semi-permanently because of course you can un-screw it) Then it's a "native" EF mount and you never have to buy a non-EF lens!

Sorry if it sounds like I'm jumping on CR's case. I just drink a lot of coffee so it sounds that way in print.

A

 

[ahsanford]

I'd pre-order the fixed lens one right now.

'5D4-quality' sensor (30 MP not a must)
+ fixed 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/2 lens (IS nice but not a must)
+ sealed design
+ decent EVF with MF peaking (or other MF assistance)
+ DPAF + touch LCD to select AF point while my eye was at the EVF
+ nice diminutive build (fixed lens = jettison any full EF discussion, the body will 100% be thin)
+ sensibly not tiny grip + Canon ergonomic/control DNA (+ thumb wheel?)

= a perfect travel camera for me. (I do love me a 28-35mm FF FOV and wouldn't feel handcuffed with that choice.)

It would effectively be an RX1-like rig with Canon control DNA, a better grip, better color, and DPAF.

I'd honestly consider buying one provided Canon doesn't go insane and ask $4k for it.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

And why does short flange distance preclude a comfortable grip?

...Ask Sony, b/c I can't figure out why they continue to propagate a dainty little grip on a platform now sporting huge pickle jar lenses.

In truth, it doesn't, but there's a notion that 'going small' with a thin new mount means everything needs to be shrunk down to look smaller/sleeker in comparison to the competition, to the SLR, etc. See the first EOS-M for what I mean, that thing was about as big as a deck of cards.

And when I say it doesn't need to be uncomfortable, I mean it. You can have even a thin-mount FF mirrorless ride shotgun to a proper SLR grip. See graphic. The idea that you might leave a pancake on it warranting designing the body to look smallest with a pancake on it is idiotic. FF lenses have weight, even modest f/2 primes and f/4 zooms, and you need a grip to wield those.

The only space savings you'll enjoy with a gripless disaster of a rig is if you pack that rig in your bag without a lens attached. I can't speak for everyone here, but I almost never do that. So why not avail yourself of a grip that takes up no more space than a mundane kit lens? If you do that, you get a top LCD, great Canon ergonomics, and possibly more battery jammed in there. The rig remains thin and small if you want it to be, but it seamlessly can wield bigger lenses without a huge delta in hand discomfort.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Just include an EF to M (or whatever) adapter and everybody's happy!

A

Not me. I have no interest in such a camera, one reason for not buying a Sony. A adapter is a pain for professional users which is why Canon has already admitted that their surveys have shown pro users with a strong preference for a EF mount.

Putting a lens closer to the sensor introduces IQ issues at the edges of the sensor, the light strikes the outer pixels at a shallow angle, so all kinds of semi klutzy inventions have to be put in place just to make the image usable. Even then, the gain of the outer pixels is cranked up even more than with a EF mount to accommodate the light loss.

That does not mean that such a mount would not sell, it just means a compromise in IQ along with a entire new series of lenses.

 

[Aaron D]

Now we're talking AH!

If I were designing a mirrorless camera, I'd find some middle ground between a FF DSLR body and an M body. When I look at a 5D, I see a bulge directly behind the mount--if that bulge were to go away, meaning put the mount surface just above the body at it's thinnest, you've already made the camera thinner. Sure the grip is still as big, but the thing slips into a case easier now! But go a step further--remove that bulge AND keep the grip's forward protrusion BUT make the body a little thinner and now you've IMPROVED the fingernail against body clearance! OR protrude the grip behind the thinner body Ala Hasselblad XD-1 and voila!

And then put the eyepiece in the corner like a Fuji SE so that top bump is gone. I don't think I'd loose any sleep over an off center eye-piece--but I don't to speak for anyone else.

OK now I need to do something useful. Not that this isn't of course.

A

 

[ahsanford]

So why not this scheme?
(Brand names 100% negotiable, don't get wrapped around that axle)

6DM = Thin Mount / Adaptor for the 'keep it small' / non EF adapting lens types / mirrorless enthusiasts -- this will get the obligatory 3-5 smaller lenses just for that mount:

24 f/2 or 35 f/2
50 f/1.8
24-50 f/4
16-35 f/4
Perhaps a macro like the crop illuminated ones -- not a 100, but something 35-50-ish

+ adapt all of EF
+ adapt Nikkor (third party adaptor required)
+ adapt vintage stuff (third party adaptor required)
+ speedboost

5DM (or 5DSM if you like) = Full EF Mount / No adaptor for professionals, wedding folks, enthusiast wildlifers/birders, etc. Those folks get the big bodies with larger batteries, top LCD, thumb wheel, big grip, etc.

1DXM = waaaaaaay down the road if this strategy takes off. I appreciate this is the class of camera likely to require you to pry their OVF out of their cold, dead hands, but pitching the mirror is one way to help up the fps...

Would that work?

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon does have a patent for EF / EFs adapter to a new undisclosed FF mirrorless lens mount.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26883.0



There is another patent for helping with shallow light ray angles to the edges of a sensor.
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09601534

Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to a solid state image sensor,
a method of manufacturing a solid state image sensor, and an
image capturing system.

Description of the Related Art

Solid state image sensors and display apparatuses use
optical elements such a microlens array as disclosed in
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2007-335723. Japanese Patent
Laid-Open No. 2007-335723 discloses a technique of
providing microlenses, each having a shape called a teardrop,
in a solid state image sensor to efficiently focus light
entering from oblique directions onto light-receiving units.
Such a microlens is shaped to have a curved shape tapering
to the outside of the solid state image sensor and having a
vertex at an outside end portion when viewed in a planar
view.

 

[BillB]

I'd pre-order the fixed lens one right now.

'5D4-quality' sensor (30 MP not a must)
+ fixed 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/2 lens (IS nice but not a must)
+ sealed design
+ decent EVF with MF peaking (or other MF assistance)
+ DPAF + touch LCD to select AF point while my eye was at the EVF
+ nice diminutive build (fixed lens = jettison any full EF discussion, the body will 100% be thin)
+ sensibly not tiny grip + Canon ergonomic/control DNA (+ thumb wheel?)

= a perfect travel camera for me. (I do love me a 28-35mm FF FOV and wouldn't feel handcuffed with that choice.)

It would effectively be an RX1-like rig with Canon control DNA, a better grip, better color, and DPAF.

I'd honestly consider buying one provided Canon doesn't go insane and ask $4k for it.

- A

A fixed lens design might be an easier way to role out a curved sensor.

 

[danski0224]

I'd never buy a Canon FF mirrorless that requires an adaptor for EF lenses.

I'd be willing to bet that a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera will follow the general path that Sigma took with their sd Quattro cameras as far as sensor flange distance is concerned.

There is no business reason for Canon to market a mirrorless camera designed to work with adapted lenses (unlike Sony). Nor does it make sense for Canon to create and release a whole new type of lens mount for a "full frame" product.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In this 2014 Photokina interview, Mr. Masaya Shinoda of Canon says that they are considering a new lens mount. Considering the time it takes to develop a new mount and turn it into a new system, a 2018 introduction seems reasonable. A adapter patent was also released around the same time.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Fnews%2Finterview%2F20140918_667456.html&edit-text=

 

[ahsanford]

I'd be willing to bet that a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera will follow the general path that Sigma took with their sd Quattro cameras as far as sensor flange distance is concerned.

There is no business reason for Canon to market a mirrorless camera designed to work with adapted lenses (unlike Sony). Nor does it make sense for Canon to create and release a whole new type of lens mount for a "full frame" product.

Regarding Sigma Quattro H and the 'lens tube' approach to maintain a 'full' mount with svelte overall body (in fairness that one is APS-H, not true FF), sure, that could work.

But I disagree on the other bits. Being able to use the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8, 28 f/1.4, 24-70 f/2.8 VR, 105 f/1.4 without having to change systems is, in a small way, in Canon's best interests. Consider: how many landscapers left Canon for that Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8? Now they wouldn't feel compelled to leave. And they don't need to pave the way for this compatibility and design an adaptor for Nikkor glass. Just offer a thin mount and I guarantee the metabones' of the world will swoop in to fill that need. Easy.

And of course there's value in a new thinner mount:

[list type=decimal]
[*]With reasonable lens FL / speed expectations, a thinner mount rig allows someone to build a considerably smaller overall lens + body combination. It's obviously a limited slice of the lens portfolio, but see an A7RII + a 35mm f/2.8 and you'll see what I mean. To many, this is the #1 draw of mirrorless.


[*]Offering a new mount + adaptor does not mean EF is RIP. There will be an adaptor, and possibly a full EF mount body offering alongside this skinny mount one someday.


[*]Offering a new mount + adaptor does not mean all of EF must be redesigned in the new mount. They just need 3-5 staple lenses that make the space savings pop (see my prior list above).

[/list]

When I say all this, I am not pro-[thin new mount + adaptor] vs. full mount, but to declare thin new mount + adaptor as being pointless is putting blinders on to the entire current market. Canon and Nikon don't see an A7 rig and say "Well, Sony had to do that to adapt our lenses..." -- they say "Wow! That is small. And there's a great FF sensor in there?".

There are two distinct camps here. To presume one is not legitimate / not a major consideration is a very myopic view of things, IMHO.

- A

 

[Jopa]

The first project is a full frame mirrorless camera with a native EF mount.

Craig, you just made my day. Thank you!

 

[Jopa]

Would that work?

It would. But I need this miraculous 1dxm now lol.

 

[AvTvM]

I'd never buy a Canon FF mirrorless that requires an adaptor for EF lenses.

Interesting that some people totally reject using a simple and inexpensive mount adaptor to keep legacy EF glass usable. Works perfectly well and is solid and stable. It can easily be made weatherproof and may even add a removable tripod foot to any lens ... just like the Canon EF-/EF-M adaptor does.

"Adaptor refusal" is even more puzzling, when considering that all EF lenses are optimized for DSLR Phase-AF operation. EF glass will suffer some AF speed/performance penalty on any mirrorless camera body - just as they do in live view mode on a DSLR.

Lenses with STM and even more so Nano-USM drive can and will improve this, but currently there are only 3 "low-end" STM lenses for EF mount - 50/1.8, 40/2.8, 24-105/3.5-5.6 STM and no EF lens with Nano USM (only EF-S).

New native mirrorless glass with AF drive optimized for mirrorless bodies' AF system [= Canon DPAF sensors] will have improved AF performance compared to using EF glass - with or without adaptor.

If Canon indeed brings a MILC with EF mount first, people buying it may come to regret it soon, when the second MILC body/system with shorter FFD mount is released ... along with new mount native glass ... with better AF performance. Maybe crafty Canon is even counting on this to happen.