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

[preppyak]

Yes, Sony will have released 10 models by then, and they will still all be crap. What does that tell you?

That you've never used one of them. If Sony fills in a few more budget prices lenses (plus Sigma doing FE mount) before Canon nails mirrorless, it'll be over in that space for Canon.

 

[danski0224]

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

As far as the Sigma sd Quattro goes, the camera body is physically capable of supporting a full frame sensor. Sigma (presumably) did not make a "thin body" because of the processing requirements of the Foveon sensors- non-Sigma adapted lenses are known to cause varying degrees of color casts to the image. The Quattro sensor is supposedly better in this regard.

I have used a Sony A7RII and a Metabones EF adapter and the Sigma MC-11 adapter that allows the use of Sigma SA lenses.

The Sony + Metabones +Canon lens combo was quirky at best.

The Sony + Sigma MC-11 + Sigma SA lens seemed to be no different from using "native lenses"... or at least as good as Sigma lenses on a Sigma camera.

I really didn't like the "small body" though and would have preferred it to be larger.

Given the touchscreen implementation on the 1DXII (as just one example), I would not expect Canon to give photo enthusiasts what they want- a Canon mirrorless that can be adapted to many different lenses ala Sony.

However, if Canon is really behind the product this time around, I'm sure that it will be a solid performer and simply work. If the release is well executed, I would strongly consider it.

For me, it may be a moot point if the A7RIII addresses some issues and delivers on the megapixel front... and if I can swing it. I can use my Canon and Sigma lenses on a Sony- something that I would never be able to do with Canon.

 

[Aaron D]

I am actually in a third camp, AH: a professional who wants a small camera. But I do architectural, so I'm a minority. Still though, I will always keep a DSLR for the odd times I need to follow moving objects. The beauty of a mirrorless is that I could get all the same quality as a 5D in a more compact package.

The adapter would only be required for the very few, occasional lenses that I don't use enough to justify a mirror-less specific lens. And I'll try not to leave it at home--like everything else I shouldn't forget. Like memory cards which also are not permanently fixed to the camera.

But I see the closer flange distance as a means to a smaller set of TS lenses. As Mt Spokane said, they've got the angle of incidence thing figured out, now they can go the route of Rodenstock W lenses (or pick your manufacturer) with a symmetrical design that hovers the inside element right over the sensor. And no bulging front element (17 mm TS) so you can use filters! And, yeah maybe only a handful of lenses would benefit from a mirrorless specific design, but that's all I use is a handful of wide angle lenses. Mostly.

In my own personal humble opinion the fixed EF-on-mirrorless argument is nonsense. If you want seamless, stick to DSLRs. Mirrorless serves a different purpose, it won't replace DSLRs. Immediately anyway.

A

 

[ahsanford]

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).

Not true. EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM is a nano lens.

- A

 

[JohnDizzo15]

My interest is definitely piqued. But my gut tells me (based on company track record) that it will not be something that is compelling enough to bring me back to a Canon body.

There are three things that I can already be pretty certain of:

1. Canon will dumb down or omit a to be determined number of features so as to not cannibalize their other high end lines
2. IBIS, if present, will only be for video
3. At present, the Sony ecosystem is blown wide open since it has had some time for third party companies to work on accessories and other components to play within the system. Canon will not be seeing any of this in any expeditious fashion.

I know I don't speak for the average user. But I am a hobbyist/enthusiast who loves photography as well as tinkering with things. Sony allows me infinite possibilities to tinker with what already exists for their FE mount.

With the A9, I've now got something that I am happy with in all the categories that matter to me in a mirrorless body. Battery life is insanely good, ergonomics are great, AF is the best I have ever used to include eye-AF with adapted lenses as well as with my old m42 screw mount lenses now with the Techart Pro adapter, buffer is massive and general speed of operation is insanely good, amongst other things. In a nutshell, Sony gave us the whole enchilada that a mirrorless camera could provide with the tech that is currently available to the consumer market.

I know there are plenty of users that don't want to fiddle with adapters. But the market has shown that there are plenty of people that are more than happy to do it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing more and more companies producing them along with the development of new types.

People will ultimately vote with their wallets. Personally, it would just take an exorbitantly huge effort and change of philosophy from Canon to convince me to drop several thousand on a Canon body moving forward.

For the record, I was a Canon body shooter for a long time and continue to respect their business model as it is clearly very successful. However, their body offerings no longer pique my interest enough to get me out of my seat with credit card in hand.

Side note, I still own and love many EF lenses and would be happy to buy a revolutionary Canon mirrorless body for them to play together natively. Keyword being revolutionary. lol.

 

[Woody]

Canon just running behind as usual.

But who's leading the race for market shares by a W--I--D--E margin?



Ooops.... it's Canon... as usual.

 

[Woody]

Consider: how many landscapers left Canon for that Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8?

They left because they wanted the wide DR at base ISO offered by Sony sensors. Fred Miranda is an example.

 

[unfocused]

My interest is definitely piqued. But my gut tells me (based on company track record) that it will not be something that is compelling enough to bring me back to a Canon body...

...Personally, it would just take an exorbitantly huge effort and change of philosophy from Canon to convince me to drop several thousand on a Canon body moving forward...

...continue to respect their business model as it is clearly very successful. However, their body offerings no longer pique my interest enough to get me out of my seat with credit card in hand.

Nothing really wrong with that. No manufacturer can be expected to be all things to all people. The vast majority on this forum have no problem with anyone who has made a rational decision to buy into another system. What people object to is when individuals take Canon's business decisions and market research personally and insist they know better.

 

[Hector1970]

I wasn't sure from reading but would the mirrorless mount be wider or narrower than an EF Mount?
I was also curious why Canon or Nikon don't go for a sensor larger than full frame but maybe not as big as medium format if there was a new mount to be made for mirrorless.
If you were going to go to the trouble of creating new lens wouldn't it be an opportunity to go all out and create a new category.
There is alot of space available between Full Frame and Medium Format.

 

[Ozarker]

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

I'll second that. With $9,000 worth of EF lenses, I'll never have a desire to switch to a new mount. I'd rather stick a new 5D Mark III in moth balls so I can keep using my EF lenses for years to come.

 

[dak723]

Well, if it's EF mount and DSLR sized it better be pretty damn impressive in other ways if they have any chance of selling.

You mean selling to you. I, and many others like me, will be much more likely to buy mirrorless with an EF mount.

 

[Ozarker]

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

True. That bulge at the mount is what makes the camera so big and hard to slip into a case. : Puns intended.

 

[dak723]

Yes, Sony will have released 10 models by then, and they will still all be crap. What does that tell you?

That you've never used one of them.

Wrong! I bought both the A7 (and also the A7 II after returning the A7) with the intent of replacing my 6D a few years ago. After taking side-by-side shots with both cameras, the Sony was returned because it basically did nothing better and many things a whole lot worse. I then considered replacing my Olympus E-M1 with the Sony, but quite frankly, the Olympus was also a better camera. All things considered (including the lenses), the Sony was the least favorite camera that I have ever purchased.

 

[Dylan777]

My interest is definitely piqued. But my gut tells me (based on company track record) that it will not be something that is compelling enough to bring me back to a Canon body.

There are three things that I can already be pretty certain of:

1. Canon will dumb down or omit a to be determined number of features so as to not cannibalize their other high end lines
2. IBIS, if present, will only be for video
3. At present, the Sony ecosystem is blown wide open since it has had some time for third party companies to work on accessories and other components to play within the system. Canon will not be seeing any of this in any expeditious fashion.

I know I don't speak for the average user. But I am a hobbyist/enthusiast who loves photography as well as tinkering with things. Sony allows me infinite possibilities to tinker with what already exists for their FE mount.

With the A9, I've now got something that I am happy with in all the categories that matter to me in a mirrorless body. Battery life is insanely good, ergonomics are great, AF is the best I have ever used to include eye-AF with adapted lenses as well as with my old m42 screw mount lenses now with the Techart Pro adapter, buffer is massive and general speed of operation is insanely good, amongst other things. In a nutshell, Sony gave us the whole enchilada that a mirrorless camera could provide with the tech that is currently available to the consumer market.

I know there are plenty of users that don't want to fiddle with adapters. But the market has shown that there are plenty of people that are more than happy to do it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing more and more companies producing them along with the development of new types.

People will ultimately vote with their wallets. Personally, it would just take an exorbitantly huge effort and change of philosophy from Canon to convince me to drop several thousand on a Canon body moving forward.

For the record, I was a Canon body shooter for a long time and continue to respect their business model as it is clearly very successful. However, their body offerings no longer pique my interest enough to get me out of my seat with credit card in hand.

Side note, I still own and love many EF lenses and would be happy to buy a revolutionary Canon mirrorless body for them to play together natively. Keyword being revolutionary. lol.

Goodluck JohnDizzo ;D

Dylan

 

[danski0224]

There is alot of space available between Full Frame and Medium Format.

True medium format, or digital mini medium format?

At the plebeian end of current production digital medium format camera bodies (not digital backs), only Pentax has readily available lenses that will cover a 645 sensor, with the exception of their very latest 645 lenses (90mm macro for example). It would be pretty cool if it happened....

I can't even imagine what new medium format capable Canon lenses would cost. As far as I know, only (some) of the tilt-shift lenses will cover a mini-MF sensor.

It would be interesting to see, but certainly out of reach, at least for me.

 

[bf]

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

Me either! Not that I have so many EF lenses since I just own one but I don't trust their speed in developing a new ecosystem bases on a new mount.

 

[hmatthes]

This entire thread fascinates me. I use Canon DSLRs and a Leica Q. There is room for choices, here are mine:
1. a 5DIV ML brother with same sensor, EF mount, no pentaprism bump (EVF to side). I love using the 5DIV but wish for a real EVF with focus peaking, realtime ExpComp viewing, realtime depth of field viewing, etc.
2. a new mount? No reason for me. EF glass is all I need.
3. Fixed lens FF ML (Leica Q) is my goto everyday, everywhere, always with me camera. 28mm f1.7 Summilux with good macro (not just marketing macro) and phenomenal EVF = perfection for my photography. I like aperture selection on the lens. I like instant AF with AF points spread across the entire FF space. I like instant choice of manual everything without search menus. I like ExpComp under my right thumb and immediate feedback for such adjustments. If Canon builds a Leica Q for $2,000 they will sell the hell out of it.
Image quality is the objective. Side by side shooting of the 5DIV/35mm1.4L and Leica Q (28mm1.7) yielded equally wonderful RAW files. I prefer Canon jpegs but rarely use them anyhow.
Just my $000.02... When can I order the 5Dm?

 

[josephandrews222]

I own a 5D3; it has served me well (still does!)...with a wide variety of lenses: Canon's 100-400 II is more-or-less permanently attached to it.

I also own a stlll-functioning 40D; Canon's 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens hasn't left that body in months.

I also own a variety of M's (and inch toward purchasing the M6); currently (and usually) an M2 is mated to the 11-22mm lens, an M10 lives happily with the 22mm lens, and the og M is partnered with an 18-55mm M-native lens.

While I have sold a few (sports) photos, I am not a professional photographer.

Instead, I am an organic chemist, and my most important photographs are of my family...at home and on vacation.

The majority of our family-oriented pix are now (and have been for several years) produced with M's.

Readers here can surmise manifold reasons why this is so--but the size-and-weight advantages offered by the M platform are important.

I think I am probably aware of most of what professional photographers need as far as their cameras are concerned...and I pay attention to what they write.

Here is what I think I know:

*Canon's upcoming M100 + 22mm lens will be the nearly-perfect point-and-shoot rig.

**Any existing M + 11-22mm lens is a very functional walkaround vacation kit.

***Any existing M attached to lenses with more mass-and-volume than, say, Canon's 70-200mm 4.0IS becomes (somewhat) unwieldy, compared to the same lenses attached to a 5Dwhatever.

****Young people (well, a sample size of two, actually) love shooting with their M's (although I think the Asian markets agree with my daughters).

*****The focusing precision that Canon's current crop of pro-level DSLRs offers is necessary for a wide range of professional shooters.

And here is what I think I think:

*A full-frame mirrorless Canon body that uses EF lenses without an adaptor will sell to professionals if the focusing system on these new bodies is equal to (or superior to) that found on their current DSLR.

Finally, here is what I'd like to know:

For night-time vacation shots, I generally utilize the 5DMk3/35mm 2.0 IS combination as vacation photos acquired using this gear have supplied us with lots of joy--when seeing some of the 5DMk3/35mm 2.0 IS images my wife actually thinks I know what I'm doing!

*JUST HOW MUCH SMALLER & LIGHTER (than the 5DMk3/35mm 2.0 IS combo) could a designed-from-the-ground-up analogous full frame mirrorless camera+lens system get?

Finally...to try and answer my own question:

A 5DMk4 (880g) is much heavier than an SL2 (453 g)...and larger in all dimensions; this comparison gives a bit of an estimate (probably overdoes it by some) of the size-and-weight effects of full-frame vs crop.

Oddly (perhaps?!), the M6 (520 g) is 67 g heavier than the SL2 (is this right?)...but the M6's dimensions are significantly smaller than those of the SL2...yielding mixed results on the size-and-weight effects of mirrorless vs mirror (for crop sensors).

As far as lenses are concerned (I'm sure CR readers will correct my data if they're wrong):

*IS/STM 18-55M and 18-55S lenses are about the same mass, but the S version is about 10mm longer and 8mm wider (diameter) than the M

*...for IS/STM 18-150M and 18-135S lenses, the S is 180 g heavier, 10mm longer and 18mm wider

*..for pancakes, the EFM 22mm is a mm longer than the EF 40mm but also 25 grams lighter

=====

I hope the data here are correct.

 

[ahsanford]

This entire thread fascinates me. I use Canon DSLRs and a Leica Q. There is room for choices, here are mine:
1. a 5DIV ML brother with same sensor, EF mount, no pentaprism bump (EVF to side). I love using the 5DIV but wish for a real EVF with focus peaking, realtime ExpComp viewing, realtime depth of field viewing, etc.
2. a new mount? No reason for me. EF glass is all I need.
3. Fixed lens FF ML (Leica Q) is my goto everyday, everywhere, always with me camera. 28mm f1.7 Summilux with good macro (not just marketing macro) and phenomenal EVF = perfection for my photography. I like aperture selection on the lens. I like instant AF with AF points spread across the entire FF space. I like instant choice of manual everything without search menus. I like ExpComp under my right thumb and immediate feedback for such adjustments. If Canon builds a Leica Q for $2,000 they will sell the hell out of it.
Image quality is the objective. Side by side shooting of the 5DIV/35mm1.4L and Leica Q (28mm1.7) yielded equally wonderful RAW files. I prefer Canon jpegs but rarely use them anyhow.
Just my $000.02... When can I order the 5Dm?

Appreciate the thoughts. Given that a standalone high quality EF 28mm f/1.7 is nearly L territory (say an $800-1000 ish instrument), I'm guessing an FF mirrorless Leica Q with Canon branding would run $3-4k depending on how good a sensor / what throughput it can deliver, i.e. a 6D2 sensor / throughput with that lens would be about $2800, and a 5D4 with that lens might be $4000 or so.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

1. Canon will dumb down or omit a to be determined number of features so as to not cannibalize their other high end lines

This kind of statement always makes me laugh. The two lines would run parallel. There might be a difference here or there, but not too much. One would simply have the choice of either or.

Which cameras do you think this camera would match or which series' do you believe such a camera would slide between... keeping in mind there are no specs yet. People love to use market segmenting decisions and attach negatives like "dumb down" "crippled" "keep from cannibalizing" etc. The fact is that even Canon's models tend to leap frog each other technologically as they are released. We saw flip screens and DPAF on consumer end cameras first.