Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]

[ahsanford]

If Canon retired the EF-S mount, wouldn't that harm the upgrade path to EF lenses (particularly L series)? Would someone using an entry level body with EF-M mount really be as likely to buy an L lens if they have to buy an adapter, too?

I just don't see Canon dumping EF-S any time soon...

1) Agree with EF-S sticking around for a long time. There are currently (according to TDP) 14 first-party EF-S lenses available today to only (off the top of my head) 4 first-party EF-M lenses. So obsoleting the EF-S mount would put a large burden on EF-M glass development. I don't think they would do that in a leadership position in crop cameras unless crop sales were being devoured by mirrorless sales -- many folks have said that this is happening, but it has been in stops and starts. Crop camera sales aren't eroding from mirrorless like compacts are from cell phone camera use, so abandoning a mount that Canon can build lenses for cheaply in their sleep seems very premature.

2) Mirrorless enthusiasts absolutely buy adapters to try all kinds of nutty lenses on their rigs -- full frame glass, ancient old lenses with manual focus, other companies' lenses, etc. But soccer moms and family archivist dads who buy a camera that happens to be mirrorless will want native glass for that mount. So today, they can go sort-of-small with a crop camera that retains the ability to use EF glass natively, or you can crazy small with mirrorless at the cost of native lens connectivity without an adapter.

In many cases, going small and using native mirrorless lenses means waiting for the nicer FF lens you really want to be made for your mount. This is the mirrorless quandary, and it should be no surprise that companies that lack as comprehensive lens offerings as Canon/Nikon (i.e. everyone) would rather throw the house at native mirrorless lens development rather than try to build an on-ramp for people to use larger existing lenses. As much as Canon owners with a dozen lenses love the value of an adapter for EOS-M (making it an easy 2nd/3rd body addition to our gear), we are very much in the minority. A mirrorless devotee who only uses one body wants great native glass for it, plain and simple.

- A

 

[Lee Jay]

EVF are hopelessly bad. Still laggy. Yiiiiikes.

I'll take the tiny Rebel pentamirror any day over the EVFs available today.

The latest Olympus EVF has a lag of 0.016. (16 milliseconds). I wouldn't call that "hopelessly bad."

Even if it were true (I think it isn't), that's still hopelessly bad. It needs to be under 5ms for all lighting conditions, preferably closer to 2ms.

 

[c.d.embrey]

To me, it makes sense that the future SL2 has electronic viewfinder, and no mirror. But I see no advantage (for consumers) use mounting M. If you mount EF / EF-S maybe I'll buy one or two.

The advantage for Canon is lower cost of production The lower costs will not be passed on to consumers as lower prices A BIG win-win for Canon, a BIG FU for consumers.

 

[Marauder]

I hope that they don't bring that to higher models.... Isn't EVF that type of VF in the Point and shoots? If so, that is awful.

The latest EVFs would be much better than the existing pentamirror viewfinder in the lower end Rebels.

Baloney.

With mustard! ;D

 

[ahsanford]

• 2) Now this battery of questions is interpreting this rumor to mean the new Rebels will get an EVF which replaces the traditional mirror setup. In this case, it would be EVF only / mirrorless. Questions if this is the direction:
  
  

  • Why? They'd either keep their EF-S mount to sensor distance (to protect their stable of EF-S glass) and have a far thicker body than any mirrorless competitor or they'd adopt something smaller (like EF-M) that would require a lot of new lenses to be developed.

  
  There is no absolute law that states mirrorless cameras must be small and have a short flange to focal plane distance. It is just something that somebody started to do and now everyone else does it. So maybe Canon has cottoned that these super-small SLR-like cameras - e.g. E-M5 & E-M10 - are just plain too small and that consumers will possibly want something a tad larger ... i.e. maybe their ergonomics experts have determined that their current line-up of DSLR cameras are just the right size?
  
  

  • Why convert Rebel's identity -- i.e. the most used SLR -- to mirrorless? Fantastic brand recognition, sure, but why redefine it so?

  
  Why not? The "Rebel" line started as a film SLR camera, then became a DSLR camera. So why not progress it to a mirrorless camera? Especially since the target audience for the "Rebel" line are more prone to adopt "new" technology than the more "settled" bunch for the top lines.

On your first bit, sure, but let's say they keep the EF-S mount setup and switch to an EVF. That EVF will gobble up battery and have a very small lag, which are downgrades from an OVF. I'd need to know why they'd shoe-horn in an (almost) must for mirrorless in a body that has room for a mirror. What is the upside to doing that? Cost? More compositional feedback a la LiveView (for the entry level?!). I must be missing something here.

On your second bit, you make a fair point -- Rebel can evolve. I just don't think Rebel will evolve overnight. If this rumor is true -- and that's a big if -- one might imagine there would not be a hard exodus from mirrors. So you'd have Rebel SLRs alongside Rebel mirrorless -- they'd have to call them something very clearly different (like Rebel Mirrorless), and that seems a bit of a fragmentation of the brand rather than an evolution. I'm not opposed to it so much as curious why they would do this here instead of grow the EOS-M brand with an EVF, smaller native lenses, etc.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If someone buys the L lens for the M, the cost of adapter is a small change. Why not?? On the other hand, the M mount lenses has already cover from 11mm to 200mm. That is more than enough for most people. One of the idea od M is to keep it small. Put a big L lens on it goes the opposite way. I have a 17-40 L, I have never consider mounting it on the M.

That's the problem. The purpose of mirrorless is to take stellar pictures in a much thinner body, hopefully with smaller lenses as well (but the sensor size does have something to say about that).

But Canon knew that the first people in line to buy an EOS-M would be mirrorless devotees -- it would be existing Canon guys with lots of glass who want a very small 2nd or 3rd body. That (plus the lack of native EF-M lenses) is why the adapter was available on day one.

So -- at least with Canon -- you have two camps of EOS-M owners. They don't see eye to eye too often re: what should be mounted on it.

- A

 

[lintoni]

+1 for focus peaking! But please don't make us wait for EVF to have it!

Ugh? This was one of the very first features Magic Lantern had (for live view), it's available on most cameras, and it's free. The only thing it cannot manage is peaking in the viewfinder, you simply do need an evf for that.

Yes but ML kills batteries. Be nice to not have to use ML.

No. It. Doesn't.

 

[Marsu42]

+1 for focus peaking! But please don't make us wait for EVF to have it!

Ugh? This was one of the very first features Magic Lantern had (for live view), it's available on most cameras, and it's free. The only thing it cannot manage is peaking in the viewfinder, you simply do need an evf for that.

Yes but ML kills batteries. Be nice to not have to use ML.

Focus peaking has a lot of computations to do, that needs power - I fail to see how Canon's implementation would be any different. Unless they put more battery power in, just as they just did with the 7d2 battery - a sign of the things to come.

Btw ML has various power saving mechanism, auto-disabling the cpu intensive stuff after a select idle timeout.

 

[AvTvM]

Basically Canon has three possible ways to design "a Digital Rebel with OVF".

1. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, fixed (pellicle) mirror, EVF [or hybrid VF] and EF-S mount
This concept has failed already 2 times ... first Canon Pellix, later Sony SLTs ... similar to e.g. Alpha 57 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9545765927/sony-slt-a57-hvl-le1

2. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, mirrorless, EVF and EF-S mount
This concept has failed also ... see Pentax K01 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/slrs/pentax_k01

3. Mirrorless, EVF, EF-M mount = EOS M3
Concept has half-failed first time round. Not for technical reasons, but for shortsighted Canon product crippling combined with Canon greed (way too high price).


In reality Canon does not have a choice but to take route #3. Which is perfectly fine with me.

And if they are smart, it will be sold body only and in 4 kits:
A) Body with EF-M 18-55 STM and
B) Body plus dual zoom kit .. EF-M 18-55 and EF-M 55-200
C) Body with EF/EF-S adapter
D) Body with EF-M 18-55 and EF/EFS adapter

 

[c.d.embrey]

Even if it were true (I think it isn't), that's still hopelessly bad. It needs to be under 5ms for all lighting conditions, preferably closer to 2ms.

Why would I lie ???

"Other Features and Performance Improvements
Improved EVF display time lag
The display time lag has been reduced to 16 msec ..."

Here's the Olympus Press Release http://www.olympus-global.com/en/news/2014b/nr140916em1e.jsp

 

[9VIII]

I think what this is saying most is that Canon is now confident about the capabilities of their dual pixel AF. Apparently one of the biggest challenges of the SL1 was compacting the mechanical parts. Now they can just remove them.

One of the things I want most out of a mirrorless full size EOS is the ability to make 24mm Pancake lenses that sit as much behind the flange as in front.
There isn't much space back there as is, it wouldn't be hard to keep the same EF mount and still have mirrorless lenses incompatible with mirrored bodies, the only thing you have to keep the same is the contacts, which are mostly out of the way sitting on the bottom, which wasn't a problem for EF-S either.

The real question is whether a 24mm pancake is really worth all the trouble, but if you're making a camera with no mirror anyway...
(and yes that an "EF" Full Frame 24mm Pancake that I'm talking about, not "EF-S", which is already coming)

 

[AvTvM]

One of the things I want most out of a mirrorless full size EOS is the ability to make 24mm Pancake lenses that sit as much behind the flange as in front.
There isn't much space back there as is, it wouldn't be hard to keep the same EF mount and still have mirrorless lenses incompatible with mirrored bodies, the only thing you have to keep the same is the contacts, which are mostly out of the way sitting on the bottom, which wasn't a problem for EF-S either.
The real question is whether a 24mm pancake is really worth all the trouble, but if you're making a camera with no mirror anyway...
(and yes that an "EF" Full Frame 24mm Pancake that I'm talking about, not "EF-S", which is already coming)

Not needed. Exists already ... EF-M 22/2.0. Small pancake. Great lens. Excellent value. ;D

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon has patents for a hybrid viewfinder that switches from optical to evf when the mirror is raised. That makes more sense to me, the 70D dual pixel sensor is not ready for fast AF yet unless there is a breakthrough that they did not include in the 7D MK II.

I suppose that there could be a mirrorless Rebel that used EF and EF-s lenses. That makes a lot of sense from a standpoint of being able to use existing lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

Basically Canon has three possible ways to design "a Digital Rebel with OVF".

1. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, fixed (pellicle) mirror, EVF [or hybrid VF] and EF-S mount
This concept has failed already 2 times ... first Canon Pellix, later Sony SLTs ... similar to e.g. Alpha 57 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9545765927/sony-slt-a57-hvl-le1

2. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, mirrorless, EVF and EF-S mount
This concept has failed also ... see Pentax K01 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/slrs/pentax_k01

3. Mirrorless, EVF, EF-M mount = EOS M3
Concept has half-failed first time round. Not for technical reasons, but for shortsighted Canon product crippling combined with Canon greed (way too high price).


In reality Canon does not have a choice but to take route #3. Which is perfectly fine with me.

And if they are smart, it will be sold body only and in 4 kits:
A) Body with EF-M 18-55 STM and
B) Body plus dual zoom kit .. EF-M 18-55 and EF-M 55-200
C) Body with EF/EF-S adapter
D) Body with EF-M 18-55 and EF/EFS adapter

Love the vision here -- a world where EF-M replaces EF-S is not an impossible one. I could see 5-10 years from now SLRs being relegated to the pro end only and the rest of Canon's still cameras being mirrorless. But I see Canon supporting three still camera mounts (EF-M, EF-S, EF) for the foreseeable future.

It makes far more sense to build up EOS-M -- beef up the EF-M lens portfolio, offer an EOS-M EVF, consider a higher end EF-M body, etc. -- before they ever try to replace what Rebels do today.

- A

 

[Sella174]

On your first bit, sure, but let's say they keep the EF-S mount setup and switch to an EVF. That EVF will gobble up battery and have a very small lag, which are downgrades from an OVF. I'd need to know why they'd shoe-horn in an (almost) must for mirrorless in a body that has room for a mirror. What is the upside to doing that? Cost? More compositional feedback a la LiveView (for the entry level?!). I must be missing something here.

A few random points to maybe fill in the parts you might be missing.

A larger body (for a mirrorless camera) offers the opportunity for a larger or second battery. This point is one of the great Catch-22's of current mirrorless cameras ... the camera is small, so the battery must also be small; yet the camera requires more power, apparently. I say apparently, because the battery of my FUJIFILM X-T1 lasts about 400 actuations; but then I nearly always use the EVF exclusively (and set to auto-on/off).

The EF-S mount allows no-brainer attachment of EF (read L) lenses. This provides a clear upgrade for a novice from a mirrorless "Rebel" to L-lenses to a full-frame camera. The EF-M mount is single-use only; plus it will require duplication of lenses for those photographers who want the benefits of using both a full-frame camera and a mirrorless camera.

An EVF is also a cheap way to create a huge selling point ... a big viewfinder. With the small mirror in APS-C cameras it is not (easily) possible to have the same size viewfinder as on for example the 1D-series, without resorting to optics (an expense). But an EVF can be made as large or even larger than the viewfinder in full-frame cameras at basically no extra cost - beyond that of the EVF itself.

Then there is the bugbear of lag ... Hehehehe, the EVF in my X-T1 sometimes does funny things, but overall the lag is ... wait, what lag?

But why should Canon actually do it ... put an EVF in a "Rebel"? Because (a) almost everybody else uses EVF's in their cameras, (b) mirrorless is here to stay and (c) they have to put it somewhere.

On your second bit, you make a fair point -- Rebel can evolve. I just don't think Rebel will evolve overnight. If this rumor is true -- and that's a big if -- one might imagine there would not be a hard exodus from mirrors. So you'd have Rebel SLRs alongside Rebel mirrorless -- they'd have to call them something very clearly different (like Rebel Mirrorless), and that seems a bit of a fragmentation of the brand rather than an evolution. I'm not opposed to it so much as curious why they would do this here instead of grow the EOS-M brand with an EVF, smaller native lenses, etc.

I think mirrors will be a part of Canon's camera strategy for a few more years, especially in their top-end cameras. However, I feel strongly that the 100D/SL1 should have been a mirrorless camera, co-existing with the larger 700D/Rebel "whatever" camera. This would have given consumers a choice between sticking with the traditional or going for the new. And it would have given Canon a great market analysis as to the viability of mirrorless in terms of their brand.

The EOS-M is a cute camera. However, it is a dead-end in terms of long-term development of the photographer, as the EF-M mount doesn't lend itself to a seamless "upgrade" path to ... well, full-frame.

If Canon does indeed decide to grow the EOS-M brand, then they will have to add much more in terms of capabilities and lenses; and this will bite into their top-end cameras. If they don't add these things, then the EOS-M brand remains a once-off, cute camera for hobbiests. (The current poor battery-life of the EOS-M makes it unsuitable as a travel camera, although this would be a great application of it.)

 

[ahsanford]

A few random points to maybe fill in the parts you might be missing.

Great comments, thank you. Very helpful for answering my questions.

Always having a road to allow EF glass to work presumes that Canon will ride their epic EF lens lineup to the bitter end, which is not a terrible assumption. But part of me wonders if the world would really end if smaller mounts got higher quality native lenses -- L, USM, pro build, etc.

But hell -- throw us a bone, Canon. Give me just one decent native USM lens for EF-M and I might buy an EOS-M.

- A

 

[c.d.embrey]

It will be interesting to see how much Canon cripples the EVF Rebel. Will it be as good as an Olympus E-M10 (entry level $750.00 w/kit zoom) ??? Or will Canon deem that level of performance a threat to their more expensive 70D ???

My next camera will have an EVF -- how bad does Canon want my business ???

 

[Sella174]

... offer an EOS-M EVF ...

Olympus tried this with the E-Px series and now they are concentrating on the SLR-like E-Mx series. The conclusion is to quote Rincewind: "That doesn't work."

... consider a higher end EF-M body ...

How higher? On par with the 70D? That'll kill their "prosumer" mid-level camera range for sure. :'(

 

[Sella174]

But part of me wonders if the world would really end if smaller mounts got higher quality native lenses -- L, USM, pro build, etc.

The very fact that Canon has still today refused to treat us with an EF-S L lens, should be your answer: yes.

 

[ahsanford]

... consider a higher end EF-M body ...

How higher? On par with the 70D? That'll kill their "prosumer" mid-level camera range for sure. :'(

Those are different user groups. 70D / 7D / 7D2 guys value responsiveness as much as functions/features. They won't give up their OVFs anytime soon.

I just think one sweeping EOS-M upgrade that addresses the major needs of mirrorless devotees -- an EVF, more responsive focusing, better grip, etc. -- will still allow a smaller form factor camera to take pictures in more arenas.

Will it bite into crop SLR sales? Maybe. But if it's the inevitable future, why run from it?

- A