Nikkei: Canon and Nikon to announce mirrorless pro models

[BillB]

Except that the target markers for entry-level Canon APS-C MILCs and any forthcoming Canon FF MILCs are really not very overlapping – the former is mainly those new to ILCs, the latter is mainly those with APS-C dSLRs, and the largest market segment of APS-C dSLR owners will have at least one EF-S lens.

Fair, sure -- and Hector's point is not incorrect (I agree with him but perhaps not the rationale). EF is a monster to leave. There's no denying that.

But with EOS M, Canon still saw that making things smaller with a new mount was worth the trouble.

...for a very large pool of consumers.

...that are buying their first ILC.

...and "time and trouble" was only to make a handful of regularly bought/sold EF-S lenses (5-7 or so?).

Those ellipses above are fundamentally different for FF. That's why I think it's anyone's guess on the mount. For any good argument you can make about how difficult EF will be to leave and re-engineer in a thinner mount, some of us can us just fold our arms and say 'it really is all about the perception of being smaller' and say that Canon will go thin and do the work if they think they must.

I remain undecided. EF would delight me, but I would not be stunned one bit if Canon went thin.

- A

If Canon puts out a fullframe "Super M" with a new EF-X mount, it is going to have to compete with the existing smaller, lighter and cheaper M models that are pretty good cameras, and also with the EF DSLR's. Some people have convinced themselves that there is a huge market for a "Super M" camera with an EF-X mount, but I doubt that the market is robust enough for Canon to go that route for its first fullframe mirrorless camera. An EF-X camera would be need to shoulder its way in between the EF strategy and the EF-M strategy. It would need a new line of EF-X lenses that might well be unadaptable to anything either EF or EF-M cameras.

Maybe down the road Canon might come up with a small "Super M" fullframe camera using the EF-M mount or possibly some new "EF-X" mount, but I don't think that is where they will start.

 

[dak723]

Except that the target markers for entry-level Canon APS-C MILCs and any forthcoming Canon FF MILCs are really not very overlapping – the former is mainly those new to ILCs, the latter is mainly those with APS-C dSLRs, and the largest market segment of APS-C dSLR owners will have at least one EF-S lens.

Fair, sure -- and Hector's point is not incorrect (I agree with him but perhaps not the rationale). EF is a monster to leave. There's no denying that.

But with EOS M, Canon still saw that making things smaller with a new mount was worth the trouble.

...for a very large pool of consumers.

...that are buying their first ILC.

...and "time and trouble" was only to make a handful of regularly bought/sold EF-S lenses (5-7 or so?).

Those ellipses above are fundamentally different for FF. That's why I think it's anyone's guess on the mount. For any good argument you can make about how difficult EF will be to leave and re-engineer in a thinner mount, some of us can us just fold our arms and say 'it really is all about the perception of being smaller' and say that Canon will go thin and do the work if they think they must.

I remain undecided. EF would delight me, but I would not be stunned one bit if Canon went thin.

- A

If Canon puts out a fullframe "Super M" with a new EF-X mount, it is going to have to compete with the existing smaller, lighter and cheaper M models that are pretty good cameras, and also with the EF DSLR's. Some people have convinced themselves that there is a huge market for a "Super M" camera with an EF-X mount, but I doubt that the market is robust enough for Canon to go that route for its first fullframe mirrorless camera. An EF-X camera would be need to shoulder its way in between the EF strategy and the EF-M strategy. It would need a new line of EF-X lenses that might well be unadaptable to anything either EF or EF-M cameras.

Maybe down the road Canon might come up with a small "Super M" fullframe camera using the EF-M mount or possibly some new "EF-X" mount, but I don't think that is where they will start.

In my mind, the biggest drawback from Canon's perspective to having a new mount would be, what keeps a current Canon user with Canon? If you're going to go with a new mount with new lenses, then why not switch to Sony or Nikon? But if I have invested thousands of dollars on EF lenses, then I am not going to switch to Sony or Nikon under any circumstances.

 

[Talys]

In my mind, the biggest drawback from Canon's perspective to having a new mount would be, what keeps a current Canon user with Canon? If you're going to go with a new mount with new lenses, then why not switch to Sony or Nikon? But if I have invested thousands of dollars on EF lenses, then I am not going to switch to Sony or Nikon under any circumstances.

Well, if the mount were to change, frankly, I wouldn't go Sony because their bodies and lenses have some shortcomings I can't really live with. I can't say about Nikon either way.

Assuming that adapted Canon lenses work as well as EF on EFM, it would still be much better than the Sony situation on the lens front.

However, to keep my goodwill, since it would be a very expensive undertaking in the long term to switch to all new native glass, Canon would need to provide compelling reasons why they are changing mounts. I would be very unhappy if Canon changed mounts just to make a handful of lenses that weren't particularly large in the first place a little smaller.

On the other hand, if they said, this mount lets us offer you lenses with teleconverters built in more easily, at a smaller size, and more inexpensively -- I'd happily embrace it.

 

[ahsanford]

In my mind, the biggest drawback from Canon's perspective to having a new mount would be, what keeps a current Canon user with Canon? If you're going to go with a new mount with new lenses, then why not switch to Sony or Nikon?

1) A new mount that has new lenses does not mean your EF glass won't work. Your EF glass will work on Day 1 of this product's release. That's a hammerlock take it to the bank CR9 sort of reality. An adaptor may not be ideal but it will still be first party Canon AF with first party Canon glass.

2) Besides all that, there is that little matter of people preferring Canon for reasons other than EF. Canon color, quality, ergonomics, interface, etc. Some have acted like if Canon didn't have EF, everyone would just be in heaven with their A7 rigs, and I think that's laughable. Don't get me wrong, EF is a huge part of Canon's imaging dominance, but don't presume that the things Canon does well on the body front is industry standard. It is not. Try drilling through menus, not having all the knobs/switches/wheels/joysticks, not having enough room for your fingers, buttons in inane places, etc.

- A

 

[kphoto99]

But this post won't make sense to some folks who see the new mount as Canon's only future i.e. a thin mount = Canon will rebuild all of EF in this smaller mount, which will take 20 years just to replace what they already have and it won't be fundamentally better or smaller.

- A

Tell me how long does it take to take for example the 100-400 EF lens, add a ~25mm permanent extension on the back and sell it as EF-X lens?
My guess about 6 months maybe.

If you were adding an extension on the end of the lens, it would require a complete redesign of the lens and all the optics. The elements all have to work together to give the quality we expect from modern designs. My suspicion is that this might improve some of the wide angle lenses, but that it would hurt the long lenses. Everything is a tradeoff, you can't get something for nothing and gains in one place become losses in another....

How is adding a permanent ~25mm extension tube to the end of the lens changing any optics?
You mount this lens on a camera with a flange distance that is ~25mm shorter than EF flange distance.

The EF mount lenses expect a 44mm distance from mount to the sensor. If you go with a mirrorless camera with a flange distance of 19mm, then all you need is a 25mm extension tube to use an EF lens on the mirrorless camera. No changes to optics are required. No changes to AF, it just works*

*works the same as a DSLR in live view, and as long as the mirrorless camera can provide the same voltage and current to the lens as the DSLR.

 

[kphoto99]

But this post won't make sense to some folks who see the new mount as Canon's only future i.e. a thin mount = Canon will rebuild all of EF in this smaller mount, which will take 20 years just to replace what they already have and it won't be fundamentally better or smaller.

- A

Tell me how long does it take to take for example the 100-400 EF lens, add a ~25mm permanent extension on the back and sell it as EF-X lens?
My guess about 6 months maybe.

Well, if they are going to keep producing EF 100-400 lenses for the DSLR market, why not just sell an EF/EF-X adapter, starting on Day 1?

That was a rhetorical question.

 

[dak723]

In my mind, the biggest drawback from Canon's perspective to having a new mount would be, what keeps a current Canon user with Canon? If you're going to go with a new mount with new lenses, then why not switch to Sony or Nikon?

1) A new mount that has new lenses does not mean your EF glass won't work. Your EF glass will work on Day 1 of this product's release. That's a hammerlock take it to the bank CR9 sort of reality. An adaptor may not be ideal but it will still be first party Canon AF with first party Canon glass.

2) Besides all that, there is that little matter of people preferring Canon for reasons other than EF. Canon color, quality, ergonomics, interface, etc. Some have acted like if Canon didn't have EF, everyone would just be in heaven with their A7 rigs, and I think that's laughable. Don't get me wrong, EF is a huge part of Canon's imaging dominance, but don't presume that the things Canon does well on the body front is industry standard. It is not. Try drilling through menus, not having all the knobs/switches/wheels/joysticks, not having enough room for your fingers, buttons in inane places, etc.

- A

1) Yes, of course, your EF lenses will work with the adapter. But, in my experience buying the M5 (realizing the FF camera won't be that small) using the adapter with my one EF lens (an old 28-105mm zoom) and the EF-S 55-250mm was ridiculously uncomfortable. Both lenses and the adapter were sold. If Canon were to go very small, the adapter may be just as useless for many. If the EF lenses are so uncomfortable to use with an adapter, then looking at Sony and Nikon alternatives will become far more likely.

2) Yes, for me personally, Canon will be my no. 1 choice for many of these other factors. But as we have seen here, many folks don't even realize or see a difference in the Canon colors compared to other brands! As for the ergonomics and other differences, don't forget that Nikon will be coming out with their FF, too. I don't expect Nikon to screw up as many things as Sony has. For pro photographers and not gear-heads, it is Nikon and Canon that will be fighting it out unless Sony stops selling models that are basically beta testers.

 

[ahsanford]

Yes, of course, your EF lenses will work with the adapter. But, in my experience buying the M5 (realizing the FF camera won't be that small) using the adapter with my one EF lens (an old 28-105mm zoom) and the EF-S 55-250mm was ridiculously uncomfortable. Both lenses and the adapter were sold. If Canon were to go very small, the adapter may be just as useless for many.

You do realize that neither the thin mount nor the adaptor had much to do with the discomfort, right? A thin mount camera can have a huge chunky grip.

The mount thinness/thickness and the grip size and the grip spacing from the mount and the overall width/height of the body are independent of one another. They are decisions a company can make as they please.

We're just hard-coded to think [EF + chunky grip = comfy but huge] or [skinny mount + tiny grip = tiny but uncomfortable] when I think it's a lot more nuanced than that.

- A

 

[BillB]

But this post won't make sense to some folks who see the new mount as Canon's only future i.e. a thin mount = Canon will rebuild all of EF in this smaller mount, which will take 20 years just to replace what they already have and it won't be fundamentally better or smaller.

- A

Tell me how long does it take to take for example the 100-400 EF lens, add a ~25mm permanent extension on the back and sell it as EF-X lens?
My guess about 6 months maybe.

Well, if they are going to keep producing EF 100-400 lenses for the DSLR market, why not just sell an EF/EF-X adapter, starting on Day 1?

That was a rhetorical question.

They both were

 

[Rocky]

1) Yes, of course, your EF lenses will work with the adapter. But, in my experience buying the M5 (realizing the FF camera won't be that small) using the adapter with my one EF lens (an old 28-105mm zoom) and the EF-S 55-250mm was ridiculously uncomfortable. Both lenses and the adapter were sold. If Canon were to go very small, the adapter may be just as useless for many. If the EF lenses are so uncomfortable to use with an adapter, then looking at Sony and Niko

I was using 35-135 EF with adapter on my M for a 11 days land tour. I feel comfortable. It is almost as comfortable as the 28-135 EF on the 40D. The adapter should not make the set up uncomfortable. even with the EF mount on the new FF mirrorless, the total distance from the front of the lens to the back of the camera will still be the same. The weight of the set up and how you handle the set up plays a major part.

 

[Ozarker]

In my mind, the biggest drawback from Canon's perspective to having a new mount would be, what keeps a current Canon user with Canon? If you're going to go with a new mount with new lenses, then why not switch to Sony or Nikon?

1) A new mount that has new lenses does not mean your EF glass won't work. Your EF glass will work on Day 1 of this product's release. That's a hammerlock take it to the bank CR9 sort of reality. An adaptor may not be ideal but it will still be first party Canon AF with first party Canon glass.

2) Besides all that, there is that little matter of people preferring Canon for reasons other than EF. Canon color, quality, ergonomics, interface, etc. Some have acted like if Canon didn't have EF, everyone would just be in heaven with their A7 rigs, and I think that's laughable. Don't get me wrong, EF is a huge part of Canon's imaging dominance, but don't presume that the things Canon does well on the body front is industry standard. It is not. Try drilling through menus, not having all the knobs/switches/wheels/joysticks, not having enough room for your fingers, buttons in inane places, etc.

- A

Even if Canon switches to a new mount (I don't think Canon will) the question is still; Why switch to Sony or Nikon?

 

[Isaacheus]

In my mind, the biggest drawback from Canon's perspective to having a new mount would be, what keeps a current Canon user with Canon? If you're going to go with a new mount with new lenses, then why not switch to Sony or Nikon?

1) A new mount that has new lenses does not mean your EF glass won't work. Your EF glass will work on Day 1 of this product's release. That's a hammerlock take it to the bank CR9 sort of reality. An adaptor may not be ideal but it will still be first party Canon AF with first party Canon glass.

2) Besides all that, there is that little matter of people preferring Canon for reasons other than EF. Canon color, quality, ergonomics, interface, etc. Some have acted like if Canon didn't have EF, everyone would just be in heaven with their A7 rigs, and I think that's laughable. Don't get me wrong, EF is a huge part of Canon's imaging dominance, but don't presume that the things Canon does well on the body front is industry standard. It is not. Try drilling through menus, not having all the knobs/switches/wheels/joysticks, not having enough room for your fingers, buttons in inane places, etc.

- A

Even if Canon switches to a new mount (I don't think Canon will) the question is still; Why switch to Sony or Nikon?

I don't want to imply that the ef lenses are all Canon have, but wouldn't a new mount give people a reason for people to look elsewhere, if they're going to have to change all their lenses, or use adapters?

It just seems like a risk that could cost people who are a bit on the fence

 

[ahsanford]

I don't want to imply that the ef lenses are all Canon have, but wouldn't a new mount give people a reason for people to look elsewhere, if they're going to have to change all their lenses, or use adapters?

It just seems like a risk that could cost people who are a bit on the fence

If it's a new mount that is not compatible with EF, then yes -- that's tantamount to Canon severing its own leg because they've always dreamed of learning to walk again. But that clearly won't happen.

There are only two possible outcomes with this that make any sense at all for a market leader with a massive installed base of lenses:

• A thin mount (and all the cool things that come with that) that can use EF with an adaptor, or
  
  
• A full EF mount

There really is no third option for Canon. In either case above, your EF glass is good to go on day one.

- A

 

[dak723]

In my mind, the biggest drawback from Canon's perspective to having a new mount would be, what keeps a current Canon user with Canon? If you're going to go with a new mount with new lenses, then why not switch to Sony or Nikon?

1) A new mount that has new lenses does not mean your EF glass won't work. Your EF glass will work on Day 1 of this product's release. That's a hammerlock take it to the bank CR9 sort of reality. An adaptor may not be ideal but it will still be first party Canon AF with first party Canon glass.

2) Besides all that, there is that little matter of people preferring Canon for reasons other than EF. Canon color, quality, ergonomics, interface, etc. Some have acted like if Canon didn't have EF, everyone would just be in heaven with their A7 rigs, and I think that's laughable. Don't get me wrong, EF is a huge part of Canon's imaging dominance, but don't presume that the things Canon does well on the body front is industry standard. It is not. Try drilling through menus, not having all the knobs/switches/wheels/joysticks, not having enough room for your fingers, buttons in inane places, etc.

- A

Even if Canon switches to a new mount (I don't think Canon will) the question is still; Why switch to Sony or Nikon?

I don't want to imply that the ef lenses are all Canon have, but wouldn't a new mount give people a reason for people to look elsewhere, if they're going to have to change all their lenses, or use adapters?

It just seems like a risk that could cost people who are a bit on the fence

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make.

If the new mount means smaller camera, less room between grip and lens, too much imbalance between camera and larger lenses, then for some it may be unacceptable and they may look elsewhere.

 

[dak723]

Yes, of course, your EF lenses will work with the adapter. But, in my experience buying the M5 (realizing the FF camera won't be that small) using the adapter with my one EF lens (an old 28-105mm zoom) and the EF-S 55-250mm was ridiculously uncomfortable. Both lenses and the adapter were sold. If Canon were to go very small, the adapter may be just as useless for many.

You do realize that neither the thin mount nor the adaptor had much to do with the discomfort, right? A thin mount camera can have a huge chunky grip.

The mount thinness/thickness and the grip size and the grip spacing from the mount and the overall width/height of the body are independent of one another. They are decisions a company can make as they please.

We're just hard-coded to think [EF + chunky grip = comfy but huge] or [skinny mount + tiny grip = tiny but uncomfortable] when I think it's a lot more nuanced than that.

- A

Yes, I do realize that a thin mount by itself means nothing. But if thin mount means small camera, means not enough space between grip and mount and/or small grip, then the ergonomics may be very poor. The real question is, if you want to keep adequate grip size and adequate grip to mount distance, then why even consider changing the mount as the camera will not be much if any smaller. I can't see a thin mount being considered unless the objective is to go as small as possible. Just my opinion.

 

[ahsanford]

I can't see a thin mount being considered unless the objective is to go as small as possible.

Oh. Now I get you.

Agree for the most part -- a decision for a thin mount likely means a push towards a smaller aggregate size -- but I also think adapting glass is a nontrivial interest for tinkerers, enthusiasts and possibly some folks living with other mount SLR lenses today. I don't know about you, but shooting a Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8, 28mm f/1.4, or 105mm f/1.4 might be pretty cool.

- A

 

[kphoto99]

Yes, of course, your EF lenses will work with the adapter. But, in my experience buying the M5 (realizing the FF camera won't be that small) using the adapter with my one EF lens (an old 28-105mm zoom) and the EF-S 55-250mm was ridiculously uncomfortable. Both lenses and the adapter were sold. If Canon were to go very small, the adapter may be just as useless for many.

You do realize that neither the thin mount nor the adaptor had much to do with the discomfort, right? A thin mount camera can have a huge chunky grip.

The mount thinness/thickness and the grip size and the grip spacing from the mount and the overall width/height of the body are independent of one another. They are decisions a company can make as they please.

We're just hard-coded to think [EF + chunky grip = comfy but huge] or [skinny mount + tiny grip = tiny but uncomfortable] when I think it's a lot more nuanced than that.

- A

Yes, I do realize that a thin mount by itself means nothing. But if thin mount means small camera, means not enough space between grip and mount and/or small grip, then the ergonomics may be very poor. The real question is, if you want to keep adequate grip size and adequate grip to mount distance, then why even consider changing the mount as the camera will not be much if any smaller. I can't see a thin mount being considered unless the objective is to go as small as possible. Just my opinion.

For the same reason that the EF mount is used on a 1D and SL1 camera. Same mount different set of ergonomics. Stop fixating on just a small camera, the same thin mount can give you a small camera that some people like, but it can also go on a giant camera that a different set of people like. the smallest you can do with the current EF mount is the SL1 camera.

 

[Zen]

Canon and Nikon will put out fullframe mirrorless cameras sometime in the foreseeable future. We knew that, but let's see how many pages we can get out of this one.

I'm guessing 8-10.

We have to rehash all the arguments about lens mount. There will be people who think the generic picture attached to the post is real. There will be those who try to parse a machine-translated article through the lens of their own cultural and personal biases. There will be others who think "professional" means something more than simply having a full frame sensor. There is already someone asking buying advice from people who have absolutely no information about release timing.

And, of course, there will be many who insist that if Canon doesn't release exactly the camera they are dreaming of, then Canon is either stupid or doomed or both.

ad infinitum; and then some!

How tiring it all is, this re-hashing all the same stories. Why not just go out and make great images?

 

[Talys]

For the same reason that the EF mount is used on a 1D and SL1 camera. Same mount different set of ergonomics. Stop fixating on just a small camera, the same thin mount can give you a small camera that some people like, but it can also go on a giant camera that a different set of people like. the smallest you can do with the current EF mount is the SL1 camera.

You cannot reconcile this with the crowd that thinks that the SL1 is huge, bulbous, and ugly, as is any camera with a viewfinder bump and a grip. In the go-small-or-go-home crowd, the a7r3 is the limit of acceptable size, the a6500 is with a kit lens is better; and the best camera form factor is something like a smartphone with a collapsible pancake. The only reason some people want a full frame for is low light shooting, and probably a good chunk of them, becuse they don't know how to properly use a flash. Which is probably way too huge, heavy, and ugly anyways.

Regardless of my own preferences and the obvious ridicule I have for it, this is probably a market segment, and camera manufacturers should make someone who wants a $4,000 kit for shooting family photos in low light their dream kit.

And, the mount for it doesn't ever need things like a 70-200/2.8 or a 400/4. Well, unless you can fit that into your shirt pocket.

 

[3kramd5]

The only reason some people want a full frame for is low light shooting, and probably a good chunk of them, becuse they don't know how to properly use a flash.

People want full frame cameras because they don’t know how to use flashes? Heh from whence did you come up with that statistic ;D