Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless to Have New Z Mount

[ahsanford]

of course mirrorless FF will come with a new mount. For a number of good technical reasons and even more so for a number of compelling profit reasons for makers. Nikon as well as Canon.

Besides making for a marginally lighter/smaller camera + lens combination and adapting older/other lenses, I would like to hear those reasons. Ending mirror slap, the power of an EVF, etc. do not count, as a full mount mirrorless rig could have those upsides as well.

Please concisely state for me the upsides of a thin mount mirrorless vs. full EF mount mirrorless.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

we are not talking "marginally smaller/lighter". We talk about a universal, fully capable mirrorless camera [better than a 5D IV or Nikon D850 in every respect] in a much smaller package. When combined with compact lenses like f2.0-2.8 primes and f/4 zooms in the most frequently used focal lengths ranges it makes for a much smaller kit than any DLSR. If and when needed - but ONLY then- it can also be used with larger lenses. On a gliobal scale and across all Canon users, 24-105 is used way more often than 70-200 and a well of a lot more often than 400-800mm monsters.

 

[jolyonralph]

Besides making for a marginally lighter/smaller camera + lens combination and adapting older/other lenses, I would like to hear those reasons. Ending mirror slap, the power of an EVF, etc. do not count, as a full mount mirrorless rig could have those upsides as well.

Why did Canon go for a new mount for the EOS-M series of cameras rather than using the EF-S mount?

If there were no advantages, why bother?

 

[ahsanford]

Besides making for a marginally lighter/smaller camera + lens combination and adapting older/other lenses, I would like to hear those reasons. Ending mirror slap, the power of an EVF, etc. do not count, as a full mount mirrorless rig could have those upsides as well.

Please concisely state for me the upsides of a thin mount mirrorless vs. full EF mount mirrorless.

We are not talking "marginally smaller/lighter". We talk about a universal, fully capable mirrorless camera [better than a 5D IV or Nikon D850 in every respect] in a much smaller package. When combined with compact lenses like f2.0-2.8 primes and f/4 zooms in the most frequently used focal lengths ranges it makes for a much smaller kit than any DLSR. If and when needed - but ONLY then- it can also be used with larger lenses. On a gliobal scale and across all Canon users, 24-105 is used way more often than 70-200 and a well of a lot more often than 400-800mm monsters.

You still didn't give me any reason other than 'it is smaller'. I'd like more to go on than that.

Yes, it can be smaller with modest speed of glass and more common standard focal lengths, sure, but us it much smaller? See 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4 and 24-70 f/4 examples below. And that difference in size is worth rebuilding the EF portfolio?!

- A

 

[slclick]

6 pages of comments. The one which resonates with me the most is not about size but about weight. I'd too love it the size of the 5D series but at maybe 1/3 the weight. I'm a large hand handstrap/wrist strap guy so that might give you insight into my choices.

 

[ahsanford]

Why did Canon go for a new mount for the EOS-M series of cameras rather than using the EF-S mount?

If there were no advantages, why bother?

Because EOS M is in a consumer market and not in a professional market:

1) I believe a far higher percentage of folks looking at EOS M will be new ILC customers than with an FF mirrorless setup (i.e. EOS M is far more likely to be your first camera than a FF mirrorless would be).

2) I believe more people in APS-C care about 'how big is it in general' compared to 'does it have a stout grip for my big glass'.

3) A far lower percentage of EOS M users are bolting huge glass to it like FF mirrorless users will.

In short, mirrorless is great for some folks to make a smaller kit. I argue that being smaller -- and the degree to which it can be smaller -- is of greater value for the more entry-level parts of the market. The more you slide up to speedlites, big glass, demanding burst/AF considerations, etc. the less folks care about how small it is and they more they care about what the camera can do in the field.

- A

 

[dak723]

Besides making for a marginally lighter/smaller camera + lens combination and adapting older/other lenses, I would like to hear those reasons. Ending mirror slap, the power of an EVF, etc. do not count, as a full mount mirrorless rig could have those upsides as well.

Why did Canon go for a new mount for the EOS-M series of cameras rather than using the EF-S mount?

If there were no advantages, why bother?

The advantage is that it is a APS-C size sensor in a MUCH smaller body. As has been pointed out numerous times and for numerous reasons, a FF camera will never ever be much smaller than other FF cameras and still be ergonomically usable with larger fast and zoom lenses. The M5 is much smaller than not only other APS-C cameras, but most higher level 4/3rds cameras. So if you are looking for a very small camera, the M5 fits the bill. That, for some, is a huge advantage. It is the main reason I bought one.

 

[jolyonralph]

Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?

Not quite all, the 55mm f1/8 is a tiny thing (and way, way, way better than the Canon 1.4) - but your point is valid. There's no difference in size/weight for faster zooms. But they're no worse.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data.

So a relatively slow, moderately wide prime lens benefits from a new design yielding a more compact lens. Whoopiddydoo. No one is arguing that point. Now, ask Zeiss if that applies to fast primes and f/2.8 zooms.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?

Not quite all, the 55mm f1/8 is a tiny thing (and way, way, way better than the Canon 1.4) - but your point is valid. There's no difference in size/weight for faster zooms. But they're no worse.

So the more popular types of lenses are 'no worse'. Yeah, that sounds like a massively strong driver for a new, thinner mount.

:

 

[bwud]

Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?

Not quite all, the 55mm f1/8 is a tiny thing (and way, way, way better than the Canon 1.4) - but your point is valid. There's no difference in size/weight for faster zooms. But they're no worse.

I'm not an optics guy, so I have to ask a couple of questions:

Can slow zooms be smaller for mirrorless than for SLR?

If so, why? Is it that slow zooms and primes for SLR are bigger than they need to be?

Is the statement that there is no difference for faster zooms based on the physics, or based on an observation about one manufacturer's initial product line?

I get the relationship between front element and the apparent pupil size as it pertains to f-number, but it doesn’t initially make sense that only some lenses can be made smaller.

 

[ahsanford]

Why did Canon go for a new mount for the EOS-M series of cameras rather than using the EF-S mount?

If there were no advantages, why bother?

The advantage is that it is a APS-C size sensor in a MUCH smaller body.

...and companies can saddle that (largely consumer) market with variable aperture zooms and very slow primes and people will still buy and use them.

You simply can't get away with that in FF.

- A

 

[jolyonralph]

This whole conversation is utterly pointless.

We are all expressing our personal wishes for a new camera when we know that nothing we say has any impact on what Canon will do.

Canon, quite wisely, are asking professionals what they want, not us.


But, if you all want to continue a pointless argument I'm happy to oblige

 

[Hflm]

Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data.

So a relatively slow, moderately wide prime lens benefits from a new design yielding a more compact lens. Whoopiddydoo. No one is arguing that point. Now, ask Zeiss if that applies to fast primes and f/2.8 zooms.

What kind of argument is this? Zeiss was just giving an example. Honestly, I believe more in Zeiss lens design competence than yours. If they say such a short flange distance provides benefits I wouldn't argue that unless I had similar competence. Do you?

 

[Mikehit]

Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data.

So a relatively slow, moderately wide prime lens benefits from a new design yielding a more compact lens. Whoopiddydoo. No one is arguing that point. Now, ask Zeiss if that applies to fast primes and f/2.8 zooms.

What kind of argument is this? Zeiss was just giving an example. Honestly, I believe more in Zeiss lens design competence than yours. If they say such a short flange distance provides benefits I wouldn't argue that unless I had similar competence. Do you?

And if you want to pay Zeiss prices for all your optics, fine.

 

[LDS]

What kind of argument is this? Zeiss was just giving an example. Honestly, I believe more in Zeiss lens design competence than yours. If they say such a short flange distance provides benefits I wouldn't argue that unless I had similar competence. Do you?

Sure, it's a non AF, non IS, manual aperture lens. Think, the Canon FD 20/2.8 was lighter (305g vs 394g), more or less same size (shorter but larger), and at least had auto aperture. This kind of lens could be done more than thirty years ago, even for SLR.

Start to increase max aperture, add AF, etc. and the lens size and weight increases rapidly.

 

[BillB]

Why did Canon go for a new mount for the EOS-M series of cameras rather than using the EF-S mount?

If there were no advantages, why bother?

The advantage is that it is a APS-C size sensor in a MUCH smaller body.

If you are saying that there is room for a
...and companies can saddle that (largely consumer) market with variable aperture zooms and very slow primes and people will still buy and use them.

You simply can't get away with that in FF.

- A

For some people, there are advantages to an EF-M camera, but the M5 is hardly blowing Canon's crop DSLRs away.
I wonder how many persons who have an M5 also have a DSLR, particularly an FF DSLR.

IF Canon thinks it can make money introducing an EF-X FF camera in addition to its EF lline, DSLR and/or mirrorless, that would be fine, at least to me. Several of us are skeptical about the size and weight advantages of EF-X, especially when fast primes and zooms are concerned, and so question whether an EF- X mirrorless would be better than an EF camera in every way, as has been contended. I am willing to leave the economic viability of an EF-X mount to Canon, whose opinion on that question would seem to be the one that matters.

 

[BillB]

Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data.

So a relatively slow, moderately wide prime lens benefits from a new design yielding a more compact lens. Whoopiddydoo. No one is arguing that point. Now, ask Zeiss if that applies to fast primes and f/2.8 zooms.

What kind of argument is this? Zeiss was just giving an example. Honestly, I believe more in Zeiss lens design competence than yours. If they say such a short flange distance provides benefits I wouldn't argue that unless I had similar competence. Do you?

And if you want to pay Zeiss prices for all your optics, fine.

Before Canon released its 16-35 f4 IS, I might have been willing to buy a small 21mm f2.8 prime (although not a manual lens at Zeiss prices). Not any more.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data.

So a relatively slow, moderately wide prime lens benefits from a new design yielding a more compact lens. Whoopiddydoo. No one is arguing that point. Now, ask Zeiss if that applies to fast primes and f/2.8 zooms.

What kind of argument is this? Zeiss was just giving an example. Honestly, I believe more in Zeiss lens design competence than yours. If they say such a short flange distance provides benefits I wouldn't argue that unless I had similar competence. Do you?

It's a logical response to your 'look everyone, the sky is blue and water is wet' post. The benefit for slower primes has been generally acknowledged. Why did Zeiss choose that example?

 

[ahsanford]

Sure, it's a non AF, non IS, manual aperture lens. Think, the Canon FD 20/2.8 was lighter (305g vs 394g), more or less same size (shorter but larger), and at least had auto aperture. This kind of lens could be done more than thirty years ago, even for SLR.

Start to increase max aperture, add AF, etc. and the lens size and weight increases rapidly.

+1. Anyone who claims that mirrorless could be soooo tiny if we only had manual f/5.6 primes, if we only had collapsible/telescoping lenses like compacts, if Canon only 'took some fat' out of some optical designs and optimized things for smallest physical length, etc. is missing the point. SLRs could do that, too.

So we're hemming and hawing about whether Canon will jump the shark and fully rebuild the EF portfolio for the opportunity of taking up one. less. inch. in your bag. It's simply not going to happen.

That doesn't mean a thin FF mirrorless mount + adaptor won't happen -- I'm just saying that it might offer 3-5 key mirrorless mount lenses in the first few years and that would be it. Even if FF mirrorless does very well commercially, letting more and more EF creature comfort lenses fall into the new mount is a slippery slope.

- A