Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless to Have New Z Mount

[ahsanford]

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.

+1. Primes can do wonderful things compared to zooms, but for an slower UWA lens that is principally a landscape instrument, (a) it's hard to move your feet when you are on a shoreline or cliff and (b) I don't really give a damn how fast it is or sharp it is wide open when it's constantly being used at f/8 - f/11.

The 16-35 f/4L IS soundly put to bed any need for me to get a pricey German fast wide manual prime. It is the landscape lens we were waiting so long for.

- A

 

[bwud]

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.

+1. Primes can do wonderful things compared to zooms, but for an slower UWA lens that is principally a landscape instrument, (a) it's hard to move your feet when you are on a shoreline or cliff and (b) I don't really give a damn how fast it is or sharp it is wide open when it's constantly being used at f/8 - f/11.

The 16-35 f/4L IS soundly put to bed any need for me to get a pricey German fast wide manual prime. It is the landscape lens we were waiting so long for.

- A

I’m about 50/50 for wide angle landscapes between the 16-35/4 and the Zeiss 25/2 (Sony mount). Both are excellent.

 

[jolyonralph]

The 16-35 f/4L IS soundly put to bed any need for me to get a pricey German fast wide manual prime. It is the landscape lens we were waiting so long for.

There's no doubt about it, the 16-36 f/4L is a wonderful lens. I use my extensively. I have the Canon 24mm f/2.8IS. Guess how often I use that.

But this isn't really the point. There are times I want to carry a big heavy camera and lens to do spectacular landscape shots. And there are times I want something smaller.

The question for the future is whether that means I'm going to be restricted to APS-C cameras (and with increase in quality/resolution of the APS-C sensors this certainly can't be ruled out - especially when I continue to be amazed at what people are doing with even smaller 4/3 sensor cameras) - or whether we get a full frame camera in the more compact form factor of the EOS-M series (or close to) which would mean using the EF-M mount or something similar.

That isn't the camera that many of you want. But it may be the camera that Canon needs in order to sell more cameras to the millennials who don't want to carry huge heavy DSLR-sized bricks around their necks all day, yet understand the advantage that full frame (currently) gives.

I think it's likely that Canon WILL go that route. Maybe they'll do an FF EF mirrorless body too (after all, that'd be splendid for video people too)

 

[ahsanford]

That isn't the camera that many of you want. But it may be the camera that Canon needs in order to sell more cameras to the millennials who don't want to carry huge heavy DSLR-sized bricks around their necks all day, yet understand the advantage that full frame (currently) gives.

I think it's likely that Canon WILL go that route. Maybe they'll do an FF EF mirrorless body too (after all, that'd be splendid for video people too)

Entirely possible. Canon could have mountains of market data that says that millenials want smaller gear to IG with, pros want less weight for a day's carry, that there's a lot more money in courting the nouveau riche with a pricey first (for them) ILC camera, etc. So as practical as a full mount EF mirrorless would be for folks like us, if a thin mount FF happened, I wouldn't be surprised one bit.

But if it comes with a tiny grip or the promise of rebuilding the entire EF portfolio, it will be both DOA to me (for grip reasons) and I imagine the Sony A-mount abandonment panic will set in like a freight train.

But would Canon do this?

I could see Canon idiotically putting a Rebel-ish grip on a thin FF mirrorless rig, getting throttled by 2/3 of its users for doing so, and course-correcting with a future model. But I just can't see them signing up to FD --> EF 2.0. New lenses for mirrorless would happen with a thin mount (of course), but not a rebuild of EF for mirrorless -- there's no chance of that until all the mirrorslappers retire their mirrors.

- A

 

[Eldar]

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?

Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...

 

[neuroanatomist]

But I just can't see them signing up to FD --> EF 2.0. New lenses for mirrorless would happen with a thin mount (of course), but not a rebuild of EF for mirrorless -- there's no chance of that until all the mirrorslappers retire their mirrors.

+1

With dSLRs accounting for 65% of the ILC market, the demise of the reflex mirror is still a long way off...and by the time it happens, it may not be the current version of MILCs, but an industry paradigm shift that supplants today's ILCs (think: light field cameras, multi-lens 'bug-eye' cameras, holography, etc.).

 

[ahsanford]

Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...

Awesome, but what does pulling the mirror have to do with that example?

I appreciate the M mount is mirrorless, but why couldn't Canon make tiny FF lenses for SLRs while it was at it? If they did, it would just be 1" smaller in your bag with mirrorless than SLR.

I'm not saying you can't make a great small lens. But if mirrorless' greatest virtue only really pops if mirrorless is given special things SLRs don't get, how special really is mirrorless?

- A

 

[Eldar]

Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...

Awesome, but what does pulling the mirror have to do with that example?

I appreciate the M mount is mirrorless, but why couldn't Canon make tiny FF lenses for SLRs while it was at it? If they did, it would just be 1" smaller in your bag with mirrorless than SLR.

I'm not saying you can't make a great small lens. But if mirrorless' greatest virtue only really pops if mirrorless is given special things SLRs don't get, how special really is mirrorless?

- A

I don´t pretend to know anything about lens design. However, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that Leica are making these fantastic prime lenses, like the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 Summilux lenses, in such a small package, while their DSLR counterparts are huge in comparison. Can anyone explain why a DSLR lens have to be that much bigger?

 

[BillB]

+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

One key question, it seems to me, is how small Canon could make a mirrorless FF camera with an EF mount. At this point, I would think that Canon has an answer to this question. Canon isn't going to introduce an EF-X mount unless they are very sure that they want to go someplace they can't get to with an EF mount. To me, it seems very likely that Canon's first FF mirrorless will have an EF mount.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...

Fair point. Of course, the Leica is rather costly...and has a manual aperture (so two missing motors). But it does show that a compact fast prime is possible (actually, it has been for a while, looking back at some old Canon lenses, like their S-monut 35/1.5 that was similar in size to the Leica 35/1.4, or their 50/0.95 that was the same physical length as the Leica 35/1.4 albeit quite a bit fatter, but f/0.95 will do that ).

 

[9VIII]

As soon as you move to a 50mm sensor then Mirrorless has obvious size advantages.

Really someone “could” be making a pocketable mirrorless body.
Looking at what they’re doing with cellphones I bet someone “could” make a 10mm thick ILC body and some 5mm thick lenses, that would fit pretty firmly in the “pocketable” category, but practical reality dictates no-one wants to make that many compromises for size.

Right now Mirrorless basically exists for video.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don´t pretend to know anything about lens design. However, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that Leica are making these fantastic prime lenses, like the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 Summilux lenses, in such a small package, while their DSLR counterparts are huge in comparison. Can anyone explain why a DSLR lens have to be that much bigger?

Perhaps, at least in part, it's the microlens design of the sensor. With the Leica 35/1.4, the rear element of the lens is actually recessed into the body when mounted (like some Canon EF-S lenses), and whereas Sony seems to have issues with high IQ from lenses with a very short sensor-to-rear-element distance, Leica uses a microlens/pixel design (greater microlens curvature, shallower pixel wells; right image below) that compensates for the high incident light angles you get when the lens is so close to the sensor.

 

[kphoto99]

If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production.

End lens development for a platform comprising 2/3 of the ILC market? ???

Yes, given the above if:

“If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward”

Agree, actually. But Canon couldn't possibly believe the 'if' clause above. Here is the list of Pros for migrating from EF to EF-mirrorless:

• A handful of smaller lenses (say 10-20% of the current EF portfolio) could lead to a nontrivially smaller body + lens combination
  
  
• [...crickets...]

And the Cons list looks like what would happen if a black hole for all resources and product development consumed your company for 10+ years.

Unless you want to talk about a major tectonic delta in lens design to support curved sensors, every lens will be a compact telescoping/collapsible design, they start to offer leaf shutter lenses, etc., rebuilding all/most of EF into mirrorless FF lenses is a colossal waste of time and money when you consider the very meager pickings on the Pros list above.

- A

Something in what you said gave me an idea. How about a short mount where you need an adapter to use EF lenses, but the adapter has a leaf shutter, so suddenly all EF lenses now are leaf shutter lenses. Would that be interesting (or possible)?

 

[Eldar]

I don´t pretend to know anything about lens design. However, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that Leica are making these fantastic prime lenses, like the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 Summilux lenses, in such a small package, while their DSLR counterparts are huge in comparison. Can anyone explain why a DSLR lens have to be that much bigger?

Perhaps, at least in part, it's the microlens design of the sensor. With the Leica 35/1.4, the rear element of the lens is actually recessed into the body when mounted (like some Canon EF-S lenses), and whereas Sony seems to have issues with high IQ from lenses with a very short sensor-to-rear-element distance, Leica uses a microlens/pixel design (greater microlens curvature, shallower pixel wells; right image below) that compensates for the high incident light angles you get when the lens is so close to the sensor.

That may help. On the other hand, you can use Leica lenses that are several decades old, so they are at least not designed for a digital sensor.

 

[midluk]

Something in what you said gave me an idea. How about a short mount where you need an adapter to use EF lenses, but the adapter has a leaf shutter, so suddenly all EF lenses now are leaf shutter lenses. Would that be interesting (or possible)?

Inside that adapter is not all too far away from the sensor and would just cause a great amount of vignetting. A leaf shutter has to be located right next to the aperture in the lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don´t pretend to know anything about lens design. However, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that Leica are making these fantastic prime lenses, like the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 Summilux lenses, in such a small package, while their DSLR counterparts are huge in comparison. Can anyone explain why a DSLR lens have to be that much bigger?

Perhaps, at least in part, it's the microlens design of the sensor. With the Leica 35/1.4, the rear element of the lens is actually recessed into the body when mounted (like some Canon EF-S lenses), and whereas Sony seems to have issues with high IQ from lenses with a very short sensor-to-rear-element distance, Leica uses a microlens/pixel design (greater microlens curvature, shallower pixel wells; right image below) that compensates for the high incident light angles you get when the lens is so close to the sensor.

That may help. On the other hand, you can use Leica lenses that are several decades old, so they are at least not designed for a digital sensor.

That's the advantage of the Leica sensor design – lenses with lower incident light angles work just fine (as they do on typical sensors), but so do those with higher angles. But with a rangefinger history, shorter backfocus distances were historically common – those short Canon S-mount lenses I mentioned were for rangefinders, too.

 

[LDS]

Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...

A retrofocus design will make the lens much bigger. Without a mirror, the lens can protrude inside the camera body, and that can lead to smaller wide angle lenses because different lens designs becomes available. Rangefinder always had this advantage.

See for example: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/

This could be an advantage for mirrorless cameras and lenses, and you don't need to change the mount. For example, some earlier Canon UWA like the FL 19/3.5 required to lock the mirror because of the protruding element - but it was quite compact when mounted, alike a pancake (later a retrofocus one was made available). The Pellix, with its fixed mirror, could also use some specific small lens because the mirror didn't need space to move.

A mirrorless with EF mount could use this kind of lenses to keep them smaller, of course they couldn't be mounted on an EF SLR.

 

[hendrik-sg]

I am quite invested in Quality glass, not as extreme as maybe others, and use my FF System as a Hobbyist (with chronically lack of time)

When buying my equipment, i assumed that glass would Keep it's value better than other consumer products, so i spent money easier (i can sell a lens if i dont use it enough)

Now i have a Smartphone as well and not the need to carry the big camera all the time, so take part of my photos with the phone and if i try be serious with the DSLR.

If Canon now presents a new Mount and it is expected that over some period the DSLR's get replaced my Mirrorless with a new mount, this will very fast reduce the value of my Investment so i had to decide if i should

a) Keep on the old System
b) move soon and sell my old gear in short term
c) or if i postpone the move and sell my lensess at a time when they are woth almost nothing

on a) i must Forget about all my Money and use my equipment, knowing that it will get passed by the developpment and after some time i have no longer competitive Equipment

on b) i must spend lot of Money in short term, replaplace the camera(s) soon and the lenses soon after equivalents came out.

on c) i live with Adapters for a long time and accept a big loss on my lenses which nobody wants anymorwe, after they have obsolet for a longer time already.

So, all 3 ways are so frustrating, that leaving the hobby is a valuable option, rely on the phone and maybe buy a better compact (on 1'', mft or apsc basis) camera.

i think the FD to EF Transition was similarely painful, but then one got a fast development, autofocus, better Flash Systems etc. Now DSLR to Mirrorless gives much fewer benefit in comparision, so abandonning the Mount is very dangerous, they can put many customers into frustration. This especially as there are still coming high value lenses on the market, which are not ment to be used 4 years only.

AND, as many times written already, "small" will be only very few combinations, and not the bundles i usually see FF cameras used with. Combined with a 16-35 & 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 lens trio, 20mm gain in thickness doesnt matter at all.

If there are other benefits, as faster FPS for example, then a Mirrorless camera can make sense, but please it should support my lens collection.

 

[BillB]

I am quite invested in Quality glass, not as extreme as maybe others, and use my FF System as a Hobbyist (with chronically lack of time)

When buying my equipment, i assumed that glass would Keep it's value better than other consumer products, so i spent money easier (i can sell a lens if i dont use it enough)

Now i have a Smartphone as well and not the need to carry the big camera all the time, so take part of my photos with the phone and if i try be serious with the DSLR.

If Canon now presents a new Mount and it is expected that over some period the DSLR's get replaced my Mirrorless with a new mount, this will very fast reduce the value of my Investment so i had to decide if i should

a) Keep on the old System
b) move soon and sell my old gear in short term
c) or if i postpone the move and sell my lensess at a time when they are woth almost nothing

on a) i must Forget about all my Money and use my equipment, knowing that it will get passed by the developpment and after some time i have no longer competitive Equipment

on b) i must spend lot of Money in short term, replaplace the camera(s) soon and the lenses soon after equivalents came out.

on c) i live with Adapters for a long time and accept a big loss on my lenses which nobody wants anymorwe, after they have obsolet for a longer time already.

So, all 3 ways are so frustrating, that leaving the hobby is a valuable option, rely on the phone and maybe buy a better compact (on 1'', mft or apsc basis) camera.

i think the FD to EF Transition was similarely painful, but then one got a fast development, autofocus, better Flash Systems etc. Now DSLR to Mirrorless gives much fewer benefit in comparision, so abandonning the Mount is very dangerous, they can put many customers into frustration. This especially as there are still coming high value lenses on the market, which are not ment to be used 4 years only.

AND, as many times written already, "small" will be only very few combinations, and not the bundles i usually see FF cameras used with. Combined with a 16-35 & 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 lens trio, 20mm gain in thickness doesnt matter at all.

If there are other benefits, as faster FPS for example, then a Mirrorless camera can make sense, but please it should support my lens collection.

My guess is that it will be quite a while before you are faced with unpleasant choices created by the collapse of the value of EF lenses and related equipment. For the reasons you describe, I think Canon will continue to make EF cameras because people will continue to buy them.

 

[Dvash7]

than*

well again, this site reported on such rumors.

Seems you don't understand what the word 'rumor' means.

ru·mor ˈro͞omər noun
1. a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.

If you're looking for canonfacts.com, you're in the wrong place – check out Canon's press release page. The rumors reported here are wrong far more often then they're right.

Are you saying canon RD cannot make an adapter as a means to exploit a potential new market?

No, you said that. According to you, that's why Canon and Nikon haven't released a FF MILC. Please, quit while you're behind and before you embarrass yourself further.