Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless

[dolina]

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/03/rumor-canon-get-serious-mirrorless-2015-full-frame-milc-works/

Nutshell:

Canon is rumored to be developing a full frame and/or rangefinder mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

Judging by how well Sony & Fuji's forays are this may end being true.

Let's pray that Canon's foray is more impactful than the EOS M.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

"The news comes from our friends at Canon Watch, who heard nearly identical information from two separate sources saying that there is a new mirrorless cam in the works "

So it is a rumor posted on this site, that came from a rumor posted on Canon Watch that they got from "two guys they know" that Canon is working on a new camera.

Good enough for me. TAKE MY MONEY! ;D

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.

I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses. Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.

 

[Canon Rumors]

What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.

I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses. Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.

I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.

 

[Marsu42]

Canon is rumored to be developing a full frame and/or rangefinder mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

Same rumor in an older thread here, but with dumb thread title: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23733.msg469477#msg469477

Let's pray that Canon's foray is more impactful than the EOS M.

Quoting an interesting and thoughtful insight by a well-known CR member from the other thread:

However, I find the rumor believable. Canon cannot compete with its current sensor tech, though the 7d2 isn't much worse than Sony/Nikon aps-c. If they want to make a big splash in the $1000-$2000 market, it has to be ff - combined with their dual pixel af, all in one small package

As for lenses, I imagine their current ef-m lenses wouldn't fit on a mirrorless ff, so you either have to adapt ef lenses or they release a genuine ff-mirrorless lens lineup. As there aren't that much ef-m lenses around, imho the installed base won't block them from adding yet another mount.

 

[roskobusby]

Why would canon develop a FF slr that its still in general the same size as the 5d,6d body size and keep the lens mount and distance to the sensor the same

 

[1Zach1]

I hope they keep the form factor small still. I know they would need to increase size to get a EVF, but one of the big advantages (to me) is that small size factor of the M. I'm all for, and want, a good EVF and updated sensor and more features but I just hope that doesn't come at the price of too much change in size.

 

[Johan Eickmeyer]

Canon is losing quite a few landscape photographers these days, because there is stiff competition to fill all the broad and niche landscape needs. I still use Canon for landscapes because I like their system and I have no complaints with my process. I can still see vast majorities of people wanting to get into landscapes who are not even considering Canon because of lower MP and less DR. I personally stitch and bracket all of my shots (never missed a shot), so I have not much to gain by leaving Canon, but others certainly see the need.

A specialized FF mirrorless for studio and landscape work might be a solid solution to bringing back the masses of landscape photographers Canon used to supply across the board. Several years ago, everyone had a 5d2 for landscapes, not much else.

Canon isn't stupid (slow yes, stupid no), so they must be very aware there are many people dropping the brand for other brands, even for lazy and lame reasons at times. Canon would be smart to address the issue soon and not let the other players get into profit making territory with increased market share.

 

[deleteme]

Why would canon develop a FF slr that its still in general the same size as the 5d,6d body size and keep the lens mount and distance to the sensor the same

I think the advantages of an advanced EVF and lack of an expensive mirror and its attendant calibration of AF would swing the decision irrespective of size/packaging issues. Marketing pressure adding the rest. They can also make the argument that a pro body needs to have a certain size/heft for handling.

As far as I can see the reduction of body size is a bit overblown especially for FF as the lenses still need to observe physical limitations. Sony's FF lenses are evidence that the masters of miniaturization cannot skin that cat.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon is losing quite a few landscape photographers these days, because there is stiff competition to fill all the broad and niche landscape needs. I still use Canon for landscapes because I like their system and I have no complaints with my process. I can still see vast majorities of people wanting to get into landscapes who are not even considering Canon because of lower MP and less DR. I personally stitch and bracket all of my shots (never missed a shot), so I have not much to gain by leaving Canon, but others certainly see the need.

Respectfully disagree, Johan. Canon isn't really losing folks to mirrorless nearly as much as they are losing folks to Sony sensors -- people are 'switching to mirrorless' just to get their hands on what they think will get them better IQ.

Consider: one of the Sony a7 bodies with an adaptor is probably the cheapest way to get a "better" sensor for FF work without having to flip all your glass. Landscapers are the ones willing to give this a try first, as they need AF far less than most photographers and LV can get them by.

But we continue to hear of everyone leaving Canon for a host of reasons, principally due to the sensors, and secondarily due to their avoiding any significant commitment to mirrorless.

Canon will eventually commit large dollars to mirrorless and make a proper go of it -- with APS-C, not FF. (I don't see a 4th mount happening. But they'll pony up an EVF, offer DPAF, and (please) offer a greater variety of small, native EF-M lenses and people will buy it.

The big wild card is when. I've heard a thousand forum-dwelling photography enthusiasts that claim that Canon is falling so far behind and that everyone is leaving them, but I haven't seen a speck of sales data that shows that Sony / Fuji / etc. are converting large numbers of DSLR users from them. If that starts to happen, Canon will deploy more competitive products in that segment.

- A

 

[Orangutan]

I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.

From my perspective, mirrorless isn't just about size, it's about freedom to do things you couldn't do with a mirror present. For a higher-end (5D-class) and above mirrorless, two important options become available:

1. Interchangeable lens mounts, i.e. more advanced version of Metabones. The camera can then "natively" use anyone's lenses. This is more interesting for body manufacturers other than Canon and Nikon.

2. The ability to replace the mirror apparatus with a tri-chroic prism and triple-sensor system, to finally start shoveling dirt on both Bayer arrays filters and multi-layer RGB sensors, which inherently lose light.

Next time you watch a major sports event, have a look at those huge TV cameras. FF mirrorless should be a scaled-down version of those, not a scaled-up version of P&S.

Edit: I forgot my old hobby-horse: another advantage of large/pro mirrorless is a sensor covering the full image circle, so there is no longer a "portrait" or "landscape" mode -- you can just crop in PP.

 

[ahsanford]

Why would canon develop a FF slr that its still in general the same size as the 5d,6d body size and keep the lens mount and distance to the sensor the same

As far as I can see the reduction of body size is a bit overblown especially for FF as the lenses still need to observe physical limitations. Sony's FF lenses are evidence that the masters of miniaturization cannot skin that cat.

This gets to market segmentation. You have multiple users of mirrorless with different needs. Consider just two (of many) groups coming to mirrorless from SLRs:

1) People who love the small form factor for carrying or discretion reasons — street, reportage, travel shooters and such. They *don’t* want big lenses, huge grips and such. They want 90% the IQ/features of a same-sensor-sized-SLR in 50% of the size.

2) People who are migrating to mirrorless from DSLRs simply for the best IQ they can get (i.e. people buying the various a7 Sony models) — a good example would be Canon landscape shooters wanting more MP or more DR. These folks don’t give a damn about form factor and are bolting big L lenses on to these bodies with adaptors. Effectively, they *aren’t* mirrorless devotees so much as fans of wonderful sensors and don’t mind fighting through the limitations (battery life, AF, etc.) of today’s mirrorless rigs. An A7R and an adapter is a much cheaper way to upgrade your sensor than buying a D810 and new lenses.

Normalnorm, it appears to me that Group 1 above really cares about size, and Group 2 couldn't give a damn if it takes the best shot (and, bonus, lets them keep using their old glass).

I think -- just maybe -- that the complexity of the user's needs in mirrorless might scare off Canon and Nikon as (at least for now) being a bit too unpredictable to make a major investment -- i.e. should they aim their mirrorless efforts at fully replacing what DSLRs do, or should they focus on getting the size down? Doing both could be irresponsible w.r.t. time & dollars.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Canon is losing quite a few landscape photographers these days, because there is stiff competition to fill all the broad and niche landscape needs. I still use Canon for landscapes because I like their system and I have no complaints with my process. I can still see vast majorities of people wanting to get into landscapes who are not even considering Canon because of lower MP and less DR. I personally stitch and bracket all of my shots (never missed a shot), so I have not much to gain by leaving Canon, but others certainly see the need.

Respectfully disagree, Johan. Canon isn't really losing folks to mirrorless nearly as much as they are losing folks to Sony sensors -- people are 'switching to mirrorless' just to get their hands on what they think will get them better IQ.

Consider: one of the Sony a7 bodies with an adaptor is probably the cheapest way to get a "better" sensor for FF work without having to flip all your glass. Landscapers are the ones willing to give this a try first, as they need AF far less than most photographers and LV can get them by.

But we continue to hear of everyone leaving Canon for a host of reasons, principally due to the sensors, and secondarily due to their avoiding any significant commitment to mirrorless.

Canon will eventually commit large dollars to mirrorless and make a proper go of it -- with APS-C, not FF. (I don't see a 4th mount happening. But they'll pony up an EVF, offer DPAF, and (please) offer a greater variety of small, native EF-M lenses and people will buy it.

The big wild card is when. I've heard a thousand forum-dwelling photography enthusiasts that claim that Canon is falling so far behind and that everyone is leaving them, but I haven't seen a speck of sales data that shows that Sony / Fuji / etc. are converting large numbers of DSLR users from them. If that starts to happen, Canon will deploy more competitive products in that segment.

- A

But it's true.....

Everyone has left canon..... Yet somehow they are still number one in sales.....

Nobody likes the 7d2, yet it is a hot seller.....
Perhaps Internet wisdom is flawed.....

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But what about the mysterious slide they put up at a tradeshow a year or so ago where near the top pyramid it had a mystery spot where FF and EVF coincided on the pyramid?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.

I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses. Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.

I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.

it makes it less expensive to drive high fps (of course first they need a way to get top AF in such a scenario)

or lets them go to some super EVF but otherwise as current type camera

?

 

[eos650]

I can see lots of advantages of a Full Frame mirror-less. The downside being current EVF technology and focus speed. The upsides are many. Less mechanical parts to wear out and/or splatter grease and specs all over the insides of your camera; Less noise (audible not image); potentially faster frame rates for high-speed shooting; less camera shake and no need to use mirror lock-up; potential to use EF-S lenses in crop mode on a full frame body; no need for micro focus adjustments; no physical focus screen would be needed, but potentially different focus screens could be superimposed in the EVF, based on your needs. I'm sure there are many more potential benefits.

Take this a step further and look at the potential of an electronic shutter and suddenly you have eliminated virtually all noise the camera makes and most mechanical components that can fail, other than some buttons and doors, etc.

A small mirror-less full frame would appeal in certain circumstances, but not in all. I can't imagine trying to use a small camera on a big white. For kicks I put my wife's EOS-M on my 400mm f2.8L. It looked really silly, but most importantly it was unbalanced and would have been extremely difficult to shoot with. I personally would be interested in a standard sized full frame mirror-less when using larger lenses, if they could solve the EVF and focus speed issues, but would find a smaller one appealing, when using a small lens and wanting to travel light. They would certainly have different uses.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.

I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses. Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.

I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.

For me, it would be the elimination of the mirror assembly, which is a source of potential failure, and should improve reliability. I'd also like the increased autofocus accuracy that comes with DPAF.

However, if a mirrorless can't offer DSLR AF speed, then its not useful to me either.

I'm thinking that the technology to do this is near, but not here yet.

 

[Marsu42]

I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.

All the goodies you get from mirrorless (apart from a lower price b/c of less parts required).

Most prominently, with the sensor seeing the scene all the time you can get no ends of advanced metering and image processing that isn't possible with a mirror in between ("track the bird with the red feathers"). The 1dx has facial recognition at a very high price, mirrorless could be cheaper and better. Last not least the evf can display many more functions anywhere, including focus peaking for mf with thin dof.

 

[JonAustin]

I forgot my old hobby-horse: another advantage of large/pro mirrorless is a sensor covering the full image circle, so there is no longer a "portrait" or "landscape" mode -- you can just crop in PP.

Presuming that the lens will support it. At least one of my lenses (24-105L) has a rectangular baffle near the rear element, "presumably to reduce any reflections from the parts of the rear element which are not used to form the 24 by 36 mm rectangular image."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

(Don't ask me why the link to the cited review is labeled "28-105" instead of "24-105")

 

[Orangutan]

I forgot my old hobby-horse: another advantage of large/pro mirrorless is a sensor covering the full image circle, so there is no longer a "portrait" or "landscape" mode -- you can just crop in PP.

Presuming that the lens will support it. At least one of my lenses (24-105L) has a rectangular baffle near the rear element, "presumably to reduce any reflections from the parts of the rear element which are not used to form the 24 by 36 mm rectangular image."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

(Don't ask me why the link to the cited review is labeled "28-105" instead of "24-105")

Yup, some are like that.