Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless

[AvTvM]

Looks pretty straightforward to me what's going to happen:

1. EOS M3 MILC
based on and as tiny as EOS M2 (wifi!) but with 70D sensor and improved AF speed (DPAF), hopefully at Sony A6000 levels.
For the "make it as small as possible crowd" = second camera users looking for wlkaraound or ultracompact back-up cam and P&S upgraders

2. EOS "M PRO1" MILC
Body size and style and imaging capabilities similar to Samsung NX1. 7D II sensor and DPAF-system hopefully driven to the max. Grip size similar to 7D II, LP-E6N battery, 500+ shots. EF-M/EF adapter included with body, "free of charge"
For the "we want it with a viewfinder and we don't want it too small" crowd. Non-conservative enthusiasts looking for performance, reach and stealth [less noise!] happy ... e.g. birders]

3. to support 1. + 2. and flesh out the EOS-M system: a few more extremely compact, optically very decent, good value EF-M lenses: both fixed focal ... portrait, macro ... and zooms ... 16-85ish, and the inevitable 18-200 etc.

3. "EOS X" - FF sensor.
The big one. Stunning, new, 50MP hi-rez sensor with DP-AF, good for fully-tracking capable AF, at about 6 fps ... basically a mirrorless hi-res 5D IV. Plus 4k Video, of course.
Rangefinderesque body style, not DSLR-shape. Might look similar to an (upcoming?) FF Fuji X-Pro2, but without the nasty retro look - or like a Leica M, but more "sleek and 21st century".
Stunning, extremely hi-end hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder [again, along the lines of Fuji X-Pro]. Overall size and weight somewhere in the A7 II to 6D ballpark ... around 600 grams. Large enough, comfortable grip, large enough for LP-E6N 13Wh battery to yield 500+ shots.
New, native EF-X mount. Initial lens supply EF-X 24-70/2.8 L IS ... EF-X16-35/2.8 L IS, not very compact, but about 1/3 smaller/lighter than EF; plus very compact EF-X 20mm/4.0 IS, 50mm/1.8 IS and 85/2.4 IS. EF-X/EF adapter included in box, 100% fully functional AF, IS ... "free of charge".
Extremely rigid body chassis w/grip just large enough to support use white EF L tele lenses [via adapter] including and up to 300mm/2.8 = anything anybody might use handheld for an extended period of time or on a regular basis. Larger lenses require monopods and tripods anyway, even with big DSLRs.
Pricing: stunning USD/€ 2990,- 8)
For non-conservative enthusiasts and pros (if there are any). And for the video crowd.

4. 1D-Xs DSLR
Same sensor (as in 3. EOS-X) will in parallel be released in 1D-Xs DSLR - good for 10 fps thanks to still slightly more capable Phase-AF. Will of course come with all other 1-series goodies and at 1D pricing.
Targeted at conservative, "prefer OVF and big fat mirrorslapper" users with lots of money to burn.

5. 5D Mk. IV DSLR
Same 50 MP FF sensor wil be released 9 months later in 5D IV DSLR, running @ 8 fps. w/o 4k video. For conservative "I want OVF, I want big fat DSLR in hands types, with less money to burn than 1D-Xs buyers. ;D

My strategy fits on a paper napkin and does it all:
A) Get Canon to market leadership quickly in mirrorless - APS-C and FF.
B) Protect EF lenses and DSLRs for some time to come.
C) Allow phase-out of rebel DSLRs, but still allow for one more iteration of xxD (80D) and to keep 7D II [as last iteration]. Then drop APS-C DSLRs and EF-S for good by end of 2016. Of course, existing EF-S lenses can be used fully-functional without any compromises on all APS-C mirrorless bodies [EOS-M] and also on FF mirrorless [EF-X] in crop mode. So no wrath from EF-S owners.
D) Protect FF DSLRs even longer. Bring hi-res 1D-Xs and 5D IV. Bring 1D-X II [less res, faster -in line with 1D series genes]. Bring any new white tele L-lenses in EF mount. Don't bring any new lenses below 135mm in EF mount, only in EF-X for mirrorless.
E) yes, for a transitional period, Canon would have 4 different mounts: 2x APS-C [already there] and 2x FF [EF + EF-X] ... just like SOny. But who cares? All EF and EF-S lenses ever made stay fully functional by using simple, small "free of charge" EF-X/EF or EF-M/EF adapter. No wrath from EF/EF-S lens owners.

So where's the problem, Canon? Go, execute strategy. 8)

 

[eos650]

That is an EXTREME case. May I ask how many of you have put the EOS-M with 22mm lens in your own pocket or your wife's purse? That is what the EOS-M is for. If it is done right, we can still put a FF mirrorless with a 35mm lens in the wind breaker jacket easily.

My point being that there is a place for both large and small cameras. At some point, somewhere down the road I think it's likely that all cameras will be mirror-less, but just because you can make them smaller, doesn't mean there won't be a market for larger cameras as well.

 

[nda]

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.

??? Which part of the 6d "isn't that much bigger" ?

 

[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.

??? Which part of the 6d "isn't that much bigger"

Compared to a real camera like the 1d, all other dslrs are just tiny gadgets ... we Canon folk generally don't let facts stand in the way of defending out favorite brand :->

 

[WorkonSunday]

these days companies spent so much on marketing... really need to learn how to read whats missing rather than what's being stated...

remember when nikon Df was rumored? oh yea, it's retro, oh yea, it's has all the tech from nikon history, oh yea, it's FF, oh yea, it's going back to basic....

yea..alright...

probably end up with something like a samsung NX1 or A77 but without a mirror. so full size body, full performance, just without a mirror...

 

[lintoni]

Looks pretty straightforward to me what's going to happen:

1. EOS M3 MILC
based on and as tiny as EOS M2 (wifi!) but with 70D sensor and improved AF speed (DPAF), hopefully at Sony A6000 levels.
For the "make it as small as possible crowd" = second camera users looking for wlkaraound or ultracompact back-up cam and P&S upgraders

2. EOS "M PRO1" MILC
Body size and style and imaging capabilities similar to Samsung NX1. 7D II sensor and DPAF-system hopefully driven to the max. Grip size similar to 7D II, LP-E6N battery, 500+ shots. EF-M/EF adapter included with body, "free of charge"
For the "we want it with a viewfinder and we don't want it too small" crowd. Non-conservative enthusiasts looking for performance, reach and stealth [less noise!] happy ... e.g. birders]

3. to support 1. + 2. and flesh out the EOS-M system: a few more extremely compact, optically very decent, good value EF-M lenses: both fixed focal ... portrait, macro ... and zooms ... 16-85ish, and the inevitable 18-200 etc.

3. "EOS X" - FF sensor.
The big one. Stunning, new, 50MP hi-rez sensor with DP-AF, good for fully-tracking capable AF, at about 6 fps ... basically a mirrorless hi-res 5D IV. Plus 4k Video, of course.
Rangefinderesque body style, not DSLR-shape. Might look similar to an (upcoming?) FF Fuji X-Pro2, but without the nasty retro look - or like a Leica M, but more "sleek and 21st century".
Stunning, extremely hi-end hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder [again, along the lines of Fuji X-Pro]. Overall size and weight somewhere in the A7 II to 6D ballpark ... around 600 grams. Large enough, comfortable grip, large enough for LP-E6N 13Wh battery to yield 500+ shots.
New, native EF-X mount. Initial lens supply EF-X 24-70/2.8 L IS ... EF-X16-35/2.8 L IS, not very compact, but about 1/3 smaller/lighter than EF; plus very compact EF-X 20mm/4.0 IS, 50mm/1.8 IS and 85/2.4 IS. EF-X/EF adapter included in box, 100% fully functional AF, IS ... "free of charge".
Extremely rigid body chassis w/grip just large enough to support use white EF L tele lenses [via adapter] including and up to 300mm/2.8 = anything anybody might use handheld for an extended period of time or on a regular basis. Larger lenses require monopods and tripods anyway, even with big DSLRs.
Pricing: stunning USD/€ 2990,- 8)
For non-conservative enthusiasts and pros (if there are any). And for the video crowd.

4. 1D-Xs DSLR
Same sensor (as in 3. EOS-X) will in parallel be released in 1D-Xs DSLR - good for 10 fps thanks to still slightly more capable Phase-AF. Will of course come with all other 1-series goodies and at 1D pricing.
Targeted at conservative, "prefer OVF and big fat mirrorslapper" users with lots of money to burn.

5. 5D Mk. IV DSLR
Same 50 MP FF sensor wil be released 9 months later in 5D IV DSLR, running @ 8 fps. w/o 4k video. For conservative "I want OVF, I want big fat DSLR in hands types, with less money to burn than 1D-Xs buyers. ;D

My strategy fits on a paper napkin and does it all:
A) Get Canon to market leadership quickly in mirrorless - APS-C and FF.
B) Protect EF lenses and DSLRs for some time to come.
C) Allow phase-out of rebel DSLRs, but still allow for one more iteration of xxD (80D) and to keep 7D II [as last iteration]. Then drop APS-C DSLRs and EF-S for good by end of 2016. Of course, existing EF-S lenses can be used fully-functional without any compromises on all APS-C mirrorless bodies [EOS-M] and also on FF mirrorless [EF-X] in crop mode. So no wrath from EF-S owners.
D) Protect FF DSLRs even longer. Bring hi-res 1D-Xs and 5D IV. Bring 1D-X II [less res, faster -in line with 1D series genes]. Bring any new white tele L-lenses in EF mount. Don't bring any new lenses below 135mm in EF mount, only in EF-X for mirrorless.
E) yes, for a transitional period, Canon would have 4 different mounts: 2x APS-C [already there] and 2x FF [EF + EF-X] ... just like SOny. But who cares? All EF and EF-S lenses ever made stay fully functional by using simple, small "free of charge" EF-X/EF or EF-M/EF adapter. No wrath from EF/EF-S lens owners.

So where's the problem, Canon? Go, execute strategy. 8)

No.

 

[Sportsgal501]

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.

??? Which part of the 6d "isn't that much bigger" ?

The 6D is not fitting in anyone's "pocketbook" or "man purse".

 

[jameskatt]

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.

Note that in Japan, the EOS M2 is sold. It already has a 70D sensor. And it has the rapid focus capability of using focus sensors.

It sure would be disappointing for Canon to simply sell the EOS M2 in the US unchanged. After all, the EOS M2 is already available to US customers via eBay. The EOS M2 with 18-55, 55-200mm zooms is available for only $640.

 

[Luds34]

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

+1

Really agree with this. I do not see a FF mirrorless with a new mount from Canon any time soon. They will develop the M platform. Fuji and Olympus are showing you don't need a FF sensor to do mirrorless/compact systems right.

And if others recall earlier rumors about a possible Mirrorless Rebel. I picture the Rebel ergonomics, look and feel to stay the same, aka take out mirrorbox, etc and go to a EVF and maintain the current EF-S/EF mount. This seems like a strategy a conservative company like Canon would go for.

Personally I think if they were going to do a Mirrorless Rebel I think it would be better to keep the grip and the back about the same. Add a EVF where the OVF is. Then make the main body thinner put a M mount on it. It would be about the same size as current Rebels use EOS M lens. If they create a packages with the converter to the EF-S/EF mount.

I don't know if I agree or disagree if that would be necessarily be better. I think I could go either way personally. Although if you keep the same decent size grip (which is still too tiny for my hands on a Rebel) does it really matter if the mount is recessed a bit farther back as an M mount? What is the difference in flange distance, I believe it's less then an inch. Assuming the same height/length, is that slightly narrower depth really going to seem that significant on the camera body as whole? Probably if you are mounting small enough lenses.

Like I said, I could probably take it either way. But it's a moot point whether it's better or not as I still think it comes down to that Canon will not do that. They are too conservative. I think just tossing in an EVF in a Rebel body is already pretty bold for them and is probably the first step in testing the waters.

Besides, the new M series camera fits the bill for a compact mirrorless already. I really don't see Canon abandoning their DSLR sizes models, especially at the pro level, ever. They will eventually all move to a mirrorless system (even at the top Pro level but possibly 10 years out), but they will continue to offer a decent size "DSLR style" body for those who want/need it. Instead they will just supplement their line up with M style cameras to fill the market need for those who want a smaller, more compact system.

As an enthusiast, I love both. Was out in NYC couple weekends ago and I had zero excuse not to have the M + 22mm pancake with me. It fit nicely in my jacket pocket. On the other hand, I can't imagine mounting a 70-200 or super tele lens on any camera body smaller then a xxD series. I've mounted the EF-S 15-85mm on the M and even that was ridiculous. Mirrorless does not automatically equal small/compact size camera. It certainly can be one of the advantages, but does not have to be.

So again, my pure speculation is Canon will continue to invest in the EOS-M, as to have a player in the MILC. And they will slowly test the waters with mirrorless, DSLR size bodies as well, maintaining the EF/EF-S mount for now. I'd be pretty surprised (i.e totally shocked) if they come out with a FF mirrorless on a brand new camera mount next year. But hey, if they do it will be pretty interesting!

 

[AvTvM]

Note that in Japan, the EOS M2 is sold. It already has a 70D sensor. And it has the rapid focus capability of using focus sensors.

No. The EOS-M2 has NOT 70D sensor and NOT 70D / DPAF AF system.

EOS-M2 has same sensor and (hybrid) on-sensor AF-system as the Rebel SL1/EOS 100D. AF-system is called Canon Hybrid CMOS AF II.

Improvement over earlier Hybrid CMOS AF system in EOS-M and Rebel T4i/650D and T5i/700D: it covers a larger area of the sensor surface [approx. 80%] http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-sl1/ZHYBRIDAF2-400.GIF

EOS M has same sensor and same (hybrid CMOS) AF system as Rebel T4i / EOS 650D / T5i/700D.

 

[Bob Howland]

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.

How about a successor to the 1Dx (or 7D2) capable of getting 24 full resolution still images per second? The Sony A6000 does 11FPS, faster than the 7D2. Imagine how good it could be if it was engineered to sell for $1800 or $6000, not $450. Also, a mirrorless FF camera, with a shortened sensor-to-flange distance and using EF lenses, would allow Canon to introduce native lenses at a more reasonable pace.

My guess is that a FF Mirrorless Canon camera could be about the same size as the Sony A6000, except a little taller to accommodate the larger diameter of the EF mount.

 

[AvTvM]

My guess is that a FF Mirrorless Canon camera could be about the same size as the Sony A6000, except a little taller to accommodate the larger diameter of the EF mount.

I don't think a Canon FF mirrorless cam [with built-in EVF] could be made as small as Sony A6000.

I'd expect the now vaguley rumored "rangefinder-style" Canon FF MILC ... "EOS X1" ... to be sized between Sony A7 II [in terms of handgrip size] and Leica M / Fujifilm X-Pro1.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#535,579,389,258,380,ha,f
http://camerasize.com/compact/#535,579,389,258,380,ha,t

A solidly constructed and built body of this size, coming in at 600 grams [thanks to MgAl alloys] - with handgrip about the size of Sony A7 II - would give enough support to shoot handheld with adapted Canon L teles up to and including EF 300/2.8 II ... "in a pinch". It would not be as comfortable however, as a 300/2.8 II on a 1D-X sized DSLR body. [Lenses longer/larger/heavier typically are not operated handheld , certainly not over extended periods of time.]

 

[ahsanford]

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.

How about a successor to the 1Dx (or 7D2) capable of getting 24 full resolution still images per second. The Sony A6000 does 11FPS, faster than the 7D2. Imagine how good it could be if it was engineered to sell for $1800 or $6000, not $450. Also, a mirrorless FF camera, with a shortened sensor-to-flange distance and using EF lenses, would allow Canon to introduce native lenses at a more reasonable pace.

My guess is that a FF Mirrorless Canon camera could be about the same size as the Sony A6000, except a little taller to accommodate the larger diameter of the EF mount.

There's that damn new FF mirrorless mount again. As much as it's a clear opportunity in the long term, it's categorically crippling in the near term. We either have to like adapters or we have to like waiting. I keep hearing folks say a mount transition would not be that bad -- "we just need a few key lenses" -- but in reality the key lenses each of us want is different and Canon would take 3-5 years to deploy those.

Don't get me wrong -- I want a great mirrorless ecosystem to climb into -- but 'great' is compared to what I have today. And the options I have today in EF are staggering.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

There's that damn new FF mirrorless mount again. As much as it's a clear opportunity in the long term, it's categorically crippling in the near term. We either have to like adapters or we have to like waiting. I keep hearing folks say a mount transition would not be that bad -- "we just need a few key lenses" -- but in reality the key lenses each of us want is different and Canon would take 3-5 years to deploy those.

Don't get me wrong -- I want a great mirrorless ecosystem to climb into -- but 'great' is compared to what I have today. And the options I have today in EF are staggering.

Yes, it will take many years until a full native mirrorless lens range is established.
And yes, using an adaptor is usually less than ideal. BUT - if the adapter comes from Canon and has no optical elements and is included with the FF MILC body, the pain would be eased considerably. It would not have any negative impact on IQ, AF precision, IS functionality, or lens-mount protocol data exchange.

Of course AF-speed might be affected, when non-STM EF lenses, designed for DSLR phase-AF are used via adaptor. But that will provide additional incentive to buy those new, smaller, faster AF, native mirrorless lenses. Good for Canon at least.

I do not really mind using the clever little Canon EF/EF-M adapter to put EF-S and EF lenses with STM AF drive onto my EOS M. I especially like the design of the tripod foot on it. It allows mounting of the camera with any lens to a tripod head/clamp - not only lenses with tripod collar. And it can easily be removed and the foot is very small, but still solid.

 

[dgatwood]

The rub, of course, is that blasted FF mirrorless mount. If they keep the same EF setup (i.e just pull the mirror with no size reduction), interest in those bodies will be limited to the most keen enthusiasts and pros who want a very specific mirrorless advantage (fancy EVF, peaking, burst, etc.). Or, Canon could make a standalone FF mirrorless mount that requires new glass and/or an adapter to walk back to the EF flange distance. The latter is undoubtedly a more attractive smaller product, but it would also be a financial back-breaker in the near and mid term.

One advantage of that design is the ability to use EF-S lenses. So as a replacement for the Rebel line, an EF-mount full-frame mirrorless could ostensibly make sense. On the other hand, one big disadvantage to such a design is the inability to take advantage of the shorter flange focal distance to build smaller wide-angle lenses. And a full-frame camera is where you'd most like to do so. And you'd lose the ability to use the existing, smaller EF-M lenses, which ideally should make the use of EF-S lenses mostly moot. So I'm not sure that's a good trade.

What Canon really ought to do is provide a service in which you can send in your EF lenses along with $50 and have them converted to an EF-M mount (with the ability to reverse the process if you change your mind later). That way, you have the solidity of a real mount instead of an adapter, you don't have to keep moving the adapter back and forth between lenses, etc., but you still keep the advantage of supporting wide-angle EF-M lenses with their smaller size. That would greatly ease the transition to the EF-M mount.

 

[ahsanford]

The rub, of course, is that blasted FF mirrorless mount. If they keep the same EF setup (i.e just pull the mirror with no size reduction), interest in those bodies will be limited to the most keen enthusiasts and pros who want a very specific mirrorless advantage (fancy EVF, peaking, burst, etc.). Or, Canon could make a standalone FF mirrorless mount that requires new glass and/or an adapter to walk back to the EF flange distance. The latter is undoubtedly a more attractive smaller product, but it would also be a financial back-breaker in the near and mid term.

One advantage of that design is the ability to use EF-S lenses. So as a replacement for the Rebel line, an EF-mount full-frame mirrorless could ostensibly make sense. On the other hand, one big disadvantage to such a design is the inability to take advantage of the shorter flange focal distance to build smaller wide-angle lenses. And a full-frame camera is where you'd most like to do so. And you'd lose the ability to use the existing, smaller EF-M lenses, which ideally should make the use of EF-S lenses mostly moot. So I'm not sure that's a good trade.

Agree. One upside to having to make a new mount for FF mirrorless (if they did it) would be that you wouldn't have to make every popular EF lens in the new format. Native mirrorless glass would only retain a small body+lens footprint in shorter FLs -- i.e. the upside of the 'tiny' body is wasted on a 300 prime.

So Canon could make some new mount for FF mirrorless with lens options ranging from, say, 14mm - 135mm, and then everything else above that length is not offered. Canon would then force you back to the EF fold through an adapter for those lengths.

If that is palatable (and for someone who wants a smaller rig like myself, it is), you could conceivably get by with a relatively reasonable splash of high quality smallers lenses for the new mount:

14-24 f/4
24-70 f/2.8 (likely include a smaller f/4 option)
24 or 35 f/1.4 (or smaller f/2 IS option)
50 f/1.4 / 1.2
85 f/1.2
100 macro
135 f/2
+ sprinkle in some non-L starter lenses: an f/3.5-5.6 standard zoom perhaps.

I have no delusions that this -- from Canon -- wouldn't take a very long time, but it could work. But it's a heck of lot less lift than trying to recreate the best of all of EF's reach in another format.

The tricky bit, of course, is saying goodbye to regular 70-200 use (which would sit right around that 135mm inflection point I previously mentioned), which I love on my 5D3. I just don't see a compact mirrorless version of that being practical to hold in FF. (In smaller formats like m43 there are reasonably holdable 70-200 equivalents, but not in FF with a small body.)

- A

 

[dgatwood]

Agree. One upside to having to make a new mount for FF mirrorless (if they did it) would be that you wouldn't have to make every popular EF lens in the new format. Native mirrorless glass would only retain a small body+lens footprint in shorter FLs -- i.e. the upside of the 'tiny' body is wasted on a 300 prime.

That's assuming they even need to change the mount at all. Assuming the EF-M mount is wide enough to not vignette existing EF lenses with a full-frame sensor (I'm not sure about that), then there's no practical reason why they couldn't use the existing EF-M mount. Existing crop-body EF-M hardware would use the center part of a full-frame EF-M lens just like it does for EF lenses. And for full-frame EF-M cameras, the camera would just need to know whether to crop the image or not. This is, of course, fairly trivial:

1. Add a new lens command to query whether future lenses are designed for crop sensors.
2. Create an exception list containing all the existing crop lenses (both EF-M and EF-S).

And they'd already have to do both of those things anyway to support EF-S lenses on full-frame EF-M bodies, so it's not like they'd be expending any extra effort.

 

[ahsanford]

Agree. One upside to having to make a new mount for FF mirrorless (if they did it) would be that you wouldn't have to make every popular EF lens in the new format. Native mirrorless glass would only retain a small body+lens footprint in shorter FLs -- i.e. the upside of the 'tiny' body is wasted on a 300 prime.

That's assuming they even need to change the mount at all. Assuming the EF-M mount is wide enough to not vignette existing EF lenses with a full-frame sensor (I'm not sure about that), then there's no practical reason why they couldn't use the existing EF-M mount. Existing crop-body EF-M hardware would use the center part of a full-frame EF-M lens just like it does for EF lenses. And for full-frame EF-M cameras, the camera would just need to know whether to crop the image or not. This is, of course, fairly trivial:

1. Add a new lens command to query whether future lenses are designed for crop sensors.
2. Create an exception list containing all the existing crop lenses (both EF-M and EF-S).

And they'd already have to do both of those things anyway to support EF-S lenses on full-frame EF-M bodies, so it's not like they'd be expending any extra effort.

This is the part where I get lost. Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?

- A

 

[AvTvM]

This is the part where I get lost. Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?

Canon has said clearly no. Don't have the link right now, but you can google the interview with a canon exec, i believe it was masaso maeda. It has also been discussed in cr forum a number of times in different threads.

There is no denying, that at the end of the day there will be 3 canon mounts left:
1. ef-m
2. ef-? for ff mirrorless (short flange distance) up to around 100mm focal lengths
3. ef for focal lentghs from about 100mm or 135mm and up - with adapter for mirrorless

 

[privatebydesign]

This is the part where I get lost. Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?

Canon has said clearly no. Don't have the link right now, but you can google the interview with a canon exec, i believe it was masaso maeda. It has also been discussed in cr forum a number of times in different threads.

There is no denying, that at the end of the day there will be 3 canon mounts left:
1. ef-m
2. ef-? for ff mirrorless (short flange distance) up to around 100mm focal lengths
3. ef for focal lentghs from about 100mm or 135mm and up - with adapter for mirrorless

Only if you are delusional and completely ignore where the vast majority of the sales, and income, actually come from, EF-s.

You have such blinkers on that you don't see anything but getting rid of 'mirrorslapers' as the answer to any and every question, 'what would you like for dinner?', 'Get ride of mirrorslappers.' 'What time is sunrise?', 'I need a mirrorless.'

Getting rid of the mirror is not the answer to everything, it isn't even the answer to every photography question and there is some doubt that it ever will be.

Some markets may never adopt mirrorless cameras, other emerging markets may never embrace SLR's to the extent they are in the USA. It seems more variation to suit different market is the future,not one or the other.

Steve Jobs said the best iPod Apple ever made was the iPhone, they were happy to cannibalize their own product line because the new model made more per unit, the functionality was dramatically increased but the iPhone included all the functionality and form factor as the iPod Touch. Subsequently people have demanded bigger phones, not smaller. So, what additional functionality does a mirrorless offer other than an EVF and size? Because the SLi is pretty small and people seem to want bigger anyway as can be evidenced by the increase in size of the newer mirrorless models; and including the functionality of the EVF in a hybrid OVF seems eminently doable, as per the X100T.

EF-m is comparatively new, any mirrorless form factor is going to use that mount, it is a clear indication that Canon see their mirrorless involvement to be squarely set in the APS sensor size, and with sensor improvements we will be achieving current 135 format IQ from APS sensors in a few years.

EF-s is the current cash cow and won't be abandoned because there is no need to until such time, if it ever comes, that EF-m completely takes over from EF-s, Canon did a very smart thing in hedging their bets there!

EF is Canon's legacy, it will be the core part of their camera imaging system until such time as entirely different tech is commonplace and the resolution is not up to the job and people are convinced they need much more in the way of capability, which given the current capabilities and camera tech maturity would seem to me to be a very hard sell.