Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

+1

If they just go for some FF mirrorless with the same old sensors. Heck, I'd want that even far less than what they have out now. At least the ones now handle everything but the low ISO DR well. A mirrorless, slow AF FF with an old sensor would handle what well??

Unless of course it went far behind what we think of as mirrorless today. And it was basically like a current DSLR only with a super advanved EVF and keeping and even expanding all general fast action functions and abilities.

 

[lintoni]

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.

Nailed it.

 

[Rocky]

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.

Well said.

 

[AvTvM]

Hehe, over the next few years you will think a lot about my prediction on how the transition to mirrorless cams will happen at Canon.
It is now so clear to see how things evolve ... but obviously not for everyone.

Well, have fun with mirrorslappers, while it lasts. I don't mind, as long as i get cameras that are a lot smaller, a lot lighter and a lot more capable than anything that could be possibly achieved woth a flapping mirror inside.

 

[AvTvM]

Hehe, over the next few years you will think a lot about my prediction on how the transition to mirrorless cams will happen at Canon.
It is now so clear to see how things evolve ... but obviously not for everyone.

Well, have fun with mirrorslappers, while it lasts. I don't mind, as long as i get cameras that are a lot smaller, a lot lighter and a lot more capable than anything that could be possibly achieved woth a flapping mirror inside.

DSLRs are today where mechanical typewriters were when personal computers moved from IBM XT [APS-C mirrorles] to IBM AT [Sony A7] emerged in the 1980s. ;D

 

[lintoni]

Hehe, over the next few years you will think a lot about my prediction on how the transition to mirrorless cams will happen at Canon.
It is now so clear to see how things evolve ... but obviously not for everyone.

Well, have fun with mirrorslappers, while it lasts. I don't mind, as long as i get cameras that are a lot smaller, a lot lighter and a lot more capable than anything that could be possibly achieved woth a flapping mirror inside.

Nobody will be wasting any time thinking about how you want Canon's cameras to evolve to provide you with the camera that you think you want, because it isn't going to happen. My prediction? A lot of forum whinging from you about how Canon hasn't made the camera you want, despite you writing a detailed road map of how they should go about doing so.

 

[StudentOfLight]

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.

Could you please share link(s) to market data regarding EF vs EF-S lens sales? I haven't found anything useful yet and I'm keen to learn more.

 

[lintoni]

^^^
You don't need it, there are plenty of places giving data for the Canon body sales, you can compare EF to EF-S bodies (and EF-M). It's reasonable to use that as a yardstick of where Canon is making money from with the mounts

 

[StudentOfLight]

^^^
You don't need it, there are plenty of places giving data for the Canon body sales, you can compare EF to EF-S bodies (and EF-M). It's reasonable to use that as a yardstick of where Canon is making money from with the mounts

It depends. Do kit lenses count as lens sales? Typically a "kit lens" if sold separately would be more expensive so I would assume there is a higher markup if sold separately. They are also quite freely available second hand. A second hand lens purchase transaction doesn't add to Canon's profits. Also some users may only ever use a kit lens but others might have $40K in glass. How many EF-S lens sales would be equivalent to the sale of one $2,000 EF lens?

I'm not sure if looking at body sales alone is a reliable indication of where the cash-cow grazes. That is why I asked for more data.

 

[WorkonSunday]

someone close to one of the uk camera shop just told me he saw a spec sheet being passed around in the shop. target Q1 2015. looks like it can be real.... interestingly.... the shop owner said nikon hinted something similar in 2015.... exciting time ahead.

 

[lintoni]

^^^
You don't need it, there are plenty of places giving data for the Canon body sales, you can compare EF to EF-S bodies (and EF-M). It's reasonable to use that as a yardstick of where Canon is making money from with the mounts

It depends. Do kit lenses count as lens sales? Typically a "kit lens" if sold separately would be more expensive so I would assume there is a higher markup if sold separately. They are also quite freely available second hand. A second hand lens purchase transaction doesn't add to Canon's profits. Also some users may only ever use a kit lens but others might have $40K in glass. How many EF-S lens sales would be equivalent to the sale of one $2,000 EF lens?

I'm not sure if looking at body sales alone is a reliable indication of where the cash-cow grazes. That is why I asked for more data.

You make some interesting points, but I think they pale into insignificance when you consider the volume of sales of the crop cameras and their lenses when considering which mount, not ljust lenses, is generating the most iprofits for Canon.

 

[StudentOfLight]

^^^
You don't need it, there are plenty of places giving data for the Canon body sales, you can compare EF to EF-S bodies (and EF-M). It's reasonable to use that as a yardstick of where Canon is making money from with the mounts

It depends. Do kit lenses count as lens sales? Typically a "kit lens" if sold separately would be more expensive so I would assume there is a higher markup if sold separately. They are also quite freely available second hand. A second hand lens purchase transaction doesn't add to Canon's profits. Also some users may only ever use a kit lens but others might have $40K in glass. How many EF-S lens sales would be equivalent to the sale of one $2,000 EF lens?

I'm not sure if looking at body sales alone is a reliable indication of where the cash-cow grazes. That is why I asked for more data.

You make some interesting points, but I think they pale into insignificance when you consider the volume of sales of the crop cameras and their lenses when considering which mount, not ljust lenses, is generating the most iprofits for Canon.

APS-C cameras are not EF-S mount only, but also EF mount. So for example someone buying the 7D Mark-II might only every use multiple EF lenses on it and no EF-S lenses at all... Of course beginners buying "entry-level" cameras might get an EF-S lens in the kit but a fair portion of those kits also include an EF 75-300 kit lens (Some popular lenses I recommend to friends are 40pancake, 100macro, 85/1.8, 50/1.4 ... this is obviously excluding any L lenses) My point is that by generalizing that APS-C equals EF-S lenses only, is discounting a major advantage that APS-C cameras offer: the ability to use high quality EF lenses.

 

[lintoni]

^^^
You don't need it, there are plenty of places giving data for the Canon body sales, you can compare EF to EF-S bodies (and EF-M). It's reasonable to use that as a yardstick of where Canon is making money from with the mounts

It depends. Do kit lenses count as lens sales? Typically a "kit lens" if sold separately would be more expensive so I would assume there is a higher markup if sold separately. They are also quite freely available second hand. A second hand lens purchase transaction doesn't add to Canon's profits. Also some users may only ever use a kit lens but others might have $40K in glass. How many EF-S lens sales would be equivalent to the sale of one $2,000 EF lens?

I'm not sure if looking at body sales alone is a reliable indication of where the cash-cow grazes. That is why I asked for more data.

You make some interesting points, but I think they pale into insignificance when you consider the volume of sales of the crop cameras and their lenses when considering which mount, not ljust lenses, is generating the most iprofits for Canon.

APS-C cameras are not EF-S mount only, but also EF mount. So for example someone buying the 7D Mark-II might only every use multiple EF lenses on it and no EF-S lenses at all... Of course beginners buying "entry-level" cameras might get an EF-S lens in the kit but a fair portion of those kits also include an EF 75-300 kit lens (Some popular lenses I recommend to friends are 40pancake, 100macro, 85/1.8, 50/1.4 ... this is obviously excluding any L lenses) My point is that by generalizing that APS-C equals EF-S lenses only, is discounting a major advantage that APS-C cameras offer: the ability to use high quality EF lenses.

Indeed, and given the nature of the 7D2, I expect that there will be a few users who only use long telephoto lenses on it, whether that's a 100-400 zoom or the really expensive telephoto primes. But going back to the xxD and xxxD bodies that will sell substantially more units than a 7D2, if users want a genuinely wide lens, they will be buying EF-S lenses, whether that's in a kit with the body or lens only. And as for eg a 75-300, how many of those do you think are bought by users of Canon's full frame bodies? It's the EF-S mount cameras that are driving sales of that lens, whether in a kit or as a later purchase

 

[Monchoon]

^^^
You don't need it, there are plenty of places giving data for the Canon body sales, you can compare EF to EF-S bodies (and EF-M). It's reasonable to use that as a yardstick of where Canon is making money from with the mounts

It depends. Do kit lenses count as lens sales? Typically a "kit lens" if sold separately would be more expensive so I would assume there is a higher markup if sold separately. They are also quite freely available second hand. A second hand lens purchase transaction doesn't add to Canon's profits. Also some users may only ever use a kit lens but others might have $40K in glass. How many EF-S lens sales would be equivalent to the sale of one $2,000 EF lens?

I'm not sure if looking at body sales alone is a reliable indication of where the cash-cow grazes. That is why I asked for more data.

You make some interesting points, but I think they pale into insignificance when you consider the volume of sales of the crop cameras and their lenses when considering which mount, not ljust lenses, is generating the most iprofits for Canon.

APS-C cameras are not EF-S mount only, but also EF mount. So for example someone buying the 7D Mark-II might only every use multiple EF lenses on it and no EF-S lenses at all... Of course beginners buying "entry-level" cameras might get an EF-S lens in the kit but a fair portion of those kits also include an EF 75-300 kit lens (Some popular lenses I recommend to friends are 40pancake, 100macro, 85/1.8, 50/1.4 ... this is obviously excluding any L lenses) My point is that by generalizing that APS-C equals EF-S lenses only, is discounting a major advantage that APS-C cameras offer: the ability to use high quality EF lenses.

Indeed, and given the nature of the 7D2, I expect that there will be a few users who only use long telephoto lenses on it, whether that's a 100-400 zoom or the really expensive telephoto primes. But going back to the xxD and xxxD bodies that will sell substantially more units than a 7D2, if users want a genuinely wide lens, they will be buying EF-S lenses, whether that's in a kit with the body or lens only. And as for eg a 75-300, how many of those do you think are bought by users of Canon's full frame bodies? It's the EF-S mount cameras that are driving sales of that lens, whether in a kit or as a later purchase

I think I remember reading here that the EF 50 1.8 was Canon's biggest in sales, and that the largest for an EF-S was the EF-S 55-250

 

[privatebydesign]

Could you please share link(s) to market data regarding EF vs EF-S lens sales? I haven't found anything useful yet and I'm keen to learn more.

No, I don't have the time or inclination, but sales figures have been discussed here recently.

I forget the outcome but seem to remember, though forgive me if I am wrong, only 3% of EOS owners buy a lens outside of the kit they buy new, they have sold over 90,000,000 EF/EF-s/EF-m, TS-E, and MP-E lenses, or is it 100,000,000 now? Something like 7% of interchangeable lens camera sales are FF (as mentioned by Thom Hogan). By simple maths it is obvious that there are close to 93,000,000 Canon APS cameras out there and there are close to 7,000,000 Canon FF cameras out there. Though these figures don't take into account the much lower earlier EOS film camera figures any adjustment would be small to allow for the discrepancy due to the much lower sales volumes at that time.

93,000,000/7,000,000 = 13.3.

If you take an average price of $2,500 for a FF camera and an $800 average for a crop camera they'd need to sell 3 times as many crop cameras as ff cameras to make the same income, now even if my figures and guestimates are well off it is clear Canon sells vastly more crop cameras to ff cameras than that, probably close to 10 times as many. EF-s is the cash cow, it is losing weight, but it is still where all the money comes from.

 

[moreorless]

Personally I think looking at Canon's releases in recent years something that notable is how little effort they have made to chase the "gadget" dollar. You could I spose argue the G1X's were somewhat going that direction although little effort was made to sex them up but generally they seem to have paid little attention to those wanting "cool new tech". Even the EOS M didn't really target this market(much to its chagrin) and instead looked to go after the more basic ultra compact mirrorless market that EF-S couldn't service which makes up the majority of sales in the far east(and I'd imagine by default overall). I suspect part of the reason is that whilst people who buy such gear tend to be very active/vocal on the net(and so much of the net media actively target them) the market they represent isn't actually very profitable as its both very demanding(limited shelf life until the next cool product is released by a rival) but also quite price sensitive.

Honestly if Canon was looking around at the business performance of rivals I'm guessing it wouldn't be Sony or Fuji they would be interested in but Leica. Unlike all the loss making mirrorless manufacturers they actually seem to be making a profit aiming at the higher end of the market rather than the gadget market. Maybe a "rangefinder" rumour isn't that strange in that respect? Something akin to the Leica M sold at a hefty premium could have the potential to bring in serious cash.

 

[dgatwood]

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.

Yes, upon digging further, the EF-M mount is really only about 43mm interior diameter, compared with EF's 54mm. Because of that shortsighted design decision, it is impossible for Canon to ever build a full-frame mirrorless camera that is compatible with their existing crop-body mirrorless lenses, unless they do so with yet another adapter and an even shorter flange focal distance.

You'd think Canon would have learned from past mistakes, but no.... They just keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the entire EF-M format is an evolutionary dead end, and that there's basically no advantage to Canon ever building a full-frame mirrorless camera.

 

[AvTvM]

No mistake. There will be a complete transition. Ef-s is the dead end. ;-)

Ef-m = sole surviving aps-c mount
Ef = surviving mount for tele > 100mm
Ef-x = new, dominant mount for mirrorless ff < 100mm.

Advantage for canon: mirrorless ff buyers have to purchase body and new lenses. Bodies cheap, lenses expensive. See sony A7 series plus FE lenses. ;-)

 

[ahsanford]

Honestly if Canon was looking around at the business performance of rivals I'm guessing it wouldn't be Sony or Fuji they would be interested in but Leica. Unlike all the loss making mirrorless manufacturers they actually seem to be making a profit aiming at the higher end of the market rather than the gadget market. Maybe a "rangefinder" rumour isn't that strange in that respect? Something akin to the Leica M sold at a hefty premium could have the potential to bring in serious cash.

I think that's what Sony was gunning for with the RX1. I know it lacked a proper rangefinder OVF, but a $2,800 (at release) fixed lens camera was nothing if not a luxury item.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

I think that's what Sony was gunning for with the RX1. I know it lacked a proper rangefinder OVF, but a $2,800 (at release) fixed lens camera was nothing if not a luxury item.

Exactly. Epic fail. Deservedly so. Even nouveau-riche russians and saudis want a zoom lens on their premium pocket cam.