Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless

[weixing]

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. ;-)

Hi,
EF-S = low cost lens for crop camera.
EF-M = lens for compact mirrorless camera.
EF = main lens mount for all the rest.

IMHO, Canon will maintain the EF mount as the main mount since they are still coming out new lens for EF mount. If Canon going to FF mirrorless, it'll still be an EF mount... if they want to come out with a small FF mirrorless, they can use EOS 100D (Rebel SL1 ) as a model for it.... small enough, but still can install a larger battery for the power hungry mirrorless camera.

Have a nice day.

 

[Monchoon]

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.

No not at all, they want it encrusted in diamonds and made out of gold, why would they want a zoom?

 

[Rocky]

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.

I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless. Just remember that Canon was in competition with Leica in the film range finder camera until the late 60's. In fact 18mm lens flange is too short to do a good job for FF digital camera. Sensor like to have as close to vertical light ray angle as possible. Even the Leica M9 or ME with a lens flange of 28mm still needs the microlens to be offset to get a more even exposure. After that they still needs software correction.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless. Just remember that Canon was in competition with Leica in the film range finder camera until the late 60's. In fact 18mm lens flange is too short to do a good job for FF digital camera. Sensor like to have as close to vertical light ray angle as possible. Even the Leica M9 or ME with a lens flange of 28mm still needs the microlens to be offset to get a more even exposure. After that they still needs software correction.

Remember all the prior commentary that EF-S is the cash cow for Canon? If mirrorless is the inevitable future, perhaps the EF-M is the future cash cow mount for Canon. I wouldn't write it off just yet.

The question is -- if a new standalone FF mirrorless mount is also coming -- how well will Canon support all four mounts during the 'great industry migration to mirrorless'? Given how poorly they've supported EF-M since it's launch (again: only two Canon EF-M lenses are for sale at B&H right now), I have concerns that Canon will water down any transition period with adapters until they have to deliver lenses or lost customers.

- A

 

[e17paul]

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.

The full frame Leica M mount has an external diameter of 44mm, yet somehow supports the almost 43mm image circle. It's logical to assume that the small diameter is easier to design for close to the sensor. It is very tight though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M_mount

 

[dgatwood]

I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless.

Here's the problem: Because of their shortsighted EF-M design, it is physically impossible for Canon to design any EF system in which lenses are interchangeable between crop bodies and full-frame cameras. The reason EF-S kind of worked was that they used the same mount diameter. Without that, compatibility between EF-M and this theoretical mirrorless full-frame mount is basically impossible.

If they build it so that crop body lenses can work with full-frame, that will mean that they would have to use a shorter flange focal distance on full-frame bodies to accommodate the adapter, which means the full-frame lenses won't work on EF-M crop (short of a wide converter, with a significant loss in IQ).

Alternatively, if they build it so that full-frame lenses can work with crop bodies, then they've stupidly limited the smallest lenses (the crop lenses) to only crop bodies for no good reason, and worse, they'll have to use a longer flange focal distance for the full-frame bodies, which eliminates a lot of the fun advantages of mirrorless designs in the first place, because you'll have to have room for an adapter if you ever want to use those new full-frame lenses on the mirrorless crop bodies. Either approach is a terrible design decision. At that point, they'll basically be using EF, so they might as well just use EF. And if you're using EF anyway, the full-frame mirrorless cameras have very little to no advantage over existing DSLRs, so there's basically no reason to ever build them. (Okay, so I suppose they could shove the back element farther back and gain a little advantage within a narrow range of focal lengths, but....)

I mean, ostensibly they could build a camera with an interchangeable mount, or maybe use a slightly longer flange focal distance for the full-frame version, make the EF-M mount slide in from the side in two pieces, and provide a very thin adapter ring with contacts for EF-M users who want to use full-frame, but... every option is a hack.

IMO, Canon will be *much* better off if they switch their existing mirrorless crop bodies to the new mount, and shoot EF-M in the head. Completely. Sell replacement mounting plates for the existing lenses so you can upgrade them with two screws, then write it off the EF-M mount as a serious design mistake and move on.

 

[kphoto99]

Crazy idea.

Why not put the sensor on the bottom of the camera facing up and have a mirror reflecting the image onto the sensor.
Here is the crazy part: move the sensor up and down to adjust the flange distance based on what type (EF, EF-S, EF-M, new EF) lens is mounted.

 

[Rocky]

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.

I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless. Just remember that Canon was in competition with Leica in the film range finder camera until the late 60's. In fact 18mm lens flange is too short to do a good job for FF digital camera. Sensor like to have as close to vertical light ray angle as possible. Even the Leica M9 or ME with a lens flange of 28mm still needs the microlens to be offset to get a more even exposure. After that they still needs software correction.

Remember all the prior commentary that EF-S is the cash cow for Canon? If mirrorless is the inevitable future, perhaps the EF-M is the future cash cow mount for Canon. I wouldn't write it off just yet.

The question is -- if a new standalone FF mirrorless mount is also coming -- how well will Canon support all four mounts during the 'great industry migration to mirrorless'? Given how poorly they've supported EF-M since it's launch (again: only two Canon EF-M lenses are for sale at B&H right now), I have concerns that Canon will water down any transition period with adapters until they have to deliver lenses or lost customers.

- A

The EOM-M and Canon FF mirrorless are two totally different situation from my point of view. The EOS_M is a test case for Canon. Canon built it small and relative light. Therefore a smaller lens mount. It will fit into the pocket and the purse. It was never mean to be a full system camera. The real mistake that Canon made are the slow AF in the original EOS-M, did not import the 11-22mm lens and the M2 to the US.
If Canon ever get into the FF mirrorless, it will be a serious system camera. It should have everything plus the kitchen sink with a much larger body and lens mount.
Canon has done multiple mounts on the same body before. On its rangefinder film camera in the 60's, it has both the standard L39 screw mount for its regular lenses and the bayonet mount for its 50mm f0.95 lens only.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Less than NO INTEREST in a full-frame camera. But I would buy a Canon Mirrorless APS-C camera that was ergonomic like a Sony NEX 7 or A6000, i.e. small size but with a LARGE GRIP.

A Digital camera like the EOS IX APS-C film camera (maybe EOS IX-D). For those not familiar with the EOS IX http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1996-2000/1996_eos-ix-e.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=eos it was a small/light (485 grams/17.1 oz) that used standard EF lenses. It used an optical viewfinder, but a Mirrorless would need an EVF.

Whatever they do please, please, please no 18-Ad infinitum zoomz.

 

[lintoni]

Less than NO INTEREST in a full-frame camera. But I would buy a Canon Mirrorless APS-C camera that was ergonomic like a Sony NEX 7 or A6000, i.e. small size but with a LARGE GRIP.

A Digital camera like the EOS IX APS-C film camera (maybe EOS IX-D). For those not familiar with the EOS IX http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1996-2000/1996_eos-ix-e.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=eos it was a small/light (485 grams/17.1 oz) that used standard EF lenses. It used an optical viewfinder, but a Mirrorless would need an EVF.

Whatever they do please, please, please no 18-Ad infinitum zoomz.

I'd forgotten all about that camera. I wonder how many they sold? I can't recall seeing one in the flesh, even in a camera shop.