Some Canon Mirrorless Talk [CR2]

[ahsanford]

I feel like I'm a market segmentation person explaining the pie chart right now, apologies. I'm just representing the 20 percent of folks who truly do want a tinier FF rig, wouldn't mind shooting f/2 primes and f/4 zooms to build a more compact overall setup, etc. They are out there, I'm sure.

20% .. where's that market data?

It's not hard market data at all, but the ~29% of the respondents to this survey speak to a group of photographers I'm sure we've each heard elsewhere in our travels. They represent an enthusiast camp of shooters who rally to the anthem of 'Mirrorless is about being smaller/lighter'.

Though many on this forum have painfully thought Canon's FF mirrorless future through and come to the conclusion that a full EF mount FF mirrorless is the inevitable outcome (count me among this group), some do believe in the A7 approach with 'some restraint' on large aperture and long FL lenses absolutely do exist. Some folks would love a 2nd thinner mount FF rig with (say) a high quality + small 24, 35 or 50mm f/2 lens on it.

- A

 

[j-nord]

Mirrorless or DSLR I don't care as long as it takes EF lenses, FF, 30-50mpix, a little smaller and lighter than the 6D.

 

[canonographer]

I would love to see the FF rumor turn into reality.

- M3 styling, with a bump in size/ergonomics to handle more like a smaller dslr (slightly smaller than the 6D would be great)
- Integrated/hybrid EVF - throw in the built in flash for good measure
- EF mount is fine with me, the lens options are a great selling point. The physics of lens design is going to keep things that size anyway, so let's go with what we already have.
- Include all the functionality of a dslr, handling, and controls of a dslr, but the added abilities of a mirrorless (zebras, focus peaking, live shooting, etc.)
- Add a sensor that can compete w/ Sony, and I think you have a real winner

That would be perfect for me.

 

[TeT]

Any chance that the upcoming APC M will have custom shooting modes?

I will assume that the prosumer FF model will, but was kind of looking forward to going with smaller "M" sized glass along with the smaller sized M.

I know picky picky, right...

 

[rrcphoto]

Any chance that the upcoming APC M will have custom shooting modes?

I will assume that the prosumer FF model will, but was kind of looking forward to going with smaller "M" sized glass along with the smaller sized M.

I know picky picky, right...

the M3 has one custom mode .. I suspect we'll see more out of the next M.

the M3 prototypes and test units had 2 custom modes.. that got cut down.


it's actually one thing that hardly anyone picked up on.. all the leaked images at the start showed two custom modes. the M3 was released with one.

here's the leaked M3:

you can clearly see two C modes after the "M".

on an actual M3, there's a gap where that second C mode would have been.

one of many clusterfu**ed things about the M3.

 

[ichiru]

I understand all the excitement over getting a new smaller mirrorless full frame Canon camera...

...but honestly how many people in this here forum, interested in such a camera, would put size as the reason for getting a mirrorless camera?

I would love an EVF with on sensor autofocus for better accuracy with wide apertures... personally I wouldn't care if it's as big as my 6D as the average lens I use are massive anyway. If I want a more compact full frame camera I can just slap a sweet 40 mm pancake on my 6D and there you go. Fantastic travel camera .

 

[scrup]

EF mount would be a no go for me.

I prefer if they used the EF-M mount, but it may not be possible to fit in a full frame sensor?.

If they want to use the EF Mount, why not just make a full frame SL1 instead.

 

[Dylan777]

"This camera will be designed to use EF lenses"

My 2cents: that is the primary key for DSLR users to add to their kit. Just add more native compact primes and pop-up EVF

 

[dak723]

I understand all the excitement over getting a new smaller mirrorless full frame Canon camera...

...but honestly how many people in this here forum, interested in such a camera, would put size as the reason for getting a mirrorless camera?

There have been many threads here regarding mirrorless vs. DSLR. Lots of people - including me - think the smaller size of mirrorless is the ONLY reason for getting mirrorless. Any other advantages of mirrorless are minimal and the disadvantage of EVF (vs. OVF) is very real.

 

[sdsr]

that's one benefit of an EF mount mirrorless - it can use EF-S lenses.

Right - it seems a tad perverse that I can use the same adapter to attach EF and EF-S lenses to my a7rII (which has high enough resolution for EF-S to work nicely) but can't attach EF-S to my 6D. (Similarly, while only some manual Nikon F mount lenses fit on a Nikon dslr without being modified, they all fit on a F-SonyE adapter.) Assuming any of this Canon FF mirrorless speculation pans out, I hope the mount they use will be workable with a wide range of third party lenses + adapters (plus, of course, Canon FD).

 

[Loswr]

..but honestly how many people in this here forum, interested in such a camera, would put size as the reason for getting a mirrorless camera?

42. ;D

 

[ahsanford]

I understand all the excitement over getting a new smaller mirrorless full frame Canon camera...

...but honestly how many people in this here forum, interested in such a camera, would put size as the reason for getting a mirrorless camera?

There have been many threads here regarding mirrorless vs. DSLR. Lots of people - including me - think the smaller size of mirrorless is the ONLY reason for getting mirrorless. Any other advantages of mirrorless are minimal and the disadvantage of EVF (vs. OVF) is very real.

We all would benefit from seeing both sides of the coin.

OVFs are terrific, of course, but can they...

• Amplify brightness in a very dark room?
• Give you focus peaking?
• Give you a realtime histo?

EVFs have a long way to go from a responsiveness standpoint, I agree. But even today, they can do some things that OVFs cannot.

- A

 

[sdsr]

Yes, they can be small but for most people that buy them, they won't be. Today's higher resolution sensors + the obsessive cult of sharpness + the pursuit of small DOF work = massive lenses. Unless you are prepared to stay in a small sensor / large aperture / standard focal length world, your size savings with mirrorless really are tiny. Consider: people don't pay thousands of dollars only to settle for f/2 primes and f/4 zooms.

You may be right (I have no idea), but those buying a smaller body so they can have less bulk may indeed be willing to have smaller apertures to keep the size and weight down. The Sony FE 55 1.8, 50 1.8, 35 2.8 and 28 f2 are all small and light, as are the Zeiss mf f2 series; they're plenty sharp on the a7rII's high resolution sensor - as is the even smaller Canon 40mm. (And of course the RX1's built-in lens is only f2; besides, lots of fast old mf lenses work just fine on such a sensor too, and they're smaller than their modern counterparts - aside from the Mitakon f0.95, the 1.2 and 1.4 lenses I use on my a7rII are all "vintage".) How high is the demand for the biggest, newest 1.4 lenses anyway? If there's a problem, I suspect it will instead be with those who like big zooms and long telephoto primes; I could be wrong, but I doubt many would enjoy using a 70-200 2.8 on a Sony a7-size body (but even then it's not so hard to adapt to the rather different ergonomics).

 

[ahsanford]

Yes, they can be small but for most people that buy them, they won't be. Today's higher resolution sensors + the obsessive cult of sharpness + the pursuit of small DOF work = massive lenses. Unless you are prepared to stay in a small sensor / large aperture / standard focal length world, your size savings with mirrorless really are tiny. Consider: people don't pay thousands of dollars only to settle for f/2 primes and f/4 zooms.

You may be right (I have no idea), but those buying a smaller body so they can have less bulk may indeed be willing to have smaller apertures to keep the size and weight down. The Sony FE 55 1.8, 50 1.8, 35 2.8 and 28 f2 are all small and light, as are the Zeiss mf f2 series; they're plenty sharp on the a7rII's high resolution sensor - as is the even smaller Canon 40mm. (And of course the RX1's built-in lens is only f2; besides, lots of fast old mf lenses work just fine on such a sensor too, and they're smaller than their modern counterparts - aside from the Mitakon f0.95, the 1.2 and 1.4 lenses I use on my a7rII are all "vintage".) How high is the demand for the biggest, newest 1.4 lenses anyway? If there's a problem, I suspect it will instead be with those who like big zooms and long telephoto primes; I could be wrong, but I doubt many would enjoy using a 70-200 2.8 on a Sony a7-size body (but even then it's not so hard to adapt to the rather different ergonomics).

Again -- here, at this forum -- there was a pretty strong consensus (approx 2/3 of us from surveys) that people wanted a chunky grip as they planned to bolt all their Canon glass on to these rigs.

And Canon may be much more interested in selling (say) one Canon FF mirrorless rig to every five Canon FF SLR
owners and completely disregarding the competition here, i.e. they probably have more money to make selling these to current Canon SLR customers than they do in courting 'the general mirrorless aficionado', but I could be wrong.

- A

 

[bp]

I understand all the excitement over getting a new smaller mirrorless full frame Canon camera...

...but honestly how many people in this here forum, interested in such a camera, would put size as the reason for getting a mirrorless camera?

There have been many threads here regarding mirrorless vs. DSLR. Lots of people - including me - think the smaller size of mirrorless is the ONLY reason for getting mirrorless. Any other advantages of mirrorless are minimal and the disadvantage of EVF (vs. OVF) is very real.

I moved from the 5D3 to the A7Rii, after comparing it to the 5DS. Size had zero impact on the decision.

I don't shoot sports. I spend most of my time working at wide apertures either shooting portraits (where the Sony's Eye-AF is absolutely amazing), or shooting live theatre (where the wider DR of the Sony sensor is huge). I don't miss having to microadjust lenses, or having to toss huge numbers of shots because focus was inexplicably off, despite perfect placement of the focus spot. I don't miss explaining to a headshot client that they really shouldn't pick that shot as one of their finals because the camera didn't quite nail it. My keeper rate, in terms of focus accuracy at least, has gone through the roof. I've also been spoiled by the possibilities that open up with an EVF. I sold my 5D3, but still have a 5D2 and a 7D, and in dimly lit situations they are downright painful to use now.

That said, in some circumstances, what I do miss is Canon color science. Skintones, in particular, require more fiddling in post. I've gotten the hang of it, but I'm still not crazy about that.

If Canon does come out with a FF mirrorless, with more DR (and ideally, facial recognition with Eye-AF), compatible with EF mount lenses, I'd jump back over in a heartbeat, regardless of how big or small it is, just to get back to Canon colors. (you listening Canon? probably not, sigh)

 

[rrcphoto]

EF mount would be a no go for me.

I prefer if they used the EF-M mount, but it may not be possible to fit in a full frame sensor?.

If they want to use the EF Mount, why not just make a full frame SL1 instead.

EF-M is the same size as the E mount, so yes. however does canon have full frame sensors that would work on a short registration distance camera?

considering the APS-C 24Mp is poor at that scaling, probably not.

a full frame mirrorless would be basically a full frame SL1.

outside of using rangefinder/lecia lenses on it.. the need to supplant the EF mount with a short registration distance is pretty minimal.

 

[nads]

Lost in the anticipation of the EOS 5D Mark IV announcement in August, is the likelihood of new EOS M camera(s) in the fall for Photokina. We’ve been told that there will definitely be 2 ILC EOS M cameras announced before the end of 2016.</p>

All EOS-M bodies are going to have native EF-M mount. Particuarly with 3-5 new EF-M lenses announced this year. The risk of lost market share isn't in FF. It is in the Fuji, M43 and Sony crop. The only thing smaller than percentage of new users buying into a system with a FF body first is the percentage starting with a Sony Mirrorless FF body as first entry.

Marketshare is built from entry up, not pro down. Canon's isn't tech limited in their ability to build a mirrorless body that can compete. They are self limiting due to strategy. They aren't going to cut the legs out of their existing FF market to stem the trickle away to Sony FF mirrorless. They will reduce the draw to other mirrorless options with the minimum spec body they believe they can put to market in order to accomplish that goal.

Look toward E-M10, E-M5, XT-2, E6300 etc. Do no look toward best of all worlds... look at a middling, compromise therein. As with the C2 function on the M3... what is included won't be determined until last possible moment. It will not even include all potential functionality granted by the hardware. Just as the original Digital Rebel intentionally lacked RAW, Servo and several other features that were purely decided by software elimination.

 

[scrup]

EF-M is the same size as the E mount, so yes. however does canon have full frame sensors that would work on a short registration distance camera?

If they can physically fit a full frame sensor into the EFM mount why would the short registration distance matter.
They did with with the rebel sensor, so I don't understand how a full frame sensor would be any different.

The issue i see is from the lens side, the current efm lenses most likely wont cover (image circle) a full frame sensor, so they would need to release ones that do. This could involve new designs if they want to get it smaller, or use the SLR design and add the extra spacing as what an adapter would do.

 

[unfocused]

Nothing like a mirrorless rumor to get the forum juices flowing.

A few thoughts:

1) I'm skeptical about a full-frame mirrorless Canon rumor. People always ignore the fact that Sony is a niche player in the camera world. They went all in on mirrorless simply because that was the only niche available to them – they could not compete against Nikon and Canon in the DSLR market. It was the only route available and the market statistics that we have access to would indicate that they haven't been all that successful. Sony market share is flat.

2) I've always said that if Canon were to go mirrorless full frame, it would use the EF mount. Nothing magical there, just build the body with sufficient spacing to allow for EF lenses.

3) I used to think that an effective viewfinder was critical to the long-term success of mirrorless. But, I have to admit I am beginning to doubt that. Dual pixel autofocus, touch-screens, improved tracking and face-recognition software make a viewfinder less critical. Plus, there is the fact that the vast majority of pictures being taken today use cameras that don't have viewfinders. With each passing year, we have more and more people who have only used a rear screen. People who will only know cameras that use rear screens are being born every day, while people who use viewfinders are dying every day.

4) For me personally, the only mirrorless that has any appeal is the Fuji X-Pro series and that is mostly because they are cool looking. My ideal mirrorless would be a fixed lens 15-90 mm APS-C in a classic rangefinder retro-style.

5) All the strongly expressed opinions on this thread only confirm something that I've observed every time the subject of a mirrorless Canon interchangeable lens camera comes up – what Canon releases, it will satisfy 10 percent of the people on this forum and the other 90 percent will be convinced Canon is doomed because they didn't build exactly the camera they were hoping for.

6) The most interesting aspect of this rumor is this:

...the camera will use a newly designed 24mp full frame image sensor.

Interesting because, if true, it almost certainly means the 5DIV will use the same 24 mp sensor. We finally know an important specification for the 5DIV.

 

[nads]

If they can physically fit a full frame sensor into the EFM mount why would the short registration distance matter.
They did with with the rebel sensor, so I don't understand how a full frame sensor would be any different.

Sensors perform best when light hits them as close to perpendicular as possible. Short registration distance means light hits the sensor at a bad angle. Beyond the sensor issue receiving the light, light fall off is significantly more difficult to design a lens around as registration distance is shortened. It is a double whammy of poor light at the edges of the image.

Light hitting at an angle also exacerbates color shifts and aberrations.

Most importantly... to do it right, lens design has to change completely. 50+ year old lens designs that have been used on every 50mm lens out there have to be redesigned to work properly with such a small registration distance. Canon has done with the EF-M lenses, Fuji with the X, M43 has done the work. You're on a sight that posts new patents all the time.... where are the patents for FF sensor designs that go with sub 40mm registration distances? A massive patent library of FF lenses isn't going in the trash to put out new FF optics this fall that have not been patented.

If Canon puts a FF sensor in one of these bodies, it is adapter city.