Some Canon Mirrorless Talk [CR2]

[Maximilian]

...
a newly designed 24mp full frame image sensor.

Seems like Canon wants to give each FF body its own sensor. (If that's not the same as in the 5D4)
I don't understand why they don't want to use some synergy effects in development and production :

Expect 3 to 5 new EF-M lenses to be announced before the close of the year. There will be faster prime lenses along with new zooms, but nothing beyond 300mm.

T'was 'bout time for EOS M/EF-M ...

 

[Don Haines]

But as much as the catcalls of 'mirrorless is supposed to be small' are completely pooped on by large aperture / FF / longer FLs needed sort of realities (aka 'physics' aka 'there is no free lunch'), being thin still defines this market to the consumer...

Is 'the consumer' to whom you refer that group of people who are buying thin cameras, or the >3-fold larger group of people who are buying 'thick' cameras? To which group do you think Canon should market this hypothetical 6D M camera?

For canon to jump in "to the game", they will either need lots and lots of EF-M lenses and a thin body, or a thick body and the well established EF (and EF-S) lens lineup....

And for many people, the established "thick" form factor is familiar and seems like a "real camera" to them. There just has to be a market there.... plus, with the larger body comes space for a larger battery and you really need that when you bump up the power consumption.....

 

[rrcphoto]

I am wondering how they implement the FF mirrorless with the EF mount. One idea is, instead of having an adapter letting you use EF lenses, it could be in reverse. The adapter would be a part of the camera, fully implemented, so the mirrorless camera would have an EF mount. However, once the number of FF ML lenses increase, one can remove the EF part of the mount, leaving you with the mount for mirrorless.
Does this makes sense? Removing a part that is a natural part of the body to get to the mirrorless mount instead of adding an adapter making the camera body bulky and oddly shaped.

SL1 becomes basically a full frame mirrorless.

including the registration distance for the EF mount does not really add any to the size of a camera, if there is a grip.

 

[ahsanford]

But as much as the catcalls of 'mirrorless is supposed to be small' are completely pooped on by large aperture / FF / longer FLs needed sort of realities (aka 'physics' aka 'there is no free lunch'), being thin still defines this market to the consumer...

Is 'the consumer' to whom you refer that group of people who are buying thin cameras, or the >3-fold larger group of people who are buying 'thick' cameras? To which group do you think Canon should market this hypothetical 6D M camera?

100% agree with you, but trying to sell a chunky FF mirrorless rig alongside the A7 platform will have an overwhelmingly negative 'first glance' appeal. Look at EOS-M as an example -- that thing was absolutely stripped down for size.

So as much as this forum (largely) gets that FF mirrorless probably ought to be a chunky workhorse so that photographers with a ton of Canon glass can relatively seamlessly crossover to this new platform, I'm not sure Canon has given up on a skinny FF rig with its own mount, adaptor to EF, etc.

If it's aimed dead set on professionals, I think we'll get the full EF mount. If they are courting 'prosumers' with an FF offering, it very well might be something skinny and need an adaptor.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

Sounds good enaugh for me. 2 grand of very free money waiting for some usable Canon MILC. 80D sensor is about acceptable upgrade. I would prefer new one, non DPAF, 28-30Mpx piece with on-chip ADC.

Why wouldn't you want DPAF? There's no downside to it, only upside, including VERY fast focusing, as seen in the 80D. Also, if they just transplant the 80D sensor into an M, it'll have on-sensor ADC. MP will be less than you desire, but not by much.

transplating the 80D sensor would be a disaster, the corner shading and color casting is already a problem with the current 24mp.

Then let's talk battery life.

the 80D gets what in life view and that is with a battery with 80% additional capacity?

 

[rrcphoto]

But as much as the catcalls of 'mirrorless is supposed to be small' are completely pooped on by large aperture / FF / longer FLs needed sort of realities (aka 'physics' aka 'there is no free lunch'), being thin still defines this market to the consumer...

Is 'the consumer' to whom you refer that group of people who are buying thin cameras, or the >3-fold larger group of people who are buying 'thick' cameras? To which group do you think Canon should market this hypothetical 6D M camera?

100% agree with you, but trying to sell a chunky FF mirrorless rig alongside the A7 platform will have an overwhelmingly negative 'first glance' appeal.

do they care about it against the A7 series?

the A7 series isn't exactly selling.

canon's current EF bodies outselling it, and that's 3+ year old cameras.

also if you consider the A7 II series cameras, the depth of the camera isn't that far off an EF mount SL1.

I would not expect though the 5D or the 6D models to switch. IMO, if canon does this it will be another camera all together.

Keeping it the EF mount makes sense, and there's more than enough adaptability to handle most people - also and most importantly if they keep it the EF mount, they don't have to make a special sensor for it.

if you ignore the flash housing (which the A7RII doesn't have) the size factor is about the same.

 

[rrcphoto]

But as much as the catcalls of 'mirrorless is supposed to be small' are completely pooped on by large aperture / FF / longer FLs needed sort of realities (aka 'physics' aka 'there is no free lunch'), being thin still defines this market to the consumer...

Is 'the consumer' to whom you refer that group of people who are buying thin cameras, or the >3-fold larger group of people who are buying 'thick' cameras? To which group do you think Canon should market this hypothetical 6D M camera?

For canon to jump in "to the game", they will either need lots and lots of EF-M lenses and a thin body, or a thick body and the well established EF (and EF-S) lens lineup....

And for many people, the established "thick" form factor is familiar and seems like a "real camera" to them. There just has to be a market there.... plus, with the larger body comes space for a larger battery and you really need that when you bump up the power consumption.....

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

 

[mb66energy]

I am wondering how they implement the FF mirrorless with the EF mount. One idea is, instead of having an adapter letting you use EF lenses, it could be in reverse. The adapter would be a part of the camera, fully implemented, so the mirrorless camera would have an EF mount. However, once the number of FF ML lenses increase, one can remove the EF part of the mount, leaving you with the mount for mirrorless.
Does this makes sense? Removing a part that is a natural part of the body to get to the mirrorless mount instead of adding an adapter making the camera body bulky and oddly shaped.

Hopefully Canon does it that way - camera delivered with an adaptor which fits nicely into the camera design. It has an additional advantage: The camera can be used with older lenses like FD lenses - I am very interested in using that glass. The very boring FD 3.5 135 S.C. has remarkable resolution and contrast on the EOS M and I think it would excel on a ~ 24 MPix full frame sensor. The 3.5 50 S.S.C. Macro has great IQ, is very compact and flexible with 1:2 max reprod. ratio.

 

[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.

Personally, a full EF mount makes sense for a ton of reasons (non-trivially, I am committed to EF glass) and I will likely own one someday.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Hopefully Canon does it that way - camera delivered with an adaptor which fits nicely into the camera design. It has an additional advantage: The camera can be used with older lenses like FD lenses - I am very interested in using that glass. The very boring FD 3.5 135 S.C. has remarkable resolution and contrast on the EOS M and I think it would excel on a ~ 24 MPix full frame sensor. The 3.5 50 S.S.C. Macro has great IQ, is very compact and flexible with 1:2 max reprod. ratio.

Canon wants to sell new lenses a lot more than it wants goodwill for leaving the flange distance small enough to allow FD lenses to stick around, but I could be wrong.

- A

 

[Loswr]

100% agree with you, but trying to sell a chunky FF mirrorless rig alongside the A7 platform will have an overwhelmingly negative 'first glance' appeal.

From Canon's perspective, I suspect not enough people are glancing at the A7 platform to matter.

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.

Canon knows about the 20% (by which I suspect you mean 20% of FF consumers, which is a pretty small fraction of the overall market), and they might get around to them eventually. But as you know, they're mainly concerned with the majority. While I think a FF 6D M would be interesting, I believe we'll see a mirrorless Rebel/xxxD body first.

 

[shutterlag]

Sigma has already shown with the Quattro H you can build a mirrorless body to use existing DSLR lenses successfully. You combine that with DPAF already on hand from the 80D sensor and you've got a recipe for a prosumer milc.

 

[Krob78]

I'm still quite skeptical it will happen, but I am intrigued by the idea of a 6D M. Chassis of the 6-series (comparatively small for a FF dSLR), sans mirror. DPAF, decent EVF, priced like a 6D. It would be novel, integrate directly with current lenses, and be in a line amenable to 'consumer' features like WiFi/GPS/NFC, and at a level where DPAF tracking will be sufficient.

Indeed, quite intriguing.. I'd enjoy seeing that and likely enjoy adding it to the corral! ;D :

 

[traveller]

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.

Personally, a full EF mount makes sense for a ton of reasons (non-trivially, I am committed to EF glass) and I will likely own one someday.

- A

+1

I think that there is real potential for compact full frame bodies, mirror or no. The beauty of a larger (than APS-C or m4/3rds) sensor, is that you don't need such crazy fast lenses to get depth of field control. Sony isn't really helping this cause at the moment by trying to target pros with exact equivalents to DSLR lenses, but hey -it's their marketing strategy and their money, so who am I to complain. This doesn't diminish the fact that there are some nice compact primes out there that sacrifice a bit of maximum aperture, for both mirrorless and DSLR systems (e.g. Canon 35mm f/2 IS, 40mm f/2.8, Sony FE 35mm f2.8 the Zeiss Loxias -albeit manual focus).

There is room out there for everyone and not everyone needs large fast or long lenses and full size bodies. Even those who do, maybe don't need them all the time. I have a 5D Mk.3 kit, but I still enjoy using my Fuji XT-1 kit when I don't need a 70-200mm f/2.8 etc. (BTW, I'm glad that Fuji seem to be cottoning on to this as well with the rumour that they've switched their 2016 lens development priorities to expanding their f/2 prime lineup). It would be even better for me if I could achieve this within the Canon ecosystem. I would love to see a small EF mount body that I could use as a backup to a full size body, along with some more high quality f2-2.8 primes.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon knows about the 20% (by which I suspect you mean 20% of FF consumers, which is a pretty small fraction of the overall market), and they might get around to them eventually. But as you know, they're mainly concerned with the majority. While I think a FF 6D M would be interesting, I believe we'll see a mirrorless Rebel/xxxD body first.

What do you think will happen, and in what order?

A) An FF mirrorless camera with a full EF mount will be released.

B) An FF mirrorless camera with a thinner than EF / thinner than EF-S mirrorless mount will be released similar to an A7 in form factor. It will come with 1-2 starter FF mirrorless lenses and an adaptor.

C) An 'enthusiast' APS-C mirrorless camera is released with an integral EVF, DPAF, not tiny grip, etc.

D) The lower-end SLR line will abandon mirrors/OVF altogether in favor of an EVF setup. Another words, an EF-S mounted mirrorless setup will replace the Rebel-level EF-S SLRs. Rebel SLRs RIP.

For me, I would have guessed: C (this year), then A or B* (next 12-24 months) then D (3-4 years from now).
*one or the other, highly doubt they'd do both

- A

 

[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.

Personally, a full EF mount makes sense for a ton of reasons (non-trivially, I am committed to EF glass) and I will likely own one someday.

- A

+1

[truncated]

I would love to see a small EF mount body that I could use as a backup to a full size body, along with some more high quality f2-2.8 primes.

Thanks for showing up. I knew you folks were out there!

- A

 

[archiea]

I luv the size of the M3. just allow the multi-function button to be used as a zoom to focus short cut. also enable that half tapping on the shutter button with a MF lens snaps you out of the zoom Surprise that it doesn't. Also user adjustable focus peaking clipping: I find the focus peaking a bit to low in showing the clipping point for the actual focus areas. Sony and Fuji do this better.

Most important though, make it a speed demon. Focus speed has it limits, but there is a definite shutter lag with the M3. I use manual lens in AF and even in JPG, theres a shutter lag. I don't see that with the sony or the Fuji. And the M3 has a way more powerful processor than my 20D from 2008 and it had no shutter lag!! Shutter lag has got to go because that s what has mede me miss more shot than the AF Lag!

Also make the menu full EOS, np eos powershot hybrid. Round up don't round down. I should be able to set my WB K to a number, I should be able to shoot tethered, I should be able to fine tune my Focus eating indicator.

Give it a small hump in the middle for a EVF, keep the little bouce-able flash, make it more weather sealed, throw a metal shell on it, price it at $999 to reflect the above tech but it HAS to be fast.

 

[Loswr]

Canon knows about the 20% (by which I suspect you mean 20% of FF consumers, which is a pretty small fraction of the overall market), and they might get around to them eventually. But as you know, they're mainly concerned with the majority. While I think a FF 6D M would be interesting, I believe we'll see a mirrorless Rebel/xxxD body first.

What do you think will happen, and in what order?

A) An FF mirrorless camera with a full EF mount will be released.

B) An FF mirrorless camera with a thinner than EF / thinner than EF-S mirrorless mount will be released similar to an A7 in form factor. It will come with 1-2 starter FF mirrorless lenses and an adaptor.

C) An 'enthusiast' APS-C mirrorless camera is released with an integral EVF, DPAF, not tiny grip, etc.

D) The lower-end SLR line will abandon mirrors/OVF altogether in favor of an EVF setup. Another words, an EF-S mounted mirrorless setup will replace the Rebel-level EF-S SLRs. Rebel SLRs RIP.

For me, I would have guessed: C (this year), then A or B* (next 12-24 months) then D (3-4 years from now).
*one or the other, highly doubt they'd do both

I think C first makes sense, not as an 'EOS M Pro' but rather as a small 'mirrorless dSLR'. 80D sensor in an SL1 body, marketed around a really high frame rate (above 7DII). They could call it the Little Speed Demon, because the younger set thinks the Beatles were singing about a spangled flying girl named Lucy. Then A.

Of course, my crystal ball may have a crack or two.

 

[rrcphoto]

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.

Personally, a full EF mount makes sense for a ton of reasons (non-trivially, I am committed to EF glass) and I will likely own one someday.

- A

20% .. where's that market data?

a smaller EF mount camera? certainly. if it takes mirrorless to do it, I'm all for it.

however Canon certainly does not as far as we know, the sensors capable of full frame short registration distance mirrorless.

the 24mp APS-C sensors aren't even really capable of short registration distance operation.

IMO.

I'd be all over a SL1 sized full frame with a 24MP DPAF sensor and a tilt screen.

give me the 24,28,35mm IS USM primes and the 16-35/4, 24-70/4 and 70-300L and there's really not much I could not shoot with that setup.

if it takes mirrorless to do it - then do it, if they can do it leaving the mirror in.. I really don't care either.

 

[archiea]

FF mirrorless cameras that use EF lenses can be small... [truncated]

Even SLRs needn't be huge:

[truncated]

Well rangefinder lenses are petite with wide apertures, sharp at that too . Sure no stabilization or AF but with modern focus peaking and other aids, short of sports photography or brides on coke, you can cover quite a bit.

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.

That's why some 60% of this forum want a full-blown EF mount and a chunky grip on Canon's FF mirrorless offering.

- A