The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development

[Mikehit]

Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the f value means and how it is calculated?

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.

So if they had chosen the right mount (whatever that is) how much saving in size/weight do you predict if they had done it 'properly'? Let's work on a 16-50 (approx) f2.8 as a start.

 

[Loswr]

Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the f value means and how it is calculated?

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.

So if they had chosen the right mount (whatever that is) how much saving in size/weight do you predict if they had done it 'properly'? Let's work on a 16-50 (approx) f2.8 as a start.

With a really right mount, a 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom lens would be 3 cm long, 5 cm in diameter, and have no moving parts. And be optically perfect. Because that's how physics works in the AvTvM Universe.

And cost less than €100. Because that's how business works in the AvTvM Universe.

 

[AvTvM]

Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the f value means and how it is calculated?

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.

So if they had chosen the right mount (whatever that is) how much saving in size/weight do you predict if they had done it 'properly'? Let's work on a 16-50 (approx) f2.8 as a start.

nope, I don't look at a white-unicorn 16-50/2.8 for a mirrorless FF camera. I look at a 16-35/4 and at a 24-70/4.0 ... and at a 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 ... all of those could be really compact, optically very good and comparatively "inexpensive".

"really right" mount for mirrorless FF? My guess (!) based on comparing specs for various camera systems and mount parameter combinations:
Throat width: open diameter as big as possible
FFD ... probably around 22-25 mm
would be good, allow for compact camera bodies and compact lenses with decent IQ ... and big camera bodies + big lenses are also possible ... no problem.

 

[AvTvM]

Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the f value means and how it is calculated?

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.

So if they had chosen the right mount (whatever that is) how much saving in size/weight do you predict if they had done it 'properly'? Let's work on a 16-50 (approx) f2.8 as a start.

With a really right mount, a 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom lens would be 3 cm long, 5 cm in diameter, and have no moving parts. And be optically perfect. Because that's how physics works in the AvTvM Universe.

And cost less than €100. Because that's how business works in the AvTvM Universe.

No. A 16-50/2.8 lens for mirrorless FF was "Mikehit universe".

I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ...

 

[Mikehit]

nope, I don't look at a white-unicorn 16-50/2.8 for a mirrorless FF camera. I look at a 16-35/4 and at a 24-70/4.0 ... and at a 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 ... all of those could be really compact, optically very good and comparatively "inexpensive".

"really right" mount for mirrorless FF? My guess (!) based on comparing specs for various camera systems and mount parameter combinations:
Throat width: open diameter as big as possible
FFD ... probably around 22-25 mm
would be good, allow for compact camera bodies and compact lenses with decent IQ ... and big camera bodies + big lenses are also possible ... no problem.

So tell me, what approx size/weight would your lenses be.
16-35/4
24-70/4.0
24/2.8
35/2.0
50/1.8
85/2.4

Because 'really compact' and 'comparatively inexpensive' are so bland as to be meaningless. You are the one making statements about how everyone is doing it wrong which means you have an idea of what they should be achieving.

 

[Loswr]

I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ...

Then you should already be happy. The Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a 22% lower volume than the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS, the Sony is 28% lighter than the Canon, the IQ is comparable, and you can get a new Sony FE 24-70/4 on the gray market for $900.

Given that the lens you want actually exists, why haven't you bought one? Oh, and please explain how your earlier statement, "*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount," makes sense in light of the size comparison of the Sony vs. Canon 24-70mm f/4 lenses.

 

[BillB]

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.
[/quote]

It seems to me that for some lens designs, minimum size and weight might be achieved with the EF, the FE, or your magic mount parameters, i.e. designs with longer minimum focal lengths. (call them Class A). Then there may be lens designs where minimum size and weight can be achieved using FE or your lens mount parameters, but not EF mount parameters i.e those in which the EF mount requires designs with a size and weight penalty (such as retrofocal designs) but the FE mount and your mount do not (call them Class B). There may also be lens designs where your mount parameters could avoid designs with a size and weight penalty that would be required by the EF and FE mounts. (Class C).

So why are you saying that the only usable lens designs are Class C designs?

 

[stevelee]

Spassky, another great player, from a somewhat later era, said that if your opponent makes a mistake, often it is best to give him the chance to make another one.

Occasionally I find myself at the end of a bridge hand with one losing card too many. I could admit defeat and throw in the hand, but usually I will just play it out and hope that an opponent will throw away the wrong card toward the end, so I give the opponents that opportunity. What is obvious about the hand from my perspective is more ambiguous from the view of a defender.

 

[BillB]

I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ...

Then you should already be happy. The Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a 22% lower volume than the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS, the Sony is 28% lighter than the Canon, the IQ is comparable, and you can get a new Sony FE 24-70/4 on the gray market for $900.

Given that the lens you want actually exists, why haven't you bought one? Oh, and please explain how your earlier statement, "*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount," makes sense in light of the size comparison of the Sony vs. Canon 24-70mm f/4 lenses.

Might be a good idea to check the Sony 24-70 on Photozone before picking one up though. .

 

[Loswr]

Might be a good idea to check the Sony 24-70 on Photozone before picking one up though. .

I've used one on an a7RII, and I found it to be a decent lens. It's not quite up to my 24-70/2.8L II, but neither is the Canon 24-70/4.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Sometimes I get the feeling that Dilbert is still posting.

Jack

 

[AvTvM]

I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ...

Then you should already be happy. The Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a 22% lower volume than the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS, the Sony is 28% lighter than the Canon, the IQ is comparable, and you can get a new Sony FE 24-70/4 on the gray market for $900.

Given that the lens you want actually exists, why haven't you bought one? Oh, and please explain how your earlier statement, "*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount," makes sense in light of the size comparison of the Sony vs. Canon 24-70mm f/4 lenses.

nope. Sony 24-70/4 is a bit longer than Canon EF 24-70. But its gotta be shorter on a proper mirrorless mount.

 

[Talys]

I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ...

Then you should already be happy. The Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a 22% lower volume than the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS, the Sony is 28% lighter than the Canon, the IQ is comparable, and you can get a new Sony FE 24-70/4 on the gray market for $900.

Given that the lens you want actually exists, why haven't you bought one? Oh, and please explain how your earlier statement, "*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount," makes sense in light of the size comparison of the Sony vs. Canon 24-70mm f/4 lenses.

nope. Sony 24-70/4 is a bit longer than Canon EF 24-70. But its gotta be shorter on a proper mirrorless mount.

If you take the lens caps off, they are almost identical in length, so much so that the difference just becomes whether you're measuring to the mount or contacts, as the two lenses are recessed differently.

If that matters, you're being silly, because the only size that should matter is the total camera size, and most certainly the Sony is (and feels) smaller. Once you get to 2.8, though, the Sony is much longer (about an inch?) and more importantly, it kind of feels awkward on the Sony body, in my opinion (and does not feel any smaller)

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone I'd going to build your unicorn, but based on your prolific posting, Canon will probably not build anything closer to what you want than what Sony already has, certainly not within the near future.

 

[Loswr]

Even if Canon builds his unicorn, he'll just move the goalposts and keep on bitching and complaining.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

So anyway, is this camera going to have sensor image stabilization when it finally comes out, or what? One of the biggest features that has me eyeing up an A7 III is its ability to turn all of my lenses into IS lenses.

 

[3kramd5]

So anyway, is this camera going to have sensor image stabilization when it finally comes out, or what?

Probably not.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

Dammit. The only thing I hate more than Canon's slow pace of innovation is Sony's horrible ergonomics and poor control interface.

 

[Talys]

Even if Canon builds his unicorn, he'll just move the goalposts and keep on bitching and complaining.

It's already being tested in Europe, evidently, in the Casio-meets-Canon Frakenphone:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34765.msg714594#msg714594

Evidently, there is an EF version of this same beast!

 

[AvTvM]

So anyway, is this camera going to have sensor image stabilization when it finally comes out, or what? One of the biggest features that has me eyeing up an A7 III is its ability to turn all of my lenses into IS lenses.

unfortunately there will be no real IBIS (not the digital trickery for video) in Canon cameras. "innovative" Canon has no clue how to implement IBIS and make it work ... especially not in combination with IS lenses. maybe innovative Sony is holding all relevant patents already.

personally i dont care. all my relevant lenses are IS and i dint like moving parts in cameras ... eg a sensor-wiggler.

 

[JohanCruyff]

So anyway, is this camera going to have sensor image stabilization when it finally comes out, or what?

Probably not.

+1
After all, even the first Sony (and Fuji) Ml didn't have IBIS. I took them 2 or 3 generations (or several more, if your count from the ancient NEX family) to implement it.
BTW, if the future 5DM had IBIS, how could Canon sell us the 5DM Mark II in 202x?