Two EF-M Primes Coming in Q1 2016 [CR2]

[Loswr]

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

 

[privatebydesign]

I think Canon should ditch EF-S altogether. Steamline their product offerings by making only APS-C EF-M cameras and lens and full frame EF cameras and lenses. Even if they eventually go mirrorless on full frame, there is no reason to change the mount. Just take out the mirrorbox but keep the same flange to focal distance. Not everything needs to be smaller for the sake of being smaller, especially pro bodies. There are still benefits to having an EVF even if you don't change the flange to focal distance.

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.

Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

- A

That depends entirely on where you see the camera market developing. If, as so many predict, in a few years Sony will be making the same sensors for everybody the only differentiators will be system options, or lenses for most users.

Don't forget Canon already make many more than four lens lines, they make the cine line in two mounts, they make various high end video lenses, they make P&S lenses, phone modules/lenses etc etc, they are developing their security camera business with custom optics too.

If they see the growth in the optics then they will enlarge their manufactureing capability.

 

[Luds34]

55mm f/1.8 IS STM would be nice indeed.

+1. And being it crop only lens, it should be relatively small and light. A good balance and match to an M body.

 

[privatebydesign]

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

It would be a master stroke if they do, and true testament to how forward thinking Canon are as a company.

I suspect you might be right, time will tell........

 

[Luds34]

I think Canon should ditch EF-S altogether. Steamline their product offerings by making only APS-C EF-M cameras and lens and full frame EF cameras and lenses.

Not going to happen, at least anytime soon. The Rebel DSLR is Canon's bread and butter and vast majority of those are purchased by the soccer Mom's of the world who will never shoot any other glass other then what comes with the camera, the kit lens, insert XX-YY EF-S lens here.

Someday, many years from now I can see it happening. But even when Canon stops producing Rebels and everyone is convinced they need a little mirrorless guy instead, plenty of people will still use their camera for many more years. Plenty of enthusiasts on this board shoot bodies that are 5 years old. Imagine the average consumer. Plenty of Rebel XT and XTi bodies out there still.

 

[Luds34]

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

It would be a master stroke if they do, and true testament to how forward thinking Canon are as a company.

I suspect you might be right, time will tell........

Canon really nailed it (foresight) with the EF mount. I guess it wouldn't surprise me, yet I'd still find it impressive if they can use the EF-M mount for FF.

 

[Loswr]

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

It would be a master stroke if they do, and true testament to how forward thinking Canon are as a company.

I suspect you might be right, time will tell........

We're likely talking about a millimeter or less if it doesn't fit. I suspect the EF-M mount was designed to be exactly the minimum size needed to support a FF sensor as Canon would design it (including throat diameter, contact pin placement, etc). Honestly, I think Canon would be egregiously stupid not to have considered putting a FF sensor behind that mount and designing it accordingly. As you say, time will tell.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

What's the difference between mirrorless and slr cameras? No, it's not the mirror. It's the viewfinder. That's the difference. I could care less if there's a mirror or not. And because Sony (main example) still makes big, long lenses (unlike, say, Pentax), the thickness factor of a mirrorless is mitigated. (My 6D with a voigtlander 20 on it, is still quite shallow). There's hardly any weight difference (a7 vs 6d for example). I just compared an SL1 to the M3 in a store last night, and I preferred the SL1. The immediacy of the viewfinder was way better. I'm not all about settings and histograms inside the finder. I'm mainly concerned with the view, the image I'm looking at. And I still hate the look of evf's. It's about the viewfinder.

A while ago, Sony had a big discussion and decided to bite the bullet and go after mirrorless. They are keeping the dslr only as long as they have to, until its advantages (AF, etc) are mitigated.

A further while ago, Canon ditched its earlier mount and went all electronic with EF mount. Now they are faced with the decision Sony made a handful of years back.

Pentax tried making a mirrorless that worked with their existing dslr mount. The result was a boxy camera, but it still had potential. It just sucked in essential areas like AF and viewfinder (doesn't matter dslr or mirrorless there).

At the moment, I'm way more looking at an SL1 as a backup than an M3. The 10-18EFS is just as light and almost as tiny as the 11-18M, the SL1 actually feels lighter as a body. It's just a little thicker, that's all. Oh. And it has a viewfinder.

 

[AvTvM]

Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

They have to go through exactly the same burning hoops Sony has been and is jumping through.

At the end of the day, I see 2 Canon mounts, one for APS-C, one for FF - just as in the DSLR times.

APS-C: EF-S -> will be superseded by EF-M
FF: EF -> superdeded by native short-flangeback EF-X [or whatever they call it]

I don't believe Canon will use the EF-M mount for FF mirrorless. As opposed to Nikon they werre always using generously wide mounts -> EF easily allows for all sorts of UWA and f/1.2 lenses for FF image circle.
, EF-S is designed generously large for APS-C image circle. I fully expect them to do the same.

Transition is practically painless. Like EF-M adapter there will be an "EF-X" adapter. With enough CPU power and smart mount protocol, there will be no hit in functionality, AF-speed, IS operation, flash-metering info, etc. etc. Canon may actually see the move as another opportunity to make life more difficult for third party lens makers and owners. Those Sigma Arts may be in for a tough time, if they are not (adequately) supported by new EF-X adapter while Canon EF glass will work just fine - within the scope of physics of course (USM lenses will not behave like STM lenses and so on).

And even if such an adaptir is included "free of charge" with every FF MILC (knowing Canon and their greed ... Highly unlikely), there will still be more than enough incentive to buy new, native EF-X glass - new lens formulas, better optical performance, unheard-of tracking-AF-performance, and/or same performance, but a lot smaller/lighter WA lenses ... everything in sync with rollout of new Canon FF MILC cameras.

I don't see major issues or obstacles in the way. Except that Canon let Sony get unneccessarily big with FF MILCs - so they'll face much tougher competition once they come to market with their FF MILC system. That's the price they pay for milking their DSLR/EF customer base longer than they should have and for not leading the industry.

 

[roxics]

Not going to happen, at least anytime soon. The Rebel DSLR is Canon's bread and butter and vast majority of those are purchased by the soccer Mom's of the world who will never shoot any other glass other then what comes with the camera, the kit lens, insert XX-YY EF-S lens here.

I think you kind of invalidated your argument a bit. If those kit moms (new term here) are never going to use any other glass on their Rebel, than what difference does it make to them if that Rebel suddenly turned into an EF-M mount mirrorless camera that otherwise looks like a traditional Rebel? If they aren't concerned with other EF-S lenses and only with the EF-M lenses in the kit, than it's not going to matter to them.

Plus for those that do have older bodies, there are plenty of EF-S lenses that will be on the used market for decades to come. So anyone with an EF-S camera (like a 7DmkII) will still have plenty of choices, including EF glass (new or used). So I think the transition to an all EF-M line wouldn't be that big of an undertaking. Assuming the new Rebels carry over to EF-M as well.

 

[roxics]

At the end of the day, I see 2 Canon mounts, one for APS-C, one for FF - just as in the DSLR times.

APS-C: EF-S -> will be superseded by EF-M
FF: EF -> superdeded by native short-flangeback EF-X [or whatver they call it]

I still don't understand the purpose of a new full frame mount. What are you really gaining? Let's say it's 20mm shorter in flange to focal distance, so what? Do you think that means Canon will automatically start making really small full frame cameras? Again, why? You still have to deal with bigger glass to cover that image circle which cancles out the compactness of a small full frame body with anything other than a smaller pancake 40mm or something. But they could just build a non interchangable specialty body with that lens already attached like Sony and Fuji already do.

Most people don't care about full frame. The pros and super enthusiasts care about full frame and those people probably want bigger bodies anyway for the ergonomics alone. I know I do. On those bigger bodies, 20mm isn't going to make a huge difference. Which is why I say they can still throw out the mirrobox and switch to an EVF while keeping the preexisting flange to focal distance. Heck maybe they can find something useful to do with that space, like built in ND filters.

It just seems much more logical to go that route than create yet another lens mount and series of lenses to further confuse the market.

 

[Bob Howland]

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

It would be a master stroke if they do, and true testament to how forward thinking Canon are as a company.

I suspect you might be right, time will tell........

We're likely talking about a millimeter or less if it doesn't fit. I suspect the EF-M mount was designed to be exactly the minimum size needed to support a FF sensor as Canon would design it (including throat diameter, contact pin placement, etc). Honestly, I think Canon would be egregiously stupid not to have considered putting a FF sensor behind that mount and designing it accordingly. As you say, time will tell.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. Way back in 1987, when the EF mount was introduced, there was a reason why it was made so large: the Canon EF 50 f/1 lens, introduced soon afterwards. With the introduction of the EF mount, Canon went from having the smallest lensmount (i.e., FD) among major manufacturers to having the largest and Canon was quoted in Modern Photography or Popular Photography as stating that the 50 f/1 could not have been made with a smaller lensmount. In 1987, I had a major investment in Canon MF equipment and was livid for the next 10 years that Canon didn't introduce an MF body with an in-viewfinder focusing indicator even without a way of controlling lens focus from the body. The Canon T90, co-designed with the EOS-1 film camera, would have been the perfect place for it.

Granted that it's not 1987, but large lens mounts do have real advantages with certain classes of lenses. The CEO of Sigma has been quoted, within the last year or so, as stating that the small size of the FE lens mount presents problems in designing lenses for it.

 

[tyger11]

Has someone collected all those lens patents over the past two years? Seems likely we could figure out which ones are which fairly easily.

 

[ahsanford]

Don't forget Canon already make many more than four lens lines, they make the cine line in two mounts, they make various high end video lenses, they make P&S lenses, phone modules/lenses etc etc, they are developing their security camera business with custom optics too.

If they see the growth in the optics then they will enlarge their manufactureing capability.

I always forget Cine lenses -- thanks for reminding me.

- A

 

[ashmadux]

I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made.

Yes, the AF can be better. The FPS is woeful, but hey, this is not a tiny sensor camera/mf43. But other than that, the combo with the 22/f2 is spectacular. I wish i had that lens for my rebel.

 

[ahsanford]

I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made.

Yes, the AF can be better. The FPS is woeful, but hey, this is not a tiny sensor camera/mf43. But other than that, the combo with the 22/f2 is spectacular. I wish i had that lens for my rebel.

You kind of have that lens for your Rebel, don't you? --> the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM pancake is a stop slower but it's just as sharp.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I will never understand why people hate the M. One of the best canon investments ive ever made.

Sure, it's making money, but that's due to the Canon name, some smart Canon interface design and connectivity to the EF portfolio, nothing more.

Other than the fact it delights some Canon SLR owners, compared to the competition, it's fairly laughable. The AF is comically slower, it is laggier in general handling, there is no integral EVF and the native lens selection is abysmal. It's a cute little platform that I'd using if there was nothing else out there. It takes fine pictures, no doubt. But for the same money, so much better options are available.

So -- like just about everyone on this thread -- I am pulling for EOS-M to succeed but I won't consider it seriously for personal purchase until the lens ecosystem grows and the body feature-set improves.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

It would be a master stroke if they do, and true testament to how forward thinking Canon are as a company.

I suspect you might be right, time will tell........

We're likely talking about a millimeter or less if it doesn't fit. I suspect the EF-M mount was designed to be exactly the minimum size needed to support a FF sensor as Canon would design it (including throat diameter, contact pin placement, etc). Honestly, I think Canon would be egregiously stupid not to have considered putting a FF sensor behind that mount and designing it accordingly. As you say, time will tell.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. Way back in 1987, when the EF mount was introduced, there was a reason why it was made so large: the Canon EF 50 f/1 lens, introduced soon afterwards. With the introduction of the EF mount, Canon went from having the smallest lensmount (i.e., FD) among major manufacturers to having the largest and Canon was quoted in Modern Photography or Popular Photography as stating that the 50 f/1 could not have been made with a smaller lensmount. In 1987, I had a major investment in Canon MF equipment and was livid for the next 10 years that Canon didn't introduce an MF body with an in-viewfinder focusing indicator even without a way of controlling lens focus from the body. The Canon T90, co-designed with the EOS-1 film camera, would have been the perfect place for it.

Granted that it's not 1987, but large lens mounts do have real advantages with certain classes of lenses. The CEO of Sigma has been quoted, within the last year or so, as stating that the small size of the FE lens mount presents problems in designing lenses for it.

And there is no longer, and never will be, another 50mm f1.0. But the FD mount supported the 85 f1.2, the next mount size pusher, along with every other high speed lens including the 200mm f1.8.

I was sceptical about the capability of the EF-M mount to take a FF sensor, owning an M I honestly thought it was an APS sized mount and Canon saw the mirror less market as a size, and female orientated market (which the current M cameras very much are in Japan where it sells very well) with its low aperture zoom lenses, not the higher end enthusiast market that demands bigger sensors, faster lenses, and more features.

To be sure fast high quality ff coverage lenses will never give mirror less cameras any appreciable size or weight advantage over the SLRs, and we have very real examples of that with the Leica and Sony lenses.

For me the interest in mirror less was size and weight, my M with 22mm f2 is vastly smaller and lighter than my FF DSLR and 35mm f2 for not a huge difference in IQ and DOF most of the time, a FF mirror less with current sized lenses has no appeal until the feature set is much much better, EVF's need to get hugely better before I'd consider a 'serious' mirror less.

 

[Woody]

I'll like to see an EF-M 35 mm f/1.4 lens.

 

[Loswr]

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

It would be a master stroke if they do, and true testament to how forward thinking Canon are as a company.

I suspect you might be right, time will tell........

We're likely talking about a millimeter or less if it doesn't fit. I suspect the EF-M mount was designed to be exactly the minimum size needed to support a FF sensor as Canon would design it (including throat diameter, contact pin placement, etc). Honestly, I think Canon would be egregiously stupid not to have considered putting a FF sensor behind that mount and designing it accordingly. As you say, time will tell.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. Way back in 1987, when the EF mount was introduced, there was a reason why it was made so large: the Canon EF 50 f/1 lens, introduced soon afterwards. With the introduction of the EF mount, Canon went from having the smallest lensmount (i.e., FD) among major manufacturers to having the largest and Canon was quoted in Modern Photography or Popular Photography as stating that the 50 f/1 could not have been made with a smaller lensmount. In 1987, I had a major investment in Canon MF equipment and was livid for the next 10 years that Canon didn't introduce an MF body with an in-viewfinder focusing indicator even without a way of controlling lens focus from the body. The Canon T90, co-designed with the EOS-1 film camera, would have been the perfect place for it.

Granted that it's not 1987, but large lens mounts do have real advantages with certain classes of lenses. The CEO of Sigma has been quoted, within the last year or so, as stating that the small size of the FE lens mount presents problems in designing lenses for it.

It could be more complicated than that IF you assume dSLRs and the EF mount will be dropped from the lineup. I don't think that's the case. With a FF EF-M mount, I doubt Canon would seek to replicate the full EF lineup in the new mount – the EF mount adapter would remain for the 'esoteric' lenses (of which I own several), with FF EF-M lenses available for 'standard' lenses (several zooms from UWA to tell, a macro lens and a few other primes.