What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
8,232
988
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
Beyond Canon’s stellar brand loyalty and brand power, there are a few things that a full frame Canon mirrorless absolutely needs to be successful.</p>
<p><a href="https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-canons-full-frame-mirrorless-system-needs-be-successful-213001">Fstoppers</a> posted an article today outlining what they think it needs, and it pretty much mirrors (doh) what I’ve been saying for the last year or so.</p>
<p><strong>A native EF mount</strong>

The Canon EF lens lineup is the best in the business. No other camera manufacturer has the breadth and depth of lenses, nor the manufacturing power to churn out amazing glass time and time again. This is Canon’s biggest advantage over other manufacturers and will ensure they take the #1 spot in mirrorless camera sales without much marketing effort.</p>
<p>This is where I think Nikon is going to make a massive mistake if they really do require you to need an adapter to fit F mount glass.</p>
<p><strong>No adapters!</strong>

I hate adapters, and I even hate teleconverters. Any extra thingy I have to worry about to use gear is a non starter for me. If I think I have to add a teleconverter to a 500mm lens, then I’ll buy a 600mm lens. Thanks to Canon for the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p>Lens adapters are to solve a unique problem, and I don’t mind them if I really have a need to use an FD lens or a Nikon lens on my Canon camera. But if I’m using a modern Canon lens, it better fit without an adapter on my modern Canon camera.</p>
<p>Adapters are lazy.</p>

<p><strong>Size and weight?</strong>

Is this really why we want mirrorless cameras? I’d argue going too small is actually bad for usability when attaching larger, heavy lenses. Attach a Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II to a Sony A7R with an adapter. It’s all sorts of awkward to shoot with and you get odd fatigue in your hands, wrist and forearms. If you’re adding a battery grip to your mirroless camera, then you’re already admitting you don’t care about size and to some degree, weight.</p>
<p>If you remove the mirror and shutter assembly, you’re going to naturally reduce weight.</p>
<p>Here’s something for you, a Canon EOS Rebel SL2 weighs less than a Sony A7R with a mirror and shutter assembly.  Yes, the build quality is different, but I’m sure Canon can come up with something to make a camera with their great durability and amazing weather sealing.</p>
<p><strong>EVF</strong>

The EVF has to be the best in the business. Period. No skimping on parts and manufacturing here Canon.</p>
<p>It’s rare I give my opinion on gear, but I’m actually quite opinionated on what Canon needs to do with a full frame professional mirrorless camera.</p>
<p>Head over to <a href="https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-canons-full-frame-mirrorless-system-needs-be-successful-213001">FStoppers to read their take</a>, as well as <a href="https://www.canonnews.com/fstoppers-what-canons-full-frame-mirrorless-system-needs-to-be-successful">Canon News for their take</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
 

slclick

Cyclist, photog, drummer & sardonic haiku writer
Dec 17, 2013
4,132
2,073
I am with you on all counts. Weight over size. I want controls which are not cramped. Canon is known for their ergonomics and if there is anything I learned from my short lived Olympus mirrorless experience it's (besides the atrocious menu system) if your dials and buttons are not well placed you accidentally change a setting and it dooms your shot. The Canon joystick is a marvelous thing and I hope to see it on the FF ML. I am pretty happy with the EVF in the M5, it's not perfect but it is very useable and with a few minor improvements it could be ready for Prosumer use. I think it all comes down to flange, a topic well discussed here and elsewhere. Abandoning the 130 million lenses would be a travesty and I just don't see it happening. Good article Craig.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
If Canon is smart, they will offer to glue the "adapter" permanently into camera lens mount at their service outlets. After that, camera will mount all EF lenses "natively" ... and no parts to loose. Adapter-angst ridden buyers will also never have to purchase expensive, new, mirrorless-optimized glass. 8) ;D

Size/Weight: if Canon is NOT stupid, they'll make one ultra-expensive 1D-sized, big, bulky mirrorless body, one-mid-sized one like Sony A9 and one super-compact (Sony 1RX-R II sized, but with mount), non-nerfed, affordable one for me ... and for the few others who are sick and tired of carrying around big, heavy gear. And same lineup for lenses ... XXXL - M - XS.

EVF: fully agree ... very the best is just about "good enough" on that end.

PS: "professional" camera does not equal "use of big tele lenses" or "shooting outdoors in sub-zero blizzard conditions". Wedding/Event photogs, studio work, fashion, portraiture, etc. etc. generally dont need 400mm lenses or wheather sealing (at least most of the time).
 

slclick

Cyclist, photog, drummer & sardonic haiku writer
Dec 17, 2013
4,132
2,073
brad-man said:
That's all well and good, but does it have to look like a Q?
I'd prefer an SL style body. I think the Q look is used to convey mirrorless and not a mockup as to what Canon will go after.
 

IglooEater

EOS R
Nov 15, 2014
904
0
AvTvM said:
PS: "professional" camera does not equal "use of big tele lenses" or "shooting outdoors in sub-zero blizzard conditions".
+1. I see no need for every top tiered camera to be either big or weather-sealed.


AvTvM said:
Wedding/Event photogs, studio work, fashion, portraiture, etc. etc. generally dont need 400mm lenses or wheather sealing (at least most of the time).
Well... as to weddings, I’ve not been to a single wedding where the photog didn’t have to shoot in either some rain or snow. Of course that’s not representative of all weddings, but if I we’re doing weddings I would very much like to have a sealed body.
 

slclick

Cyclist, photog, drummer & sardonic haiku writer
Dec 17, 2013
4,132
2,073
unfocused said:
While I agree with CR Guy's comments and priorities, it does sort of beg the question: why do we need a mirrorless full-frame camera anyway?
WYSIWYG for one, fps for another. However I know what you mean and I see them as a want rather than a need.
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
unfocused said:
While I agree with CR Guy's comments and priorities, it does sort of beg the question: why do we need a mirrorless full-frame camera anyway?
Goal #1 .. to literally shut people up about it
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Goal #2 ... because there's features there that are needed...it's also a better video and stills hybrid solution than a DSLR.
 
Apr 26, 2016
6
0
1. Convert 5D series to mirorless
2. Convert 1D series to mirorless
3. Same mount.
4. Same body.
5. Same buttons (lighted , like nikons)

Done.
 

hmatthes

EOS-R, RF and EF Lenses of all types.
Canon Rumors said:
Nah, that's just my mockup. The Q is also my favourite camera ever. ;)
The Q is also my favorite camera and is always with me. The Q is for the minimalist, manual thinking, kind of guy like me -- not for everyone.
Canon is my main system. The Canon UI is perfect for almost everything --- I dearly hope that it is unchanged.
I will write a check right now for a 5D-IV (without mirror and prism) which has an EVF matching or even exceeding the Leica Q & SL systems.

The key point: What you see is what you get! I have learned on the Q that seeing exactly what will get onto the SD is vital. You can actually see the exposure compensation as you adjust it. You can see focus peaking when touching up the focus! No mirror camera can do that.
 

transpo1

EOS RP
Jan 12, 2011
755
103
rrcphoto said:
unfocused said:
While I agree with CR Guy's comments and priorities, it does sort of beg the question: why do we need a mirrorless full-frame camera anyway?
Goal #1 .. to literally shut people up about it
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Goal #2 ... because there's features there that are needed...it's also a better video and stills hybrid solution than a DSLR.
In other words, Goal #2 is 4K video.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
hmatthes said:
You can actually see the exposure compensation as you adjust it. You can see focus peaking when touching up the focus! No mirror camera can do that.
Except in Live View. Just sayin'. ;)
 
Jul 12, 2013
264
121
from the original post:

"Size and weight?
Is this really why we want mirrorless cameras?"

Uhhhh...yes?!

(for starters, and it's complicated)
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
16,126
1,212
I have zero interest in a camera that requires a adapter. For consumers, who only get a kit lens, a new lens mount won't matter.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,787
923
UK
www.flickr.com
Canon Rumors said:
If I think I have to add a teleconverter to a 500mm lens, then I’ll buy a 600mm lens.
I know this is beside the point of the thread, but...

Each to their own, but that only works if money is no object. The 500L II is £8k while the 600L II is £10.5k. That's a hell of a difference for 100mm, when the 1.4x TC gives you 200mm extra for £300.

I would much rather see a native EF mount mirrorless camera, of course.
 

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
8,232
988
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
josephandrews222 said:
from the original post:

"Size and weight?
Is this really why we want mirrorless cameras?"

Uhhhh...yes?!

(for starters, and it's complicated)
The point I was making is mirrorless doesn't mean it's automatically lighter and a smaller body can be too small and make ergonomics terrible. There's a reason the 1d is the size that it is and why people use battery grips in large numbers on both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.
 

J.R.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jan 13, 2013
1,749
0
The real question here is whether a camera without the mirror will lead to better photographs? In my specific case, I don't think so but I'd like to have more information on this.