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

[AvTvM]

there is definitely space for at 3 lines of mirrorless FF lenses ... just like in the world of EF glass ...
1) hi-end: fast primes, fast zooms, high IQ, fully sealed, tank-like build, big, fat, super expensive - high grade "L"
2) middle ground: very good, not as fast, not as big, far less expensive ... like e.g. current EF /4.0 L zoom series
1) basic line: optically decent, slower apertures, hi-grade plastics, not sealed, ultra-compact, very affordable ... f/1.8 - 2.8 primes, f/4.0 zooms, f/5.6 tele zooms

If camera has a slim mount, all 3 are possible. But if camera has EF mount, only 1 and 2 will be possible. What is smarter for Canon? And for customers as a whole?

Personally I buy FF lenses in all 3 categories [crop lenses only in category 3 cheap] ... and put together kit as needed for the respective task.

Also: "slim" new mount will not mean "only small cameras! There will undoubtedly be small(er) camera models and big(ger) camera models. As with Canon DSLRs. Canon can easily produce "chunky, big gripp, large battery, many physical control points"-cameras ... with "slim" mount.

But not even innovative Canon can make ultracompact mirrorless FF cameras with EF mount.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, I've missed how many folks in the overall market want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers.

I might be missing the nuance, but are you thinking that FF mirrorless buyers would tend to prefer lower cost lenses vs better, but more expensive lenses?

I was responding to the post suggesting that 'lots of' EOS M (i.e., APS-C) users want fast lenses, and suggesting that what they mostly want is inexpensive lenses.

 

[BurningPlatform]

I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.

Could I be misunderstanding you?

How would an EF-M lens (APSC) be mountable on a full frame mirrorless? Even if it physically worked, you'd get the black vignette thing, and who wants that? Or do you mean something else?

I can't imagine any scenario9 where a FF will have a smaller flange focal distance or throat diameter than EF-M/E-Mount.

I guess this was alraedy covered by others. Just what Nikon does with its DX lenses on FX - crop automatically to the center area of the sensor. Nikon allows for full frame capture as well, though, which seems to somewhat work with some lenses, zoom settings and apertures. See e.g. https://photographylife.com/using-nikon-dx-lenses-on-fx-cameras. I don't think Canon would allow it, though.

 

[dsut4392]

Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
(similar pro lenses compared)

35mm f/1.4
Sony 78.5 x 112mm, 630 g
Canon 80.4 x 105.5mm, 760 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

85mm f/1.4
Sony 89.5 x 107.5mm, 820 g
Canon 88.6 x 105mm, 950 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

24-105mm f/4.0

Sony 83.4 x 113.3mm, 663 g
Canon 83.5 x 118mm, 795 g

Canon slightly larger and heavier.

24-70mm

Sony 87.6 x 136mm, 886 g
Canon 88.5 x 113mm, 805 g

Canon smaller and lighter

70-200mm
Sony 88 x 200mm, 1480 g
Canon 89 x199mm, 1490 g

Almost identical.

Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.

Hmm, I see about 480g weight difference for the lenses, then add another 200g for the body. 680g weight difference is not to be sneezed at. And that's just for the 'Pro' lenses. If you consider that a smaller aperture lens stands to benefit more from the shorter flange distance, then those people who are prepared to compromise some IQ to save weight would see an even bigger saving in weight, and a significant saving in bulk. e.g. Canon 24-70/4 =600g
Sony 24-70/4 = 426g
Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 = 295g

My friends that have switched to Sony did it for size and weight reasons initially, but have now replaced many of their big L-series lenses with native G series and Zeiss Batis lenses for times when the weight doesn't matter (because of poor AF performance of the adapted lens, not poor optical performance).

If you don't want reduced size from a mirrorless camera, what do you want that you couldn't get from an SLR in live view with a hybrid viewfinder?

 

[dsut4392]

Sorry - totally not true even for the M series cameras. Have you missed how many folks want these lenses to be faster?

Yes, I've missed how many folks in the overall market want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers. Consider that the EOS M system is very popular – #2 MILC globally – with only one fast(ish) prime, and the rest slow/variable zooms. Consider the EF-S lineup, with only f/2.8 primes (slow for primes), mostly slow/variable zooms, and only one fast zoom...which is getting very long in tooth.

I think what most folks want is for EF-N lenses to be cheaper, like the EF-S 10-18mm that replaced the EF-S 10-22mm (lower cost, added IS, better IQ, but slower aperture – that ticked the boxes).

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

One market is after small and cheap.... the other is after highest quality.... there are a few in the middle, but not enough to matter. (If you are one of those in the middle, it s**ks)

Wait, what? CR is not representative of most buyers, yet in our little echo chamber we think the "WINNER" is what most people on the forum are arguing? That's some skewed logic if ever I've seen it!

 

[dsut4392]

I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.

Could I be misunderstanding you?

How would an EF-M lens (APSC) be mountable on a full frame mirrorless? Even if it physically worked, you'd get the black vignette thing, and who wants that? Or do you mean something else?

I can't imagine any scenario9 where a FF will have a smaller flange focal distance or throat diameter than EF-M/E-Mount.

Sorry - totally not true even for the M series cameras. Have you missed how many folks want these lenses to be faster?

Yes, I've missed how many folks in the overall market want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers. Consider that the EOS M system is very popular – #2 MILC globally – with only one fast(ish) prime, and the rest slow/variable zooms. Consider the EF-S lineup, with only f/2.8 primes (slow for primes), mostly slow/variable zooms, and only one fast zoom...which is getting very long in tooth.

I think what most folks want is for EF-N lenses to be cheaper, like the EF-S 10-18mm that replaced the EF-S 10-22mm (lower cost, added IS, better IQ, but slower aperture – that ticked the boxes).

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

One market is after small and cheap.... the other is after highest quality.... there are a few in the middle, but not enough to matter. (If you are one of those in the middle, it s**ks)

I couldn't agree more.

I just can't imagine someone in the "small and cheap" market buying a digital camera like a A7R3, which is small, but definitely not cheap, and with pro-grade lenses that aren't small and are definitely NOT cheap. And if you go with the kit-grade lenses... that's just such a waste of the body.

I am in the "awesome quality and my-wife-will-only-kill-me-once priced" category

The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...

 

[AvTvM]

hahaha ... https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/

hahaha, dwarf-sensor plus 4k video apparently suffices for professional / Hollywood cine use already.
Yes, also for "low light" scenes.
No, I don't think Mr. Soderbergh's choice of imaging gear was forced by budgetary constraints ...

By the time Canon launches a mirrorless FF system WITH 4k video ... there might be no more use for it. Except of course for forum members needing "highest possible IQ", native EF mount and big, fat expensive lenses ... to snap some pics for their vacation family albums ... ;D

 

[AvTvM]

Question: "What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful?"
Correct answer: "It has to come very soon."
;D

 

[Talys]

The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...

It's hard to imagine, because I don't know why someone would want to stick a kit lens on a $3,000 body. Or, for that matter, an APSC lens on a flagship full frame body.

If you buy a kit lens because of size, you're probably not super fussy about optical quality for that lens. So if that's the case, just do yourself a favor, and buy a relatively cheap, small APSC body. Then you can mount the cheap, and much smaller lens, because there is no way a full frame lens can compete in size with an crop one in size.

Also, I guess it's just me, but if I own the pro version of a lens, I would not buy another kit version that covered a similar focal range, for the same camera, even if that lens were a lot smaller and lighter.

For example: If I owned a 5D4 and an EF 50/1.2, I would never, ever mount my EF 50/1.8 or EF 50/1.4 on it. Or, if I owned a 24-105L, I would not mount (much less buy, afterwards....) a 24-105 STM.

 

[BillB]

The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...

It's hard to imagine, because I don't know why someone would want to stick a kit lens on a $3,000 body. Or, for that matter, an APSC lens on a flagship full frame body.

If you buy a kit lens because of size, you're probably not super fussy about optical quality for that lens. So if that's the case, just do yourself a favor, and buy a relatively cheap, small APSC body. Then you can mount the cheap, and much smaller lens, because there is no way a full frame lens can compete in size with an crop one in size.

Also, I guess it's just me, but if I own the pro version of a lens, I would not buy another kit version that covered a similar focal range, for the same camera, even if that lens were a lot smaller and lighter.

For example: If I owned a 5D4 and an EF 50/1.2, I would never, ever mount my EF 50/1.8 or EF 50/1.4 on it. Or, if I owned a 24-105L, I would not mount (much less buy, afterwards....) a 24-105 STM.

My guess is there would be two cameras, one high end DSLR, and the other lightweight.

 

[BillB]

Apparently, Canon designed an EF-M mount that would not work well for FF mirrorless. Was it because they could not design a mount that would work well for both aps-c and FF or was it because they had already decided that they would use the EF mount for their fullframe mirrorless? I'm pretty sure they thought about it at the time. Canon is not that stupid.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...

There were over 11 million ILCs sold last year. When discussing the overall ILC market, the market segment that you know is utterly irrelevant.

 

[AvTvM]

Apparently, Canon designed an EF-M mount that would not work well for FF mirrorless. Was it because they could not design a mount that would work well for both aps-c and FF or was it because they had already decided that they would use the EF mount for their fullframe mirrorless? I'm pretty sure they thought about it at the time. Canon is not that stupid.

Canon designed EF-M mount optimally suited to build very compact, very affordable and very decent APS-C mirrorless cameras and lenses. At the time of that design decision, "mirrorless FF" was not even a concept in the heads of their [geriatric ward] executive team. They thought, they could sell many more minimally improved, iterative generations of mirrorslappers. And did just that.

Canon made exactly the same mistake Sony made in designing its E-mount as "optimal for APS-C" only. Due to Sony's failure with their big, fat, DOA SLTs they had to move to mirrorless FF much sooner. And were bitten in the rear by their E-mount mistake ... at the time they were under heavy criticism by some forum-dwelling old-fart A-mount users and by some web platform editors for "bringing ever more new mounts and abandoning the good old A-mount ... bla bla". So Sony decided not to bring one more new mount - optimal for mirrorless FF - but to press E-mount into full-frame service. Resulting in severely limited design options for their FE lenses.

All 3 of them acted fairly stupidly:
* Sony did not have the balls to say "f*ck A-mount" and bring a "true FE-mount" for their FF mirrorless system
* Canon - for believing they could go on for at least 10 more years just iterating their FF mirrorslpappers, mitigated only somewhat by eventually getting EOS M system right [after initial epic fail with "high price for crop-sensor camera"]
* Nikon - totally dumb with their dwarf-size CX sensor for Nikon-1 system and believing they would not need APS-C and even less so FF mirrorless .. .for many years to come

 

[BillB]

Apparently, Canon designed an EF-M mount that would not work well for FF mirrorless. Was it because they could not design a mount that would work well for both aps-c and FF or was it because they had already decided that they would use the EF mount for their fullframe mirrorless? I'm pretty sure they thought about it at the time. Canon is not that stupid.

Canon designed EF-M mount optimally suited to build very compact, very affordable and very decent APS-C mirrorless cameras and lenses. At the time of that design decision, "mirrorless FF" was not even a concept in the heads of their [geriatric ward] executive team. They thought, they could sell many more minimally improved, iterative generations of mirrorslappers. And did just that.

Canon made exactly the same mistake Sony made in designing its E-mount as "optimal for APS-C" only. Due to Sony's failure with their big, fat, DOA SLTs they had to move to mirrorless FF much sooner. And were bitten in the rear by their E-mount mistake ... at the time they were under heavy criticism by some forum-dwelling old-fart A-mount users and by some web platform editors for "bringing ever more new mounts and abandoning the good old A-mount ... bla bla". So Sony decided not to bring one more new mount - optimal for mirrorless FF - but to press E-mount into full-frame service. Resulting in severely limited design options for their FE lenses.

All 3 of them acted fairly stupidly:
* Sony did not have the balls to say "f*ck A-mount" and bring a "true FE-mount" for their FF mirrorless system
* Canon - for believing they could go on for at least 10 more years just iterating their FF mirrorslpappers, mitigated only somewhat by eventually getting EOS M system right [after initial epic fail with "high price for crop-sensor camera"]
* Nikon - totally dumb with their dwarf-size CX sensor for Nikon-1 system and believing they would not need APS-C and even less so FF mirrorless .. .for many years to come

So your position is that Canon is indeed stupider than I thought. If the had been smarter, could they have designed a mount that met the needs of both ape-c and fullframe mirrorless cameras?

 

[neuroanatomist]

So your position is that Canon is indeed stupider than I thought. If the had been smarter, could they have designed a mount that met the needs of both ape-c and fullframe mirrorless cameras?

His position is a delusion, wrapped in a dream, located in his own, private reality. A couple of examples:

At the time of that design decision, "mirrorless FF" was not even a concept in the heads of their [geriatric ward] executive team.

Apparently, he sits on Canon's board and is privy to their internal discussions. Or he is capable of telepathically reading their thoughts. Or he's delusional. You pick.

* Canon - for believing they could go on for at least 10 more years just iterating their FF mirrorslpappers, mitigated only somewhat by eventually getting EOS M system right [after initial epic fail with "high price for crop-sensor camera"]

The original EOS M was the second best selling MILC in Japan (behind only one of Sony's many NEX models), without significant discounts, and Japan is the largest geographical market for MILCs (and was even more so at the time). But to him, it was an epic fail. That's what passes for reality in the AvTvM Universe.

 

[scyrene]

hahaha ... https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/

hahaha, dwarf-sensor plus 4k video apparently suffices for professional / Hollywood cine use already.
Yes, also for "low light" scenes.
No, I don't think Mr. Soderbergh's choice of imaging gear was forced by budgetary constraints ...

By the time Canon launches a mirrorless FF system WITH 4k video ... there might be no more use for it. Except of course for forum members needing "highest possible IQ", native EF mount and big, fat expensive lenses ... to snap some pics for their vacation family albums ... ;D

This is a straw man if ever I saw one. If movies and tv made with DSLRs were a small minority, professional video shot on mobile phones isn't even a blip on the radar. So what if some creative types use non-standard tools? Are you really claiming that the future is iPhones as standard for cinema? Don't be absurd (and even if that were the case, it has literally zero bearing on what cameras Canon should release in the next year or two). PS I doubt he was shooting handheld - even when using relatively small cameras, film-makers tend to use big, heavy rigs for stabilisation, focusing, etc. The future of mainstream cinema production is not tiny, and Canon's next mirrorless line is of no relevance to it whatsoever.

Incidentally, except when making a conscious decision (Barry Lyndon is the most famous example), there isn't really 'low light' on a film set - they can make the light as bright or dim as they want (and the norm seems to be even when a scene is set in the dark, they use plenty of lighting but use other cues, like blue colour, to indicate that it's night for instance). Try using an iPhone to film in a truly dimly-lit room and tell me sensor size doesn't matter.

 

[scyrene]

The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...

It's hard to imagine, because I don't know why someone would want to stick a kit lens on a $3,000 body. Or, for that matter, an APSC lens on a flagship full frame body.

If you buy a kit lens because of size, you're probably not super fussy about optical quality for that lens. So if that's the case, just do yourself a favor, and buy a relatively cheap, small APSC body. Then you can mount the cheap, and much smaller lens, because there is no way a full frame lens can compete in size with an crop one in size.

Also, I guess it's just me, but if I own the pro version of a lens, I would not buy another kit version that covered a similar focal range, for the same camera, even if that lens were a lot smaller and lighter.

For example: If I owned a 5D4 and an EF 50/1.2, I would never, ever mount my EF 50/1.8 or EF 50/1.4 on it. Or, if I owned a 24-105L, I would not mount (much less buy, afterwards....) a 24-105 STM.

I can name a couple of counterexamples, but they're probably niche - first, someone may be on an upgrade path that means they choose to get a better body before they can furnish it with better lenses. Second, if I had a cheap and an expensive lens covering the same FL, I might use the former if it was a situation where it might take more wear or damage, or if I was worried about it getting stolen, such as on holiday. Or indeed to maximise portability, especially where absolute image quality was less important (casual snapshots on a long walk, for instance).

 

[AvTvM]

i use cheapest current Canon EF lens ... EF 50/1.8 STM ... and EF 40/2.8 on my 5D 3 more often than more expensive lenses i own (or rent). EF-M 18-55 more often than any other lens, especially more often than any of my big, heavy and rather conspicuous (!) 2.8 L zooms ... lens choice solely depending on shooting situation and my creative ideas / goals for images to be captured or created.

Also ... not all excellent IQ lenses are necessarily big and/or expensive ... see Canon EF-M 22/2.0 or EF-M 11-22 ... or EF 40/2.8 ...

 

[Talys]

hahaha ... https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/

hahaha, dwarf-sensor plus 4k video apparently suffices for professional / Hollywood cine use already.
Yes, also for "low light" scenes.
No, I don't think Mr. Soderbergh's choice of imaging gear was forced by budgetary constraints ...

By the time Canon launches a mirrorless FF system WITH 4k video ... there might be no more use for it. Except of course for forum members needing "highest possible IQ", native EF mount and big, fat expensive lenses ... to snap some pics for their vacation family albums ... ;D

This is a straw man if ever I saw one. If movies and tv made with DSLRs were a small minority, professional video shot on mobile phones isn't even a blip on the radar. So what if some creative types use non-standard tools? Are you really claiming that the future is iPhones as standard for cinema?

The iPhone is late to the game. In 2010, 5D Mark II was used to shoot the entire episode of House's season finale. Viewers who weren't tech geeks didn't even know. That's was a top rated TV show! See? Canon doesn't need a cine line. Or the 5D Mark 3 or Mark 4. Or, evidently, 4k video.

https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/

 

[bhf3737]

Canon designed EF-M mount optimally suited to build very compact, very affordable and very decent APS-C mirrorless cameras and lenses. At the time of that design decision, "mirrorless FF" was not even a concept in the heads of their [geriatric ward] executive team. They thought, they could sell many more minimally improved, iterative generations of mirrorslappers. And did just that.

Canon made exactly the same mistake Sony made in designing its E-mount as "optimal for APS-C" only. Due to Sony's failure with their big, fat, DOA SLTs they had to move to mirrorless FF much sooner. And were bitten in the rear by their E-mount mistake ... at the time they were under heavy criticism by some forum-dwelling old-fart A-mount users and by some web platform editors for "bringing ever more new mounts and abandoning the good old A-mount ... bla bla". So Sony decided not to bring one more new mount - optimal for mirrorless FF - but to press E-mount into full-frame service. Resulting in severely limited design options for their FE lenses.

All 3 of them acted fairly stupidly:
* Sony did not have the balls to say "f*ck A-mount" and bring a "true FE-mount" for their FF mirrorless system
* Canon - for believing they could go on for at least 10 more years just iterating their FF mirrorslpappers, mitigated only somewhat by eventually getting EOS M system right [after initial epic fail with "high price for crop-sensor camera"]
* Nikon - totally dumb with their dwarf-size CX sensor for Nikon-1 system and believing they would not need APS-C and even less so FF mirrorless .. .for many years to come

So based on your research the solution is that Canon/Sony/Nikon start a joint venture with Walmart and get permission to mount Walmart's patented collapsible stainless steel cup in front of their mirrorless cameras and then attach lenses to it. Problem solved. What a brilliant solution! Stupid Canon, Sony Nikon!!