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

[neuroanatomist]

FWIW I've used three brands of Mirrorless ILCs now, over several years (Fuji, Olympus, Sony). I have had far less problems with dust than I ever had on Canon or Nikon DSLRs. In fact I can only recall one instance of having to remove a noticeable dust spot from a Fuji shot once. On my 1DsMkii, I had severe dust issues constantly. The D700 and 5Dmkii were an improvement though.

This despite mainly shooting primes (so more regular lens changes) on the mirrorless cameras, and mainly 24-70 zooms on the Canon/Nikon bodies. No idea why, just my experience of real-life use.

I’m curious – were any of the MILCs you refer to full frame? On my EOS M cameras, I have little problem with dust – only an occasional spot that needs cleaning, maybe I have to clean the sensor twice a year. My 1D X requires much more frequent cleaning, once a month or more. With those limited data points, I’d conclude that mirrorless accumulated dust much less than a dSLR. However, I had two Canon APS-C dSLRs for a total of 5 years, and in all that time, I needed to clean the sensor twice.

 

[RJ_4000]

I’m curious – were any of the MILCs you refer to full frame? On my EOS M cameras, I have little problem with dust – only an occasional spot that needs cleaning, maybe I have to clean the sensor twice a year. My 1D X requires much more frequent cleaning, once a month or more. With those limited data points, I’d conclude that mirrorless accumulated dust much less than a dSLR. However, I had two Canon APS-C dSLRs for a total of 5 years, and in all that time, I needed to clean the sensor twice.

You may have a point here.
My experience is
1D2 - Cleaned sensor from time to time, over 8 years of extensive use
Nex 7 - A real nightmare. Dust and oil every week. Was using only Older lenses though (not much choice at that time)
1DX - Hardly ever cleaned the sensor since 2013
A7R - Same than Nex 7. Finally had the screen replaced (warranty) and sensor cleaned by Sony. I couldn't get it clean.
5DSR - Clean ? What ?
A6000 - No cleaning needed yet (well, now it's defect). I mainly used the E 16-70, E 24 1.8 and FE 55 1.8.

But, again, that's just one single experience (mine)

 

[efmshark]

Shorter flange definitely enables simpler and/or smaller/lighter wide angle lenses. This is one of the motivations for a mirrorless camera. When the mirrorless body has a full-frame sensor, amazingly small wide angle lenses targeted at the APS-C mirrorless bodies (like the Rokinon 12mm f/2) may not be possible, but it should be still possible to make fast wide angle primes (and zooms) that are more compact and lighter than lenses targeted at full frame SLRs.

As for the viewfinder, unless Canon pulls of some kind of an hybrid optical viewfinder trick like the Fuji X-Pro series, I would like to see an OLED with at least half the sensor linear resolution at minimum of 120Hz refresh rate.

Leica M9 has probably one of the best form factors. Not too small, not too big. A Canon mirrorless with similar dimensions would be perfect.

About size impact for lower flange distance, here is probably a better example:
http://briansmith.com/super-wide-zoom-showdown-sony-fe-12-24mm-f4-g-vs-canon-ef-11-24mm-f4-l/

Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the shorter focal length you get, the bigger the benefit of shorter flange-sensor distance


Looking a bit further, I found this
(..)
"Because of the shorter flange focal distance of mirrorless camera systems compared to SLR systems (e.g. E-mount: 18mm, F-mount: 46.5mm), some lenses could be designed differently.
This could result either in a slightly smaller (shorter) barrel, or in a more complex, higher performing lens compared to a comparable SLR lens of the same focal length and speed. "
ZEISS Camera Lenses Team

(From https://www.+++++++++++.com/zeiss-confirms-e-mount-shorter-flange-distance-brings-advantages-over-dslr-lenses/)
++++ was sony alpha rumors. But censored.
Sorry but I can't quote without providing source.

 

[exquisitor]

Native mirrorless mount with flange distance of < 20 mm and an EF adapter is more flexible solution, allowing for smaller native lenses (unlike Sony FE lenses, which are essentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts).

Why are Sony FE lenses esentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts? Maybe Canon is great at lens design, but Sony and Zeiss just suck at it? Inquiring minds want to know...

This or this whole "smaller lenses" is just a marketing BS. As RJ_4000 suggested, the biggest benefit seems to be for the ultra wide angle designs.
I am rather hoping that Canon could manage smaller FF mirrorless lenses in comparison to Sony. EF-M lenses have a small edge in size in comparison to Sony E lenses for APS-C, so hopefully the FF line will be the same.

 

[RJ_4000]

Another example of smaller lens (Leica M Mount)
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-voigtlander-12mm-5-6-ultra-wide-heliar/

 

[unfocused]

...if you look at pro sport photographers, as an example, they need to nail down the right shot...
...At some point, a next step will obviously be a continuous 8K VIDEO shooting (32Mpixels * 30fps)
Then you have more frames to pick from...

This is one of the most common misconceptions around.

If you are shooting video, the optimal shutter speed is twice the frame rate. So, 30 fps=1/60 second shutter speed. For smooth video you must blur the image from one frame to the next so that it appears smooth to the eye. Otherwise you have jerky or stuttering video.

For sports still photography you want to stop action (usually). That means 1/800 second or more depending on lens and action.

1080p, 4K, 8K, 100K – the resolution doesn't matter. You can't simply grab frames from a video. Sure, you could shoot a video at 1/1000 of a second, but it won't be usable as video. This is a fantasy that needs to be put to rest.

 

[lo lite]

Hi
I strongly disagree about a Mirrorless with EF mount.

…
- You may decrease flange distance
…
So what do you MISS ? Why do you want a mirrorless, except for the EVF ?
A shorter flange distance.

No, that won't work for an existing mount with existing lenses like EF since a shorter flange distance would mean you can't focus. Basic physics.

 

[Deleted member 378875]

All I care about is the EVF. To be viable I believe it has to be

* "retina" quality resolution - indistinguishable from the "reality" of an OVF
* super fast - when panning or moving up and down and it must keep up

Also, one major benefit would be if we could see the depth of field before taking the shot !

I would like to be able to ZOOM IN EVEN WHEN USING AUTOMATIC FOCUS and to review the DoF.

Using an 85mm or 135mm F/1.4 lens can be tricky as the DoF is so small that only the eyes are in focus and other facial features are blurred. An EVF could help solve this.

Unfortunately, most EVFs only allow you to zoom in when using manual focus ... which adds one more task to the list ... if the camera has automatic Eye-focus and it works then all there is left to worry about is DoF ...

***Please*** Canon - I'm sure this would be a useful feature for many others ... if you can get Eye-focus working of course !

 

[I Simonius]

I agree with most of the OP but not about size

I wouldn't want of use a mirrorless FF for sports or birding, can't see any advantage over DSLR

What most people want mirrorless for is less weight and if possible smaller format ( but unlikely by much if FF)

 

[LDS]

some lenses could be designed differently.

The key is "designed differently". You don't need retrofocus designs to keep the rear elements away from the mirror. You can have elements protruding into the camera.

Retrofocus designs for larger apertures require larger, heavier lenses, and more elements, which also means a sturdier barrel. Standard wide-angle designs can deliver larger apertures with smaller, lighter lenses and barrels.

 

[jolyonralph]

The Sony FE 55/1.8 is about the same size and weight as the Canon 50/1.4

You lost me at Canon 50/1.4.

I asked about lenses of a similar quality!

 

[jeffa4444]

Sorry but the elephant in the room for EF is the back focus depth its 44mm for EF and EF-S and 18mm for EF-M.
The Sony is 18mm.

Taking this into consideration their will be very little weight saving simply removing the mirror box & pentaprism (sure there will be something) but as others have stated maybe that not a bad thing. From a FPS standpoint its huge and maybe in this format Canon will move to a global shutter. Im not convinced from a video point of view about removing the OPLF whereas from a stills point it has a small advantage.
Sony has released its Venice movie camera which is full-frame (Vistavision or as close as), maybe if Canon go down this route they can develop reiterations of a sensor just as Sony has done.

 

[IglooEater]

The Sony FE 55/1.8 is about the same size and weight as the Canon 50/1.4

You lost me at Canon 50/1.4.

I asked about lenses of a similar quality!

But did you see how enormous Sony’s 50mm f/2.8 macro tilt-shift is? I mean it’s just huge. Oh wait, they don’t happen to have an exact equivalent. But there’s no reason to assume that were they to make one that it would be different size-wise or weight-wise in any significant way. It’s reasonable to extrapolate general physical attributes from similar lenses. Sony and Canon have the same laws of physics to work with it would seem.

 

[Random Orbits]

Sorry but the elephant in the room for EF is the back focus depth its 44mm for EF and EF-S and 18mm for EF-M.
The Sony is 18mm.

Taking this into consideration their will be very little weight saving simply removing the mirror box & pentaprism (sure there will be something) but as others have stated maybe that not a bad thing. From a FPS standpoint its huge and maybe in this format Canon will move to a global shutter. Im not convinced from a video point of view about removing the OPLF whereas from a stills point it has a small advantage.
Sony has released its Venice movie camera which is full-frame (Vistavision or as close as), maybe if Canon go down this route they can develop reiterations of a sensor just as Sony has done.

Unless the lens optics can extend significantly into the mount then the penalty would not be as large. Canon couldn't do this before because of the mirror would interfere, but with mirrorless, this could be an option. If one brings a bag full of lenses (especially telephoto lenses), then it makes sense to have the increased distance on the camera side rather than having multiple lenses incurring the penalty (assuming one travels with more lenses than bodies).

 

[AvTvM]

Native mirrorless mount with flange distance of < 20 mm and an EF adapter is more flexible solution, allowing for smaller native lenses (unlike Sony FE lenses, which are essentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts).

Why are Sony FE lenses esentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts? Maybe Canon is great at lens design, but Sony and Zeiss just suck at it? Inquiring minds want to know...

simple: because Sony E-mount was really only designed for APS-C image circle ... and only on second thought Sony decided to force it into use with FF sensors as well. For FF image circle Sony E-mount [as well as Canon EF-M mount] do not have optimally chosen parameters. Combination of 1. opening very narrow plus 2. FFD very short leaves not too many opportunities for lens design.

But [even I! ] am very confident Canon will go with very generously-sized parameters for their new mirrorless mount ... as they did back in 1987 with EF mount ... and it served them very well ... along with radical break away from old FD mount and all sorts of mechanical shenanigans ... a really forward looking approach ... it allowed them to design not-monstrously big f/1.2 and even f/1.0 lens/es as well as very compact lenses [not only EF 40/2.8 pancake but for their focal length and speed also lenses like EF 100/2.0 or 135/2.0] ... with ease and at a price typically somewhat lower than Nikon and considerably lower than comparably Sony [A-mount and FE] lenses. Canon will most likely pull off a very similar transition to a fantastic range of new, optimized for-mirrorless-FF lenses.

 

[AvTvM]

and transition is so much easier this time than the hard break FD :: EF back in 1987. All that's needed is a little cylindrical tube with wiring thru ... to keep all EF lenses fully functional and usable. Adapter-Angst really is very irrational. And if people really fear losing it or "handling issues in the field" ... well then just take a drop of Loctite blue and permanently fix that adapter tube into camera lens mount and be done with it.

 

[Talys]

Sorry but the elephant in the room for EF is the back focus depth its 44mm for EF and EF-S and 18mm for EF-M.
The Sony is 18mm.

Taking this into consideration their will be very little weight saving simply removing the mirror box & pentaprism (sure there will be something) but as others have stated maybe that not a bad thing. From a FPS standpoint its huge and maybe in this format Canon will move to a global shutter. Im not convinced from a video point of view about removing the OPLF whereas from a stills point it has a small advantage.
Sony has released its Venice movie camera which is full-frame (Vistavision or as close as), maybe if Canon go down this route they can develop reiterations of a sensor just as Sony has done.

Unless the lens optics can extend significantly into the mount then the penalty would not be as large. Canon couldn't do this before because of the mirror would interfere, but with mirrorless, this could be an option. If one brings a bag full of lenses (especially telephoto lenses), then it makes sense to have the increased distance on the camera side rather than having multiple lenses incurring the penalty (assuming one travels with more lenses than bodies).

It doesn't matter how far the lens optics extends into the mount. There are two issues - flange focal distance and throat diameter.

The flange focal distance, which is the distance from the first (nearest) lens element to the sensor, not the mirror, which does not lengthen that measurement. You can see with Sony G-Master lenses that in order to do big aperture pro lenses, Sony had to extend the flange focal distance back to exactly where it was before, making the distance from the sensor to the last glass element no shorter on E mount than A mount (or EF).

The reason EFS and EFM and MFT shorten the flange focal distance is because it's a smaller sensor.

Then there's the throat diameter, which is much smaller on E-mount and EFM than it is on EF or EFS. This gives you the potential of much smaller lenses, with two caveats: First, there's no voodoo black magic to optical formulae that allows you to shrink front glass elements yet still allow the same amount of light, so at best, you end up with more conical shaped lenses (since each lens element can be a smaller as light converges towards the sensor). So, the size savings comes mostly in the small aperture lenses, where the front element can be small.

And then there's the wide angle issue -- because the throat is very small, very wide angle lenses are challenging to build. That's why E-Mount 16-35/2.8 took so long for Sony to build, and why ultrawides like Canon's rectilinear 11-24mm may never exist for it.

And finally, other lens manufacturers (sigma or tamron, can't recall which) have complained that small throat diameter makes IBIS compatibility an issue, since the sensor needs extra space to move around.

 

[Buck]

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.

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.

you need to keep the champagne spray out

 

[neuroanatomist]

The Sony FE 55/1.8 is about the same size and weight as the Canon 50/1.4

You lost me at Canon 50/1.4.

I asked about lenses of a similar quality!

I understand. When your bluff is called and you're shown to be incorrect, it can be hard to admit that you were wrong.

 

[privatebydesign]

then there's the wide angle issue -- because the throat is very small, very wide angle lenses are challenging to build. That's why E-Mount 16-35/2.8 took so long for Sony to build, and why ultrawides like Canon's rectilinear 11-24mm may never exist for it.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1338517-REG/sony_sel1224g_fe_12_24mm_f_4_g.html ?