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

[Talys]

Adapter-Angst really is very irrational.

If I can accept that there are people who are just fine with adapters without thinking that they're being irrational, you should have the same courtesy towards people who have a different opinion -- or priorities -- as you.

I'm with CR guy. I hate adapters for current lenses and current cameras. It won't happen. Either I'll go with the new mount and new camera, or I'll stick with my current mount and bodies for it. I respect that other people don't care one way or the other.

I'm also like him with respect to teleconverters - I don't like them. I'm more likely to buy the focal length I need than to add a teleconverter. The one exception is that if I'm packing light and will be doing a lot of 70-200, I'll take a 1.4x or 2x with me just in case I need telephoto.

This is a practical packing thing, where I only want to take small bag with 1 lens, and not carry anything extra, but want some extra length just in case. So on a thinktank holster or sling, for example, I can just tuck an extender at the bottom, and just know that it's there.

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 ?

I wasn't aware of this lens. Thank you for pointing it out!

 

[asl]

...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.

It would not necessarily need to be usable as video if garbing frames from it is the purpose.
If the alternative is taking stills you will not have a video any way.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Oh, ok. Then I guess Nikon sucks at lens design, because their (rumored) FF MILC mount will be only 3 mm wider in diameter than the Sony E-mount, and it's actually got a 2mm shallower FFD.

 

[rrcphoto]

why would canon follow Sony's mistake and repeat it?

For all the internet hype Sony has yet after 6 years of mirrorless managed to get back to the marketshare levels they were before they started this adventure.

Their A mount marketshare has been reduced to rounding error.

there's only a finite amount of lenses Canon can build in a year, a new mount, like it did for Sony would spell the end of EF mount lens development. that's also why they haven't done many EF-M lenses, because they still consider the EF mount the primary focus.

When Canon had the FD mount, it was deemed inadequate to support electronic interconnects and AF. they had to switch the mount.

in this case, there's very little that canon would care about to need a switch of a lens mount and spend millions upon millions of research into new lens designs, when their entire patent portfolio is based upon a ~40-44 back focus distance.

people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?

 

[rrcphoto]

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.

Oh, ok. Then I guess Nikon sucks at lens design, because their (rumored) FF MILC mount will be only 3 mm wider in diameter than the Sony E-mount, and it's actually got a 2mm shallower FFD.

to be honest, it's rumored and it really depends on the filter stack to how well it will work.

 

[vangelismm]

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.

Ok, lets think about new mount.

What about the actual aps-c mirrorless, EF-m? Became gimmick?
Because EF-m will require a new adapter to this mirrrorless FF mount lens.
They did not choose this path with aps-c DSLR.
Cant see Canon doing this now.
It is easier go Sony router and squeeze FF sensor on the EF-m.

 

[3dit0r]

why would canon follow Sony's mistake and repeat it?

For all the internet hype Sony has yet after 6 years of mirrorless managed to get back to the marketshare levels they were before they started this adventure.

Their A mount marketshare has been reduced to rounding error.

there's only a finite amount of lenses Canon can build in a year, a new mount, like it did for Sony would spell the end of EF mount lens development. that's also why they haven't done many EF-M lenses, because they still consider the EF mount the primary focus.

When Canon had the FD mount, it was deemed inadequate to support electronic interconnects and AF. they had to switch the mount.

in this case, there's very little that canon would care about to need a switch of a lens mount and spend millions upon millions of research into new lens designs, when their entire patent portfolio is based upon a ~40-44 back focus distance.

people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?

Actually, after most of a day to think about it, I've come to the conclusion that the OP is correct about retaining the EF lens mount. I was on the fence before, but having been a Sony mirrorless user, one thing which always struck me was that for the same speed and quality, i.e. comparing like for like, Sony FF lenses were really no different size/weight wise to Canon equivalents. So, bearing that in mind, what is the sense in Canon adopting a new FF mount when they have a vast catalogue of great lenses.

The flange distance? Who cares. Once you factor in a decent grip, as Sony have increasingly done, the depth of the camera isn't that different overall. The mirror box going allows for a decrease in height, which is useful, but you want an ergonomically nice camera, especially balancing with FF lenses. It's the weight difference which getting rid of the mirror and associated components allows which is particularly useful. If they get within 50g of Sony A9, they'll be all good.

So yep, on reflection, native EF mount all the way.

 

[LDS]

it allowed them to design not-monstrously big f/1.2 and even f/1.0 lens/es as well as very compact lenses

Just like the FD 50/1.2L? 52mm filters instead of 72mm!!

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/fd/50mm-f12-L.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm

There were sound reasons to move to the EF mount, especially regarding AF (and later IS) needs and fully electronic coupling - but, still, the FD mount allowed many of the lenses you still see today...

 

[mb66energy]

I will buy a FF mirrorless only WITH the possibility to use
- FD lenses

Why Canon should be interested in lenses it stopped to make thirty years ago (and which needs mechanical couplings to transfer settings from/to the camera), while making its actual remunerative line more cumbersome to use? Companies follow a business logic - not only a technical or nostalgic one. A new camera has to sell itself and its related products - lenses especially.

And I write this owning several FD lenses which I still happily use on my FD cameras.

I am interested using FD lenses and companies make cameras for customers to satisfy their needs if ... IF ... it gives them the chance to make money.

You have omitted two further reasons and I will give you a fourth reason for a mount with smaller flange distance mentioned by a lot of others: Lenses with lens elements near the sensor to enhance IQ / get very good IQ at lower prices. Mostly in the (ultra)wide range.

 

[Random Orbits]

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.

My point was how Canon could compete to produce smaller camera/lens combos if it retains the EF mount. LEICA has fast glass that is smaller than EF lenses at the wide/normal focal lengths. It has rear elements that are closer to the sensor than the distance between the EF mount and the sensor. My point is now Canon could consider putting more optical elements behind the lens mount because it can INTRUDE into the space more now that it will be mirrorless. This has more benefit at the wider focal lengths.

For example, the Canon 11-24 is 2.5 lb, 4.3" diameter and 5.6" long. The Sigma 12-24 is also 2.5 lb, 4" diameter and 5.6" long. In contrast, the Sony FE 12-24 is 1.2 lb, 3.4" diameter and 4.6" long. Lighter, smaller diameter and shorter length.

 

[LDS]

The flange focal distance, which is the distance from the first (nearest) lens element to the sensor,

No, it's the distance from the mounting flange (ring) plane to the sensor plane, and it's a fixed distance set in stone when a lens mount is designed. All lenses then needs to take it into account if they want to be able to focus at infinity.

The nearest lens element can be before or after it - of course if there's a mirror behind the flange, the rear element can't protrude inside the camera much, or the mirror will hit it when actuated.

Before retrofocus design became commong, UWA needed to lock the mirror up and then mount the lens (see, for example, the Canon FL 19/3.5).

 

[The Fat Fish]

It has to have a good 4K video implementation too. Canon are the only company who care so little about sub £7000 4K video. The 5DIV's 1.74x crop 4K with horrific motion JPEG was a good sign of this and the 6DII's lack of 4K all together was the final straw for most.

Spec's wise the A7RIII is the mirrorless benchmark.

14.8 Stops of DR
IBIS
FF 4K video and 1.5x sharper video
10 FPS
$3300

Canon need to come pretty close.

 

[midluk]

Introducing a new FF mirrorless mount would likely kill EF mount lens sales and resale value. Canon could always introduce a new mount after giving its first FF mirroless an EF mount, but going back to EF after introducing a new mount would likely not work.

An additional benefit of a new shorter mount I can see would be the possibility to design tilt-shift lenses with a bigger maximum tilt (good for macro). But this would need a relatively large throat diameter which would not help with small size lenses and bodies.
And if new lenses are designed for it this might also allow for IBIS. But Canon would likely only allow it for new lenses and not for adapted EF lenses with an unsuitably small image circle, so this would be of limited benefit.

My preferred first step would be a DSLR with additional detachable EVF (or hybrid in one VF, but that is difficult without getting light losses resulting in a dim image). My main use of the EVF would be to get completely silent shooting with the mirror locked up and electronic shutter.

 

[jayphotoworks]

why would canon follow Sony's mistake and repeat it?

For all the internet hype Sony has yet after 6 years of mirrorless managed to get back to the marketshare levels they were before they started this adventure.

Their A mount marketshare has been reduced to rounding error.

there's only a finite amount of lenses Canon can build in a year, a new mount, like it did for Sony would spell the end of EF mount lens development. that's also why they haven't done many EF-M lenses, because they still consider the EF mount the primary focus.

When Canon had the FD mount, it was deemed inadequate to support electronic interconnects and AF. they had to switch the mount.

in this case, there's very little that canon would care about to need a switch of a lens mount and spend millions upon millions of research into new lens designs, when their entire patent portfolio is based upon a ~40-44 back focus distance.

people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?

This is exactly why Canon should deliver an EF mount mirrorless body.

First off, many pros are already shooting fast primes and workhorse zooms. The body size isn't a real factor relative to the glass they shoot on. If Canon released an EF mount mirrorless body targeted to pros, this audience will probably never have a pancake or 28-70 variable kit zoom on it. Size and weight isn't #1 on their list.

Secondly, Canon could deliver this camera optimized for the EF mount and not go the adapter route which has always resulted in sub-par performance with legacy glass even with Canon's own M series. On my Sony bodies, every time I go back and forth between a native Sony lens and a Canon lens, I have to juggle both the adapter and the lenses.

Lastly, no waiting for new glass. Canon's large repertoire of EF glass is immediately accessible. I use my 24-105 II a lot for outdoor event work, and I use it on my A9 as well because Sony didn't have a 24-105 lens at the time. If Canon brought out a new body tomorrow with a new mount, you are at least 2+ years out before you will even have a stable of decent focal lengths. Look at how long the other competitors took. Sony's 24-105 just came out a month ago.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am interested using FD lenses and companies make cameras for customers to satisfy their needs if ... IF ... it gives them the chance to make money.

If the needs in question applies to a sub-miniscule fraction of the target market, most companies don't give a damn about satisfying them.

 

[photorockies]

Mirrorless cameras seem to have one and only one reason for existence--a small, lightweight alternative to bigger, heavier DSLRS. A slightly smaller camera that mounts heavy EF mounts is worthless to me. Want to mount an 85 1.4 or 500 f4? Buy a 5DMK4 or 1DXMKII or suck it up and use an adapter. The camera must have a new lightweight lens mount and should be designed with landscape and street shooters in mind. This means high image quality, a good viewfinder, and smaller lenses with f 2.8-f4 maximum apertures with perhaps one ultra wide angle at f2 for astro shooters. There should be no AA filter. A few controls such as ISO, exposure compensation and drive mode should be easy to set with buttons. The rest can be menu driven.

 

[dak723]

Mirrorless cameras seem to have one and only one reason for existence--a small, lightweight alternative to bigger, heavier DSLRS.

It is kind of funny how after a zillion threads on FF mirrorless - and 7 pages in this particular thread, people keep saying this. I can understand how many folks associate smaller with mirrorless, but that is because most mirrorless cameras are 4/3rds or aps-c size. At FF the camera (with lenses especially) will not be much smaller. The main reasons to choose mirrorless now seem to be: Seeing the exposure in the EVF, getting potentially many more FPS shooting, no AFMA for your lenses, among other things.

Four years ago, I would never have thought I would prefer mirrorless to a DSLR - especially due to the EVF vs. OVF. Now, my two cameras are mirrorless because once I could view exposure setting in the EVF, this became the single biggest reason to choose mirrorless. I don't care about fps, or all the video bells and whistles (focus peakig, zebras, etc.). This one feature is enough if a difference for me in choosing mirrorless.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Mirrorless cameras seem to have one and only one reason for existence--a small, lightweight alternative to bigger, heavier DSLRS.

You are describing the current situation, but prior history does not always correspond to future directions. As mirrorless cameras first entered the ILC market, that market was completely dominated by Canon and Nikon dSLRs. I wonder how much of the current market dynamic has been driven by mirrorless manufacturers trying to penetrate the market by making something that dSLRs aren't. Recall that Sony used to make dSLRs, but abandoned them to focus on MILCs because they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon. Conversely, as the market leader Canon already has all of the market penetration they need (of course they'd like more, but…). They're not trying to take business away from the big boys, they are the big boy. So, rather than make something different…they may be better off making something familiar, namely an MILC with the ergonomics of their dSLRs. At least, that could certainly apply to the full frame market segment.

Just some food for thought.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?

Canon already has a patent for a new FF mirrorless mount and EF adapter, it came out 2 or 3 years back. There is a issue with a shorter lens to sensor distance that Canon has been trying to solve thru different designs for their dual pixel sensors, also a couple of patents discussing the issue.

The problem is the angle of the light rays toward the edges of the sensor means you lose even more light than the EF mount. To compensate, you must boost the gain of the outer photo sensors even more. That increases noise and reduces resolution. You definitely pay for the short flange back distance in IQ.

 

[Jack Douglas]

"It is kind of funny how after a zillion threads on FF mirrorless - and 7 pages in this particular thread, people keep saying this."

I know next to nothing on this topic but even I had to laugh. I read CR for the humour.

Jack