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

[Deleted member 378875]

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.

I too find it utterly extraordinary how many people are discussing the mount, size and weight.

I would have thought it extremely likely that that Canon will release a camera which looks, feels and mounts something like the 5D/6D, simply to ensure that their customer base don't jump brand when they jump technology.

Nothing to do with technical reasons : just plain commercial common sense.

The change will simply be from DSLR to either EVF-only or an outside chance of EFV+OVF.

The challenge to Canon is provide a competitive mirrorless offering ... and, assuming no drop in image quality or other features, that will revolve around the quality of the viewfinder and its feature-advantages.

If they produce a camera which matches the 5D4 in every way but adds the advantage of being able to see (and zoom ?) the exposure in the EVF as you suggest (and perhaps flip between OVF/EVF if we are super-lucky) and add $200 to the price of a 5D4 then I think everyone will let out a sigh of relief. Any bells and whistles like eye-focus and some of us will be dancing !





And surely the main issue here is about the viewfinder !

 

[Yasko]

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.

Well, buy a M5 oO.
FF is about image quality. Image quality comes with superior lens quality that allows for small DoF and with that also large apertures and low light capability with fast shutter speeds while keeping ISO low. Everyone knows that sensors get better and apertures may decrease, still bigger apertures are the non plus ultra and with that comes weight and a need for bodies that are usable with heavier lenses.

EF-M is compact and may offer more bright primes in the future... just not FF (yet).
Thats one way to see it...

 

[kurt765]

A native EF mount 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.

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.

So the #1 thing is to throw out all size / lens design advantages that a shorter flange distance could offer? So all you are doing is taking the space where the mirror is and replacing it with useless empty space? Then you might as well keep a mirror because having a bunch of empty space is stupid. There should absolutely be a new lens mount so that you can have something like the Sony EF 12-24 which is incredibly small and lightweight due to the advantages possible with that shorter lens mount. Because it's a Canon camera, you can have a native EF adapter that has *NO LOSS OF PERFORMANCE* with EF lenses because they can work out any kinks. Thus, people who want to just use EF glass can keep that adapter on forever and then you basically have what you are after with a bunch of advantages you won't use but other people will.

No adapters! 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.

Your personal dislike of adapters is not a valid reason to throw away a whole pile of advantages and increased capabilities made readily available by short flange distance.

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.

This section reads as "I don't see much use for adapting other lenses so why should anyone else?" which is frankly baffling. Again, I don't see why a native Canon made EF adapter could not be done such that full native EF lens performance you are used to is maintained, so your complaint seems moot.

Adapters are lazy.

Nothing could be lazier than the sentiment that having to attach and never remove an EF adapter once to meet your own personal narrow view of what a Canon mirrorless camera would be is reason enough to throw out all the potential that having a different lens mount could bring.

Size and weight? 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.
If you remove the mirror and shutter assembly, you’re going to naturally reduce weight.

If you keep the flange distance at EF mount, then you're not going to gain much in size reduction. Sure you can save on some weight possibly by no prism and mirror, but then you are going to have an electronic viewfinder that will balance that out some. I think the gains would be minimal, just like an A7r3 is not *that* much lighter than DSLR bodies. Also, you know mirrorless cameras have a shutter still, right?

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.

Whatever. I don't think the Rebel is a worthy point of comparison on many levels. In the end we won't know what a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera weighs because hopefully Canon wont' make one with that lens mount.

EVF The EVF has to be the best in the business. Period. No skimping on parts and manufacturing here Canon.

Ok sure. I'm sure Canon will listen, just like they have been so attentive about sensor quality for all these years compared to the competition.

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.

So basically you want a 5D IV let's say, slightly smaller, with and EVF instead of a mirror/prism..... and that's it. No thanks. Given that after all this time Canon still only has *one* modern sensor (5D4) I'm not harboring high hopes that Canon will produce something amazing.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The reason we will see a mirrorless FF body is that they are cheaper to make, and sell for a higher price.

The cost to manufacture a product like this is basically one of part count, the electronics and sensor are the same, but the mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, sub mirror lens, AF sensor, focus screen, eyepiece all go away, only the EVF is added.

So, if there is a market, money is out there waiting to be scooped up. We will see one because customers want it, its just a matter of what will sell best. Canon is very good at figuring that out.

 

[geekyrocketguy]

A native EF mount 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.

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.

So the #1 thing is to throw out all size / lens design advantages that a shorter flange distance could offer? So all you are doing is taking the space where the mirror is and replacing it with useless empty space? Then you might as well keep a mirror because having a bunch of empty space is stupid. There should absolutely be a new lens mount so that you can have something like the Sony EF 12-24 which is incredibly small and lightweight due to the advantages possible with that shorter lens mount. Because it's a Canon camera, you can have a native EF adapter that has *NO LOSS OF PERFORMANCE* with EF lenses because they can work out any kinks. Thus, people who want to just use EF glass can keep that adapter on forever and then you basically have what you are after with a bunch of advantages you won't use but other people will.

No adapters! 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.

Your personal dislike of adapters is not a valid reason to throw away a whole pile of advantages and increased capabilities made readily available by short flange distance.

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.

This section reads as "I don't see much use for adapting other lenses so why should anyone else?" which is frankly baffling. Again, I don't see why a native Canon made EF adapter could not be done such that full native EF lens performance you are used to is maintained, so your complaint seems moot.

Adapters are lazy.

Nothing could be lazier than the sentiment that having to attach and never remove an EF adapter once to meet your own personal narrow view of what a Canon mirrorless camera would be is reason enough to throw out all the potential that having a different lens mount could bring.

Size and weight? 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.
If you remove the mirror and shutter assembly, you’re going to naturally reduce weight.

If you keep the flange distance at EF mount, then you're not going to gain much in size reduction. Sure you can save on some weight possibly by no prism and mirror, but then you are going to have an electronic viewfinder that will balance that out some. I think the gains would be minimal, just like an A7r3 is not *that* much lighter than DSLR bodies. Also, you know mirrorless cameras have a shutter still, right?

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.

Whatever. I don't think the Rebel is a worthy point of comparison on many levels. In the end we won't know what a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera weighs because hopefully Canon wont' make one with that lens mount.

EVF The EVF has to be the best in the business. Period. No skimping on parts and manufacturing here Canon.

Ok sure. I'm sure Canon will listen, just like they have been so attentive about sensor quality for all these years compared to the competition.

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.

So basically you want a 5D IV let's say, slightly smaller, with and EVF instead of a mirror/prism..... and that's it. No thanks. Given that after all this time Canon still only has *one* modern sensor (5D4) I'm not harboring high hopes that Canon will produce something amazing.

Kurt is 100% right. Having a DSLR without the mirror gives NO ADVANTAGES. A mirrorless camera using a new mount but WITH AN ADAPTER enables both new, small, sharp lenses, and also access to the legacy lenses in the EF mount.

 

[Jack Douglas]

"Kurt is 100% right. Having a DSLR without the mirror gives NO ADVANTAGES."

Even I know this statement is false, i.e. shutter noise. What is clear though is that one flavour will not suit everyone's needs. Sure a very small camera is great for some situations, but not for others, it's not one size fits all.

It will be very interesting to see what happens.

Jack

 

[slclick]

It's not what we want. It seems only Mt. Spokane has grasped that. (Although they better make it big but light because it's what I want.)

 

[blackcoffee17]

If the mirrorless will be a high-end/pro model i don't see Canon using adapters, only a native EF mount or a new mount. Adapters have tolerance problems, they are not a professional solution.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So the #1 thing is to throw out all size / lens design advantages that a shorter flange distance could offer? So all you are doing is taking the space where the mirror is and replacing it with useless empty space?

Well, empty space helps with heat dissipation...but it's not like that's been a problem for Sony. Oh, wait.....

Or maybe some of that space could hold a high-capacity battery. No, that's also useless, Sony's a7 series is renowned for excellent battery life. Oops, I did it again......

In any case, welcome to the forums!

 

[kurt765]

If the mirrorless will be a high-end/pro model i don't see Canon using adapters, only a native EF mount or a new mount. Adapters have tolerance problems, they are not a professional solution.

Then if Canon wants to offer an EF mount mirrorless body then that should be only one possible option, and not the only option. Canon could have engineers solve tolerance problems by having a very secure locking mount for an adapter, if they so chose. I don't think a native Canon to Canon adapter made by Canon should be regarded with the same ire as cheap cross-platform mounts made in China rightly are with regard to tolerances. And regardless, there are plenty of people that use adapters of all sorts of lenses successfully. I have not had problems adapting my Canon glass onto my Sony bodies, but I also don't put unrealistic expectations on cross platform adaptability either.

So the #1 thing is to throw out all size / lens design advantages that a shorter flange distance could offer? So all you are doing is taking the space where the mirror is and replacing it with useless empty space?

Well, empty space helps with heat dissipation...but it's not like that's been a problem for Sony. Oh, wait.....

Or maybe some of that space could hold a high-capacity battery. No, that's also useless, Sony's a7 series is renowned for excellent battery life. Oops, I did it again......

In any case, welcome to the forums!

Battery issue has been addressed in newer cameras (a9, a7r3) that now exist prior to any Canon mirrorless camera. Also, I'm not sure what heat problems you speak of for most people who use Sony cameras. I have never had any issue with mine, but I'm also not using still cameras as video cameras all the time either. I have several Sony camera bodies and used to be a Canon only shooter. On a recent week long trip I didn't even take my 5D4 out of the bag. Based on my own experience, I see nothing in a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera concept presented here that is going to woo me back full on to Canon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Based on my own experience, I see nothing in a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera concept presented here that is going to woo me back full on to Canon.

It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.

 

[kurt765]

It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.

So Canon wins as they have pretty much lost a customer (me)? Not sure how losing customers is a win for them. I can think of about 10 people that I know who are also pretty much former Canon shooters now shooting mostly or completely Sony mirrorless, but if none of that matters to Canon then good for them. May they continue to lose customers until such a time as it drives them to make better products.

 

[geekyrocketguy]

Even I know this statement is false, i.e. shutter noise. What is clear though is that one flavour will not suit everyone's needs. Sure a very small camera is great for some situations, but not for others, it's not one size fits all.

It will be very interesting to see what happens.

Jack

If you want a quiet shutter, you can accomplish that with a current camera just by using Live View. You don't need to entirely get rid of the mirror.

 

[unfocused]

If you want a quiet shutter, you can accomplish that with a current camera just by using Live View. You don't need to entirely get rid of the mirror.

This isn't really a valid argument. You can't look through a viewfinder if you are shooting in live view, so with a DSLR you have to choose between silent shutter and viewfinder, you can't have both.

 

[slclick]

It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.

So Canon wins as they have pretty much lost a customer (me)? Not sure how losing customers is a win for them. I can think of about 10 people that I know who are also pretty much former Canon shooters now shooting mostly or completely Sony mirrorless, but if none of that matters to Canon then good for them. May they continue to lose customers until such a time as it drives them to make better products.

Frequently we run into that same issue...where a forum member believes their choices should mirror Canon's marketing teams strategy. Another is when tiny slices of the pie chart believe their experiences represent Canon's customer base. Regionally as well, this logic can be applied time and time again. It may be ego, it may be one's standing in their local photographic community, whatever, it's a lot of assuming.

Why don't they make it the way I want (Stupid Canon) This comes up in a multitude of ways, i.e. 4k, ergonomics, frame rate, codec, battery life/size, size and weight...on and on and before you know it some folks here change their profile picture as a rallying call to a particular future product.

They could lose us all, each and every forum member and everyone we all know who owns Canon and they would still have global market dominance.

Use what you want, wish for what you want but the whining? The proclamations that some know better than Canon?
-Kickstarter is waiting for you and we all cannot wait to see what do it all camera you've dreamed up for us to back. (Is that how we got the Lytro?)

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.

So Canon wins as they have pretty much lost a customer (me)? Not sure how losing customers is a win for them. I can think of about 10 people that I know who are also pretty much former Canon shooters now shooting mostly or completely Sony mirrorless, but if none of that matters to Canon then good for them. May they continue to lose customers until such a time as it drives them to make better products.

Sorry, but your personal opinion is contradicted by reality. If it's any consolation, you're far from unique on these forums, in that respect. Plenty of members believe their opinion, and in many cases they, themselves, represent the majority of the ILC market. Of course, you could differentiate yourself from the rest of them by accepting reality – many here can't seem to make that leap, preferring to exist in their own, private world where their opinion is universal.

In this specific case, in spite of you and the 10 other people you know who've switched from Canon to Sony, over the past few years Canon has gained ILC market share. Considering just mirrorless...in Japan (the largest geographical market for MILCs and the only one for which we have brand-specific market data), Canon is #2 in sales...behind Olympus, with Sony at #3.

Hopefully those data provide some needed perspective on the current ILC market, and the relative importance (by which I mean lack thereof) of Sony FF MILCs therein.

 

[Matthew Saville]

If you want a quiet shutter, you can accomplish that with a current camera just by using Live View. You don't need to entirely get rid of the mirror.

This isn't really a valid argument. You can't look through a viewfinder if you are shooting in live view, so with a DSLR you have to choose between silent shutter and viewfinder, you can't have both.

This issue could easily be resolved with a LCD loupe. Most cinematographers already shoot this way, if they even want their camera "to their eye" at all. And if you think it's too impractical to have such a large thing at the back of the camera, there are certainly ways to shrink it and still allow the eye to focus on the screen. That's how an EVF works already.

 

[jayphotoworks]

If you want a quiet shutter, you can accomplish that with a current camera just by using Live View. You don't need to entirely get rid of the mirror.

This isn't really a valid argument. You can't look through a viewfinder if you are shooting in live view, so with a DSLR you have to choose between silent shutter and viewfinder, you can't have both.

This issue could easily be resolved with a LCD loupe. Most cinematographers already shoot this way, if they even want their camera "to their eye" at all. And if you think it's too impractical to have such a large thing at the back of the camera, there are certainly ways to shrink it and still allow the eye to focus on the screen. That's how an EVF works already.

I definitely don't shoot this way on mirrorless. I simply put my eye up to the EVF which replicates the UX on the back LCD. On a DSLR with a loupe, you will also lose the operation of the touch screen, meaning it needs a quick disconnect or flipaway obstructing the operation of the camera in VF mode.

 

[BillB]

If Canon releases a FF mirrorless, Canon will still keep producing FF DSLRs with EF mounts as long as people are willing to buy them, which in my opinion while be quite a while. So, there will continue to be new cameras for sale that can use EF lenses without adapters.

If Canon's FF mirrorless has a new mount that requires an adapter to use EF lenses, then new mount would have value only to the extent that Canon is producing new lenses that capitalize on the advantages of the new mount. To get value from the new mount, customers would have to purchase these hypothetical new lenses that capitalize on the new mount. A suite of these hypothetical lenses would no doubt be quite pricey, so people with EF lenses would tend to buy another DSLR rather than a FF mirrorless, or simply stick with what they have.


I think Canon's first FF mirrorless will have an EF mount.

 

[unfocused]

It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.

So Canon wins as they have pretty much lost a customer (me)? Not sure how losing customers is a win for them. I can think of about 10 people that I know who are also pretty much former Canon shooters now shooting mostly or completely Sony mirrorless, but if none of that matters to Canon then good for them. May they continue to lose customers until such a time as it drives them to make better products.

Frequently we run into that same issue...where a forum member believes their choices should mirror Canon's marketing teams strategy. Another is when tiny slices of the pie chart believe their experiences represent Canon's customer base. ...

...Use what you want, wish for what you want but the whining? The proclamations that some know better than Canon?
-Kickstarter is waiting for you and we all cannot wait to see what do it all camera you've dreamed up for us to back...

Good points. Adding: too many forum members fail to understand either churn rate or diminishing returns.

There will naturally be some churn in any business, especially one as large as Canon. Someone may know 10-15 people who have left Canon, but there are another 10-15 leaving Sony for Canon. It's not a one-way street and some customers switch back and forth. It's the aggregate numbers that matter and the evidence is pretty clear that Canon is holding it's own in the aggregate.

People also fail to understand the diminishing returns of trying to retain every customer. Canon has to decide if keeping kurt765 is worth the investment. Some customers just aren't worth it.

Many of us here on the forum are loyal customers that Canon can keep so long as they keep up their quality and service and offer interesting products to us on a regular basis. Those who are disgruntled with Canon and demanding products specific to their personal wants may not be worth retaining. If they can keep 98% of their customers happy with an investment of $X dollars, and it will cost 3 x $X to capture the remaining 2%, it's just not worth the added investment. It's not personal, it's just business.