What will be the mirrorless full-frame mount?

[Zv]

I think it's possible we might see two versions though I voted for EF-M mount as I think we'd see that first. My thinking is they won't go all in and replace their DSLR lineup with EF mirrorless until they have a viable working solution with A solid EVF.

I think they're slowly experimenting, first with APS-C to test the water and maybe next step is to try FF in the EF-M mount to maximize use of that mount and finally go all out with everything in the lineup mirrorless. But that's just one possible path, I'll bet they have alternative paths lined up and ready to go depending on their market research and market reactions to mirrorless in general.

Look at the evolution of the EOS M and we see it go from a compact style body to a traditional DSLR style of ergonomics in the latest version. It could be and indication.

 

[ahsanford]

I think it's possible we might see two versions though I voted for EF-M mount as I think we'd see that first. My thinking is they won't go all in and replace their DSLR lineup with EF mirrorless until they have a viable working solution with A solid EVF.

Replace their DSLR lineup with mirrorless?! That is a much further out proposition.

IMHO, there is zero chance Canon's first FF mirrorless is a straight swap for a current FF SLR line. Forget mounts or cannibalization, it will be an inferior product to the corresponding SLR it has similar features to, so to a devoted multi-generational 5D2, 5D3, 5D4 owner, a mirrorless 5D4 will be a takeway rather than an add (with current batteries, current EVF tech, current responsiveness, etc.).

So I see Canon's first FF mirrorless (interchangeable) option being an altogether new brand sold alongside SLRs.

Over time, of course, that could change. But the idea that a 5DS2 or 5D5 will be mirrorless only is nuts. A 5DS4 or 5D7, maybe, but certainly not the next model of each.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass.

Can you share some examples of compact, native f/2.8 zoom lenses for MILC systems?

 

[Random Orbits]

Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass. ONLY when using fat large glass the package will be large. All other times it will be compact and light.

I shoot 99% of my images with focal lengths available as nice compact native short-flange back lenses on a very compact mirrorless cam. 99% of the time I want to have a package as small and light as possible. The other 1% of the time I use EF glass and then don't mind taking along the small adapter. I do not want a FF MILC with an ugly EF-nozzle sticking out in front nor with an ugly bulky pseudo-prism hump on top. I bet the vast majority of photographers/enthusiasts/amateur (potential MILC buyers) out there has a very similar usage pattern.

Why should Canon use a design that does not allow to leverage size advantage of mirrorless cameras and that will not allow them to sell millions of new, native "EF-X" lenses over many years to come? I bet, Canon will go exactly the same route Sony has taken. Small cameras, small glass where possible, large glass where needed. No NOZZLE cam.

And that is why the M's have been getting larger in size?! M3 is bigger than M1/M2 and M5 is bigger yet.

 

[ritholtz]

Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass.

Can you share some examples of compact, native f/2.8 zoom lenses for MILC systems?

There is 16-70 F4 lens for $900 with worst IQ than $100 24mm f2.8 lens. This is the lens Sony showing as kit lens option for A6500. Sony doesn't have f2.8mm common walk around lens. Most of the people recommended me getting 18-105 power zoom lens which is again $500. Every lens is going to be anywhere between 2x to 4x compared to lens available for Canon crop cameras. That is the biggest problem with Sony so far.

 

[Don Haines]

Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass. ONLY when using fat large glass the package will be large. All other times it will be compact and light.

The F number of the lens is the focal length divided by the aperture width..... well, not quite.... throw in a few mm of aperture width for IS and you are there...

This is the same if you are shooting on a 4/3 camera, a Canon crop, a Nikon FF, or an 8x10 camera onto glass plates. If you want (for example) a 50mm F1.4 lens you need that same width of the front piece of glass regardless of what the camera behind it is.

If you want to make that lens smaller in diameter, you are going to have to make it with a higher F number. Mathematics has spoken. There is no argument.

If you want to make the lens shorter, that is a different problem and one that is (relatively) easy to do, but typically at the expense of image quality. You want a shorter lens, design the optics to bend the light sharper..... the problem with that is, bend the light sharper and the chromatic aberration goes wild and the falloff in sharpness from center to edge of the image becomes severe.

The idea of a small fast "M" lens for shorter lengths (under 40 mm) is very practical and could be done, but the image quality will be lacking.... A small fast lens longer than that is an impossibility.

 

[meywd]

I voted for EF all the way, as I think its the cheaper option for Canon, but I think Canon may go with the first FF mirrorless as a fixed lens one

 

[Zv]

I think it's possible we might see two versions though I voted for EF-M mount as I think we'd see that first. My thinking is they won't go all in and replace their DSLR lineup with EF mirrorless until they have a viable working solution with A solid EVF.

Replace their DSLR lineup with mirrorless?! That is a much further out proposition.

IMHO, there is zero chance Canon's first FF mirrorless is a straight swap for a current FF SLR line. Forget mounts or cannibalization, it will be an inferior product to the corresponding SLR it has similar features to, so to a devoted multi-generational 5D2, 5D3, 5D4 owner, a mirrorless 5D4 will be a takeway rather than an add (with current batteries, current EVF tech, current responsiveness, etc.).

So I see Canon's first FF mirrorless (interchangeable) option being an altogether new brand sold alongside SLRs.

Over time, of course, that could change. But the idea that a 5DS2 or 5D5 will be mirrorless only is nuts. A 5DS4 or 5D7, maybe, but certainly not the next model of each.

- A

Not quite what I was saying. I meant somewhere in the far future. As for "first FF mirrorless" I voted EF-M mount. The replacement of the DSLR line was one possible scenario in an imaginary future. I think Canon are still figuring out what that future will be.

 

[AvTvM]

Some seem to not have read or understood correctly what I stated. So one more attempt:

Canon should make FF MILCs asap. They may produce BIG models, no problem. For me however, I would like to get a Canon FF MILC "as compact as possible". Ideal size/form factor would be Sony RX1R II, clean shape with pop-up EVF, but with Canon lens mount up front, no nozzle, no hump. Maximum acceptable FF MILC size to me would be Sony A7 (1st gen, not Mk. II).

I could go small and light with it 99% of the time, using compact primes and zooms with *relatively modest* f-number and decent IQ. An EF-X 16-35/4 IS smaller than the EF-variant would be perfectly fine with me. Same for EF-X 24-70/4 IS.

Or primes ... 20/4 for landscape/architecture/indoor, 35/2.0 and 50/1.8 for walkabout, in door, people and a 85/2.4 IS for portraits ... can all be built VERY compact and light. And those who absolutely must have f/1.2 lenses .. fine, buy a new, big, fat expensive "EF-X" lens or continue to use your EF lenses with a compact, simple adapter. And for those occasions where a (super) tele or a TS lens is needed, we will use our EF glass for many years, until we eventually also switch to EF-X glass ... which of course will be big as well, but using DO and other "optical tricks" they might be smaller/lighter than today.

But we don't have to lug around big, heavy lenses and cameras all the time. Only when needed or desired. That is the size advantage of compact mirrorless camera systems.


btw. the Canon EF/EF-M adapter is mechanically solid without any flex and has a cleverly designed, detachable tripod foot. And it is not expensive. No problem to do the same with a future EF-X/EF adapter.

 

[Ozarker]

EF with great ergonomics so that large lenses can be handled and balanced comfortably. It won't be a "deck of cards" shaped monstrosity and not necessarily lightweight.

 

[Ozarker]

Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size.

Just like when CDs succeeded vinyl.

Superseded (so͞opərˈsēded)

 

[unfocused]

Some seem to not have read or understood correctly what I stated. So one more attempt:

Canon should make FF MILCs asap. They may produce BIG models, no problem. For me however, I would like to get a Canon FF MILC "as compact as possible". Ideal size/form factor would be Sony RX1R II, clean shape with pop-up EVF, but with Canon lens mount up front, no nozzle, no hump. Maximum acceptable FF MILC size to me would be Sony A7 (1st gen, not Mk. II)...

The only misunderstanding (or more accurately – disagreement) on my part is with the word "should."

You are expressing your preference, which is fine. But, I don't believe that there is any universal agreement that that is what Canon "should" do.

The original premise of this thread was to predict what Canon would do, without regard to what our individual desires might be. Like many others (the majority voting so far, although perhaps "many" is too strong a word given the tiny sample here) I don't see Canon producing a fourth mount, nor do I see them somehow Frankenstein-ing their EF-M or EF-S lenses to magically make them work on a full frame sensor.

I can definitely see them expanding their pancake lenses to make a few more small primes that will work on any full frame cameras, mirrorless or otherwise, and I even see them making a normal range zoom that is targeted to a mirrorless camera (but still using the EF mount). I just don't see them creating yet another mount, specifically for a full frame mirrorless and apparently Craig's sources are telling him the same.

No matter how many times we post about what we would like to see happen, it isn't going to make it happen and it doesn't mean Canon is stupid for not doing what we might wish they would do.

 

[aero1126]

I'm voted for full EF as the practical / cheaper call for Canon. I appreciate the market (seemingly) revolves around being smaller and lighter, but the minute you go long or go fast with a FF lens, the mirrorless size/weight savings seem to evaporate.

Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass. ONLY when using fat large glass the package will be large. All other times it will be compact and light.

I shoot 99% of my images with focal lengths available as nice compact native short-flange back lenses on a very compact mirrorless cam. 99% of the time I want to have a package as small and light as possible. The other 1% of the time I use EF glass and then don't mind taking along the small adapter. I do not want a FF MILC with an ugly EF-nozzle sticking out in front nor with an ugly bulky pseudo-prism hump on top. I bet the vast majority of photographers/enthusiasts/amateur (potential MILC buyers) out there has a very similar usage pattern.

Why should Canon use a design that does not allow to leverage size advantage of mirrorless cameras and that will not allow them to sell millions of new, native "EF-X" lenses over many years to come? I bet, Canon will go exactly the same route Sony has taken. Small cameras, small glass where possible, large glass where needed. No NOZZLE cam.

The thing is, there's MANY more reasons why they should keep the EF mount and a larger size rather than make it as small as possible like the a7r II.

Let's look at the pros and cons of Canon making a small size:

Pros:
1. When using SLOW lenses they can be smaller and lighter compared to an EF mount mirrorless.

Cons:
1. When using FAST lenses, which your professional wedding photographers or anyone taking pictures of things that are moving WILL be using, ends up being just has heavy and long if not heavier and longer than an EF mount mirrorless.

2. Because the fast lenses are heavier, if you are are carrying more than one fast lens (I can see quite a few, myself included, doing this) then now the weight of all of your gear is heavier since you're putting extra weight in multiple lenses rather than just one body.

3. Small body with a now heavier fast lens is super uncomfortable to use since the smaller body means there is less to grip on to. I'd say comfort of use is VERY important to those who are shooting long sessions, again, your professional photographers.

4. Less space for controls. a7r ii doesn't even have a focus point selector, not to mention multiple other buttons to quickly access a feature rather than going through menus.

5. Significantly lower battery life. After all, small body means less space for battery. For people doing a lot of shooting, a bigger battery is better. Especially if you are out in the cold.

6. Weather sealing. a7r ii isn't weather sealed, it will be bigger when/if they actually do that.

7. If current customers have to buy all new native glass to get the best IQ, they will be more likely to explore other manufacturers as they'd have to by new lenses anyway.

8. Canon will be further behind in lenses if they created a new mirrorless FF mount compared to the likes of Sony, further increases the chance of people switching.

Now with all of that being said, even a EF mirrorless WILL be SMALLER and LIGHTER than current DSLR's. By going mirrorless, you are still getting rid of the prism (decrease size and weight), getting rid of the mirrors (decrease weight) and getting rid of the dedicated AF assembly (decrease size and weight).

To put it blunt, Canon would be absolutely stupid to try to make a new mount for the smallest possible size just because SLOW lenses would make for a overall smaller package, especially when you keep in mind that most of the people buying their highest end cameras are professionals who love their fast glass.

 

[ahsanford]

To put it blunt, Canon would be absolutely stupid to try to make a new mount for the smallest possible size just because SLOW lenses would make for a overall smaller package, especially when you keep in mind that most of the people buying their highest end cameras are professionals who love their fast glass.

Good summary, largely agree with you.

But from my very unscientific scouting of interest across the internet, the 'keep it small' camp of FF mirrorless (i.e. "The whole point of mirrorless is to be smaller than a same-sensored SLR") is a very stubborn and nontrivial minority. I'm completely unscientifically going to peg this minority at about 1/3 to 1/2 of prospective FF mirrorless owners. Yes, only slow (and shorter FL) lenses will reward that camp for aggregate size/weight, but perhaps that's the draw -- a simple, small rig as a second body, for travel, for street, for walkaround, etc.

Further, there is a boutique/bougie/outside-of-the-normal-userbase clientele that have money in their pocket and want to wow / one-up the Instagram world. People who take the 'well packed' images like shown below are known to buy pricey cameras. These are folks that might swim in the Leica end of the market, but are eager to find a better value, something unique, etc. This camp does not want a big rig either. As much as the RX1R and Leica Q (and some time ago, the Nikon Df) were tailor-made for them, I've seen a number of them sporting A7 rigs and slapping some nutty kickstarter lens or old film lens on it.

The keep it small group may be a casualty of the 'all things considered, Canon should go big (appropriately sized) with FF mirrorless' for all the reasons you mentioned -- and leave the street shooters to Fuji and the smallest/bestest/firstest/bleeding-edge business to the Sony crowd.

But Canon (everyone, honestly) really wants that second group: trust-fund millenials who love to travel and have cash to burn. These people are an easy sale and don't run from premium pricing.

So as much I think they practically should go full EF (and that was my vote), I think their marketing folks may foolishly chase the squirrel on this and insist on a skinny mount for FF mirrorless + EF adapter. It would be the wrong call, IMHO.

- A

 

[aero1126]

To put it blunt, Canon would be absolutely stupid to try to make a new mount for the smallest possible size just because SLOW lenses would make for a overall smaller package, especially when you keep in mind that most of the people buying their highest end cameras are professionals who love their fast glass.

Good summary, largely agree with you.

But from my very unscientific scouting of interest across the internet, the 'keep it small' camp of FF mirrorless (i.e. "The whole point of mirrorless is to be smaller than a same-sensored SLR") is a very stubborn and nontrivial minority. I'm completely unscientifically going to peg this minority at about 1/3 to 1/2 of prospective FF mirrorless owners. Yes, only slow (and shorter FL) lenses will reward that camp for aggregate size/weight, but perhaps that's the draw -- a simple, small rig as a second body, for travel, for street, for walkaround, etc.

Further, there is a boutique/bougie/outside-of-the-normal-userbase clientele that have money in their pocket and want to wow / one-up the Instagram world. People who take the 'well packed' images like shown below are known to buy pricey cameras. These are folks that might swim in the Leica end of the market, but are eager to find a better value, something unique, etc. This camp does not want a big rig either. As much as the RX1R and Leica Q (and some time ago, the Nikon Df) were tailor-made for them, I've seen a number of them sporting A7 rigs and slapping some nutty kickstarter lens or old film lens on it.

The keep it small group may be a casualty of the 'all things considered, Canon should go big (appropriately sized) with FF mirrorless' for all the reasons you mentioned -- and leave the street shooters to Fuji and the smallest/bestest/firstest/bleeding-edge business to the Sony crowd.

But Canon (everyone, honestly) really wants that second group: trust-fund millenials who love to travel and have cash to burn. These people are an easy sale and don't run from premium pricing.

So as much I think they practically should go full EF (and that was my vote), I think their marketing folks may foolishly chase the squirrel on this and insist on a skinny mount for FF mirrorless + EF adapter. It would be the wrong call, IMHO.

- A

Luckily Canon isn't asking these instagram warriors what they want in the camera, and are instead asking the people who make a living by doing a bunch of shooting with their camera (and is more likely to buy and stay in the system). I would also argue that for those with the need to showoff and look cool, bigger cameras with more buttons would give more of an expensive/professional aura as they aren't as common compared to all the little point and shoots out there.

 

[ahsanford]

Luckily Canon isn't asking these instagram warriors what they want in the camera, and are instead asking the people who make a living by doing a bunch of shooting with their camera (and is more likely to buy and stay in the system). I would also argue that for those with the need to showoff and look cool, bigger cameras with more buttons would give more of an expensive/professional aura as they aren't as common compared to all the little point and shoots out there.

They may be pegging the expectations of working pros to help design something, but I highly highly doubt they are going after professional business with the first 1-2 FF mirrorless body releases. I see the first few Canon FF mirrorless body releases geared squarely at enthusiasts in the 6D to 5D price point.

There are pros in those price points as well, don't get me wrong. But consider:

• For enthusiasts: [The novelty/excitement of FF mirrorless] > [the drawbacks/risks of going to mirrorless]
  
  
• For pros: [The novelty/excitment of FF mirrorless] < [the drawbacks/risks of going to mirrorless]
  

Just like with Sony, I expect the early Canon adopters to not be many pros -- it will be laggier / slower / less responsive than what pros shoot with today. I think enthusiasts (like some on this thread) will make the plunge first in larger numbers, and as performance improves, more pros will opt in.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Some seem to not have read or understood correctly what I stated. So one more attempt:

Canon should make FF MILCs asap.

Lol. We understand what you're saying, you're just wrong and unable to accept that fact.

 

[aero1126]

Luckily Canon isn't asking these instagram warriors what they want in the camera, and are instead asking the people who make a living by doing a bunch of shooting with their camera (and is more likely to buy and stay in the system). I would also argue that for those with the need to showoff and look cool, bigger cameras with more buttons would give more of an expensive/professional aura as they aren't as common compared to all the little point and shoots out there.

They may be pegging the expectations of working pros to help design something, but I highly highly doubt they are going after professional business with the first 1-2 FF mirrorless body releases. I see the first few Canon FF mirrorless body releases geared squarely at enthusiasts in the 6D to 5D price point.

There are pros in those price points as well, don't get me wrong. But consider:

• For enthusiasts: [The novelty/excitement of FF mirrorless] > [the drawbacks/risks of going to mirrorless]
  
  
• For pros: [The novelty/excitment of FF mirrorless] < [the drawbacks/risks of going to mirrorless]
  

Just like with Sony, I expect the early Canon adopters to not be many pros -- it will be laggier / slower / less responsive than what pros shoot with today. I think enthusiasts (like some on this thread) will make the plunge first in larger numbers, and as performance improves, more pros will opt in.

- A

Again I agree, that's why it makes sense that their first full frame won't be a ILC and they can make it as thin as they want while making progress on the current mirrorless shortcomings. I'm simply saying that when it comes to a mirrorless FF ILC, it's best to stick with the EF mount rather than have to support two different FF mounts, there by dividing resources and slowing the lens release schedules for a given mount.

 

[scrup]

...the mirror is legacy from the film days and vacuum tube electronics...
...The moving parts reach the limit of increased performance...If today you were to invent the ultimate form some call the 1DX2, 5D, etc or even something a little smaller, there would be no mirror. It would all be solid state... EVF will be worked out, overheating and battery life too...

I don't think anyone disputes that "sooner or later" EVF may replace the reflex mirror. It's just a matter of when that might occur and what the end result will look like.

The current state of technology right now is that EVF are not as good as the reflex mirror for most users. The reflex mirror is an elegantly simple design that relies on a free energy source (light) to illuminate the viewfinder and show an image at the exact moment of exposure. (Or at least, what passes for the exact moment in terms of human vision and the speed of light).

I use to be in the camp that EVF will eventually replace OVF, but have since gone back on that stance. No matter how good the EVF could be, it still won't completely replace the OVF for me anyway.

 

[Don Haines]

Some seem to not have read or understood correctly what I stated. So one more attempt:

Canon should make FF MILCs asap. They may produce BIG models, no problem. For me however, I would like to get a Canon FF MILC "as compact as possible". Ideal size/form factor would be Sony RX1R II, clean shape with pop-up EVF, but with Canon lens mount up front, no nozzle, no hump. Maximum acceptable FF MILC size to me would be Sony A7 (1st gen, not Mk. II).

I could go small and light with it 99% of the time, using compact primes and zooms with *relatively modest* f-number and decent IQ. An EF-X 16-35/4 IS smaller than the EF-variant would be perfectly fine with me. Same for EF-X 24-70/4 IS.

Or primes ... 20/4 for landscape/architecture/indoor, 35/2.0 and 50/1.8 for walkabout, in door, people and a 85/2.4 IS for portraits ... can all be built VERY compact and light. And those who absolutely must have f/1.2 lenses .. fine, buy a new, big, fat expensive "EF-X" lens or continue to use your EF lenses with a compact, simple adapter. And for those occasions where a (super) tele or a TS lens is needed, we will use our EF glass for many years, until we eventually also switch to EF-X glass ... which of course will be big as well, but using DO and other "optical tricks" they might be smaller/lighter than today.

But we don't have to lug around big, heavy lenses and cameras all the time. Only when needed or desired. That is the size advantage of compact mirrorless camera systems.


btw. the Canon EF/EF-M adapter is mechanically solid without any flex and has a cleverly designed, detachable tripod foot. And it is not expensive. No problem to do the same with a future EF-X/EF adapter.

Much better explained....

I agree with the need for a small lightweight mirrorless camera ( the M series) and think that a FF mirrorless will be more focused on the More advanced user and fast lens crowd and will use the EF mount. Personally, I can't see a new mount for a FF mirrorless as the size savings of a new mount are minimal. You can't make an equivalent lens with less diameter and any efforts to ma ke a new mount lens shorter could just as easily be applied to an EF mount lens, like the "shorty fourty" pancake lens....