What will be the mirrorless full-frame mount?

[Loswr]

It would make most sense for Canon to...ignore my advice.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Ryananthony]

It would make most sense for Canon to...ignore my advice.

Fixed that for ya. r

Couldn't be more right

 

[bencam]

3) Introduce FF MILC system in a smart way
* bring a 3-pack of A7/R/S II competitors.
** call one EOS X1. Include full-blown 4k video, to keep the "4k video whiners" at bay. Include kick-ass AF-system, and fps, to keep the wannabe-wildlife and sports-shooters in forums happy. Make it big and fat to include a huge heat sink and a big battery in a big handgrip. That makes the "my hands are Trump-sized" crowd happy. Put a bolted-on EF-adapter-nozzle up front to make the "no adapter ever"-whiners happy. And make it very expensive (say 8 grand) ... all those folks should have to cough up some serious dough.
** call one X3 and make it hi-rez sensor, medium size and with an EF-nozzle up front. That should please the landscape and it's giotta have EF-mount crowd.
** call one X% and make it as small as possible with EF-X mount. Bring a select few good, small and affordable EX-F primes ... 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 IS and compact, collapsible versions of 24-70/4 and 16-35/4 IS zooms. Include EF-X/EF adapter "for free".

As for 3)

"X1" -- Don’t see the need in the near future for what sounds like a mirrorless 1D X. Much further down the line, if at all; at least after lessons learned from ML versions of the 5D and 6D.

"X3" -- Let’s say this is the 5D ML version. EF mount in an 80D form factor. Don’t follow Sony’s lead in trying to look like a point and shoot (the A7 looks ridiculous now with those G Master glass). After all, this is the workhorse will that will use the big 2.8 zooms (or 24-105 kit lens) and 1.4/1.2 primes, so an 80D-sized footprint would still be a substantial body to balance those lenses while showing a marked reduction in size (as would be expected from mirrorless) from the 5D series. Canon can use that bigger volume to avoid the A7’s pitfalls by using a big battery, avoid overheating issues and pack in extra features not possible with a small body like a full grip, dual card slots, maybe even a fully articulating screen.

"X%" -- Canon can make a 6D ML version in a smaller T6s/760D form factor, also with EF mount. No need for “EF-X” lenses as the EF lenses are here now. The non-L primes are already quite small or at least similar to equivalent Sony FE ones. Go L-level and ML lenses would lose any size advantage anyway. The small-as-possible (and cheap-as-possible) crowd can slap on a 40mm pancake or 50 STM. The 24-70/16-35 F4 zooms are bigger than Sony’s FE equivalents but only slightly so (the 70-200 F4 are already similar). Even Sony doesn’t do collapsible FF ML zooms, it’s only for their APS-C kit lens.

So I don't really see anything to be gained for Canon to invest in developing a new FF ML mount and the associated many different lenses. Just go EF, it’s here now in a huge way and lying in wait for Canon's future FF ML body.

 

[Mikehit]

See what sells in what quantities ... and adjust strategy accordingly.

Yeah, go through all that market development, strategising and re-tooling of their manufacturing lines simply to 'see what sells in quantities'.

When you start a post with 'it would make most sense...' then come out with a strategy that would get you fired at any company worth its salt, it is beyond a joke.

 

[Don Haines]

See what sells in what quantities ... and adjust strategy accordingly.

Yeah, go through all that market development, strategising and re-tooling of their manufacturing lines simply to 'see what sells in quantities'.

When you start a post with 'it would make most sense...' then come out with a strategy that would get you fired at any company worth its salt, it is beyond a joke.

We made a bunch of Military radios.... cost of prototype - $30,000,000. Cost of second one - $2000...

 

[AvTvM]

See what sells in what quantities ... and adjust strategy accordingly.

Yeah, go through all that market development, strategising and re-tooling of their manufacturing lines simply to 'see what sells in quantities'.

Sony did just that. A/ , A7R, A7S ... same chassis (so much for re-tooling stuff), slightly different innards and firmware. Their conclusion after 1st gen obviously was, that all 3 models are selling well enough to maintain it for Mk. II generation.

I don't see any reason wh Canon could and should not do the same thing.

 

[Loswr]

I don't see any reason wh Canon could and should not do the same thing.

Given the astute business acumen which you typically display :, I find that completely unsurprising.

Incidentally, it seems more reasonable that for Sony those were three different versions targeted at three different market segments. Not quite the same thing as your suggestion of throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks…

 

[AvTvM]

Incidentally, it seems more reasonable that for Sony those were three different versions targeted at three different market segments. Not quite the same thing as your suggestion of throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks…

if you would take time to read my post, you would find that I have not only sketched out the 3 product varioations but also the relevant target groups for them. And don't ya worry: I hold an MBA degree (Marketing major) from a renowned European Business university ... don't tell me anything about market segmentation / how to define target groups and about product differentiation. Been there, done that.

 

[Loswr]

I hold an MBA degree (Marketing major) from a renowned European Business university ... don't tell me anything about market segmentation / how to define target groups and about product differentiation. Been there, done that.

Judging by your statements in these forums, not well at all. It's ok, though...I know PhDs who are dumb as posts in their field.

 

[Josh Denver]

The removal of the EF mount and going with the short EF-M mount Canon could reduce the size as seen here (SL1, world's smallest DSLR vs M3).

cdn.cameradebate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/eos-m-and-sl1-with-18-55mm-lens-size-comparison.jpg

Note that the M5 will surprise you in how small it is, pretty much an m3 size with a small EVF.

The reduction in size in the M5 vs Rebel case has little to no downsizing in features, except for battery size (EVF vs OVF is subjective), it's even the oppisite, it has more features than the considerablly larger Rebel like the twin dials and exposure compensation controls, DPAF, Video IS, 60p, metal shell, etc

These are more like 80D features. So put an 80D + 18-135mm aside an M5 + 18-150mm and see how much reducing the mount flange does to both the camera and lens. The 80D is a bohemous compared to the M5. Look at the 18-150mm EF-M vs 18-135mm EF-S. 18-55mm STM vs 18-55mm EF-S. 28mm 2.8 IS EF-M vs 28mm EF IS. 55-200mm vs 55-250mm, the 22mm,these are all tiny and lightweight lenses compared to the bigger EF-S brothers (although with a tiny smaller max aperture as in 5.6 vs 6.3 and 2.8 vs 3.5 on longest ends)

With FF can they make the same reduction in size that proportional to the reduction they did with the APS-C one? Or is there a physics thing that doesn't allow it with larger sensors and larger image circled lenses? (especially if they drop max. Aperture to f/4 vs F/2.8 on longer lenses and keep two 1.8/2.8 primes,

BTW: the new registered MILC is the new Canon EOS M20. A replacement for the EOS M10 at the beginning of 2017, mainly to have the m20 take the m3 place using the t6i/t6s/m3 sensor which is a 24mp APS-C without DPAF but Hybrid CMOS II AF. Will get a few but minute updates such as 1080p 60p, EVF2 Support, the new bluetooth-based connection, and a micropone Input. This is a bit out of topic but just saying don't get your hopes up on it being a FF M. It's the most entry level M under 500 USD.

Warned your hopes. There is no january M5 with the 5D4 30mp chip, EVF, a new full selection of EF-M FF lenses, DPAF, Full 4K, video IS, mic and headphone, i.e., an a7s with canon OS and sensor/colour-science,

your best bet now is get an a7 + EF adapter and spend sometime tweaking your images and carefully colouring your videos plus spending a few days tinckering with menus. It's not really bad at all to have one A7 beside your Canon DSLR. I use my 5D3 for all stills especially portraits where colours matter most, and when I travel for long battery and robustness, and mostly shoot landscapes and video with the A7R. It's a great combo really. Getting a 5D4 would put the A7 use strictly for video as the DR and 30mp are there. And even the video on the 5D4 might win me over so put the a7 only for stealthiness with a 40mm 2.8 (which it makes IS).

I mean why be sad, just get the best from all worlds! I have a Panasonic AF100 (Which also takes EF lenses) for hardcore video use like long soeeches, concerts, live streaming via SDI, great in-camera audio, etc.

So I basically find what field of work I need the camera for, and choose the best no matter who makes it! Best in general photography, 5D is king. For landscapes and small video and stealth, a7rii is king, for serious video, a camcorder like a Panasonic camcorder,

 

[9VIII]

Look at the 18-150mm EF-M vs 18-135mm EF-S. 18-55mm STM vs 18-55mm EF-S. 28mm 2.8 IS EF-M vs 28mm EF IS. 55-200mm vs 55-250mm, the 22mm,these are all tiny and lightweight lenses compared to the bigger EF-S brothers (although with a tiny smaller max aperture as in 5.6 vs 6.3 and 2.8 vs 3.5 on longest ends)

I would debate the effectiveness of the EF-M 55-200 compared to the EF-S 55-250STM, but in general the rest of the mentioned lenses are kit lenses with a wide zoom range, which is one of the only things EF-M does well.
Any prime lenses above 35mm will be virtually identical on either mount, at that point the focal length exceeds the flange distance of both cameras.
In the end we're going to have a split audience, there is no benefit to removing the mirror for long lenses, but enough people might find the wide angle implications worthwhile. EF-M should be able to do things that regular EF mount can't, but the market still won't be universal.
The problem Sony has with designing lenses like that is the angle of light hitting the sensor is extreme compared to using a longer flange distance, on APS-C it isn't quite worth mentioning but on Full Frame it is a problem.

 

[AvTvM]

Look at the 18-150mm EF-M vs 18-135mm EF-S. 18-55mm STM vs 18-55mm EF-S. 28mm 2.8 IS EF-M vs 28mm EF IS. 55-200mm vs 55-250mm, the 22mm,these are all tiny and lightweight lenses compared to the bigger EF-S brothers (although with a tiny smaller max aperture as in 5.6 vs 6.3 and 2.8 vs 3.5 on longest ends)

I would debate the effectiveness of the EF-M 55-200 compared to the EF-S 55-250STM, but in general the rest of the mentioned lenses are kit lenses with a wide zoom range, which is one of the only things EF-M does well.
..

No. 22/2.0 is no kit zoom. It is an outstanding prime lens, really tiny and dirt cheap. 28/2.8 is excellent and small too. Other than the 50mm less FL on the long end, EF-M 55-200 is at least as good as EF-S 55-250 [which I have owned before] and considerably shorter, smaller, lighter.

And if Canon wanted they could bring really compact EF-M 35/2.0 STM, 50/1.8 STM IS and even a very compact 85/2.4 IS STM. Just look at those small Pentax Ltd. short teles 70/2.4 HD or the older 77/1.8 even for full frame image circle ...

And that compact EF-M 11-22 is considerably smaller, lighter and optically a lot better than EF-S 10-22 (which i have owned before).

 

[bencam]

The reduction in size in the M5 vs Rebel case has little to no downsizing in features, except for battery size (EVF vs OVF is subjective)...

...Look at the 18-150mm EF-M vs 18-135mm EF-S. 18-55mm STM vs 18-55mm EF-S. 28mm 2.8 IS EF-M vs 28mm EF IS. 55-200mm vs 55-250mm, the 22mm,these are all tiny and lightweight lenses compared to the bigger EF-S brothers

No question, the size advantage of mirrorless is much more pronounced and consistent for APS-C (and also micro four-thirds for that matter) for both the body AND the lenses. That’s why Canon had to come up with the EF-M mount and not just stick with EF-S lenses in their ML crop platform.

But no so for full frame.

With FF can they make the same reduction in size that proportional to the reduction they did with the APS-C one? Or is there a physics thing that doesn't allow it with larger sensors and larger image circled lenses? (especially if they drop max. Aperture to f/4 vs F/2.8 on longer lenses and keep two 1.8/2.8 primes,

The A7 can disguise itself as a point and shoot with its tiny 35 2.8 but that’s it. Come to think of it, this is probably where the rumored Canon fixed-lens FF ML can come in, like a Sony RX1, with a fixed 35mm f2 and A7-like body.

The size advantage of mirrorless in FF is much more limited when it comes to the lenses, as we’ve seen. The A7’s 24-70 and 16-35 F4 zooms are only slightly smaller. Even Sony’s 50 1.8 and 28 f2 are actually a bit longer than the equivalent 50 STM or 28 1.8. And those new Sony 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes are as big or slightly bigger than their DSLR FF counterparts.

Canon will come up with a full frame mirrorless, right, not in January 2017, but I’d guess more likely closer to the end of next year. And I’d speculate it will come up with an EF mount so Canon don’t have to reinvent the wheel with new lenses in a new FF ML mount because there's no real advantage doing so. The incredible range of EF lenses are here now and would be a huge advantage for Canon if they were considered native instead of adapted on that FF ML. I do think that Canon's FF ML will be smaller than the 5D but also not A7-small. Like I’ve speculated, Canon’s mirrorless 5D would be around 80D size so that they've made it noticeably smaller in comparison but the big zooms and primes still balance well while also being able to use a bigger battery, dual card slots, and other things that Sony’s finding difficult to fit into an A7-sized body.

 

[AvTvM]

...
The size advantage of mirrorless in FF is much more limited when it comes to the lenses, as we’ve seen. The A7’s 24-70 and 16-35 F4 zooms are only slightly smaller. Even Sony’s 50 1.8 and 28 f2 are actually a bit longer than the equivalent 50 STM or 28 1.8. And those new Sony 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes are as big or slightly bigger than their DSLR FF counterparts.

Canon will come up with a full frame mirrorless, right, not in January 2017, but I’d guess more likely closer to the end of next year. And I’d speculate it will come up with an EF mount so Canon don’t have to reinvent the wheel with new lenses in a new FF ML mount because there's no real advantage doing so.
...

Sony FE lenses are way too big, because of the optical design restrictions resulting from choice of extremely narrow throated E-mount - which was intended for APS-C only. FF came as an afterthought, and because Sony wanted to avoid a fourth mount at all cost ...

Ever since introduction of EF, Canon always has wisely and intelligently (!) chosen lens mounts with "oversize" diameter relative to respective image circle. EF-S was and is soleley intended for APS-C image circle. And so is Canon EF-M.

Once Canon brings out its FF MILC system, it will have EF-X moun t. And there will be at least one "very compact" body option. And a small range of moderately fast prime lenses between 24 and 80mm that are very compact too. Plus a smartly designed, collapsible f/4 zooms, lighter and with a "parking position" much smaller than EF 16-35/4 and EF 24-70. It is the only way to sell to people like me, who want fully functional, powerful imaging gear in the smallest possible package. No, it is not just me. Target group of photo enthusiasts is aging babyboomers, backs get weaker and willingness to lug around my 5D3 plus 24-70/2.8 plus 70-200/2.8 for an entire weekend city trip ... is DWINDLING.

I want 5D IV capability (minus any video crap) in a Sony RX1R-II sized package, but with Canon EF-X lens mount up front and Canon UI. I will use it with a few *newly purchased*, compact EF-X primes mentioned above and will also buy the native 16-35/4 and 24-70/4. And if and when needed, but only then! - I'd take the right EF lens along - with adapter, no problem.

 

[Luds34]

I don't think the EF-S to EF-M is a good comparison to what you think you'd see from a FF DSLR to mirrorless equivalent. The EF-S is really just an EF mount and is far larger a mount then is needed. This leads to EF-S lenses that are physically bigger then needed to contain the actual glass in them.

The EF-S 60mm macro is a perfect example. First feel how light it is, look at the front element, then the rear. The lens is mostly air and could be half the diameter. However it would still have a fat base to mount to the incredibly wide throat diameter of the EF-S mount and would look ridiculous. So Canon, just hits a minimum lens width with their EF-S lenses, that is equal to the wide throat diameter that is really engineered/designed for Full Frame EF lenses.

 

[AvTvM]

i fully expect some Canon "EF-X" mirrorless FF prime lenses similar in size to the Pentax FA Limited 31/1.8, 43/1.9, 77/1.8

(c) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/116833-fa-limited-lens-series-won-2010-good-design-long-life-design-award-2.html#post1283742

Minus aperture ring, plus USM Nano AF Drive should not make them any larger. Hi-Grade plastics barrel makes 'em lighter. And if a new calculation for hi-rez sensors and short flange distance makes 'em bigger, then I Canon should just make them f/2.8 and keep size and price down. 24/2.8 is certainly also doable in small form factor. . And possibly a 17/4.0 or so.

Sony FE 35/2.8 is fine as well in terms of size (not price). Sony FE 55/1.8 is way to long & big. FE 28/2.8 is also too long. I do expect Canon to choose a wider diameter EF-X mount (than Sony or than EF-M) for its FF MILC system and will be able to make very compact EF-X lenses that are optically every bit as good on FF-sensor as the fantastic EF-M 22/2.0 is on crop. We just have to demand it often enough and loud enough on all relevant forums, so they get the message. ;D

 

[Bob Howland]

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

Of course not. All EF lenses will remain fully functional by use of a simple EF-X/EF adapter. That way whwnever an EF lens is to be used, it can be used. And whenever a new native "EF-X" lens is available and better or smaller/lighter for the task at hand, that one will be used.

Canon has many years to introduce new EF-X lenses and users have many years to lust and G.A.S. over nwe EF-X lenses. And they will be BUYING, BUYING, BUYING for many years to come. Just like when CDs succeeded vinyl. And then streaming succeeded CDs. I myself have many pieces of music that I bought and paid for 4 times by now.

So why should Canon NOT introduce a native mirrorless/short flange-distance FF lens line-up along with a new lineup of mirrorless FF cameras?

4 lens lines will only exist for a very short transitional period. EF-S will be killed off first, together with Rebel mirrorslappers. Replaced by EOS M models and EF-M glass.

EF glass will be maintained for longer, but eventually, only a limited lineup of EF-M (crop) and a full lineup of EF-X (FF) lenses will be made.

You never define what an "EF-X" lens mount is, for example, specifying its throat diameter, flange distance and communications protocol. Please do so.

 

[AvTvM]

You never define what an "EF-X" lens mount is, for example, specifying its throat diameter, flange distance and communications protocol. Please do so.

ok, here goes .. my amateur *guess*:

'EF-X" is what I would call it. It signals full compatibility with EF lens lineup and the -X signifies possibilities that far eXceed the past and that it is "the future of photography" ... or something along these lines will be stated in Canon marketing materials. No idea what they will really call it.

image circle: 36x24mm FF sensor -> 43.3 mm diameter

flange distance: ca. 22mm [4 mm more than EF-M and Sony E/FE, 3mm more than Leica L-Mount] - makes lens design somewhat easier and will still allow for reasonably compact cameras]

throat diameter: ca. 48mm [Sony FE is 46mm, Canon EF-M is about 45mm]

lens mount / communication protocol: some additional contacts/firmware features for future/new native "EF-X" lenses. Fully functional and backwards compatible with EF lens mount Protocol [within the limits of the repective lens, its AF drive, IS, etc.].

Frontal view of mount and sensor will be similar to Leica SL ... not like Sony A7 where sensor corners are almost hidden.

Camera size will probably also be similar for [eventually] upcoming Canon MILC flagship "X1". For all those 1D/X/II shooters who love things Texas size.



btw: Sony E mount for FF lenses: Sigma CEO also says narrow diameter makes lens design more diffcult .. http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sigma-interview-mirrorless-is-growing-and-we-will-make-more-lenses-for-it/

 

[Luds34]

Sony FE 35/2.8 is fine as well in terms of size (not price). Sony FE 55/1.8 is way to long & big. FE 28/2.8 is also too long.

Too long, too expensive... and you forgot a biggie, too slow. f/2.8 on a prime lens? And only f/1.8 on a ~50mm lens that isn't a complete budget lens like the entry level "nifty fifty" from either Canon or Nikon. Just not competitive in my opinion.

 

[ahsanford]

Too long, too expensive... and you forgot a biggie, too slow. f/2.8 on a prime lens? And only f/1.8 on a ~50mm lens that isn't a complete budget lens like the entry level "nifty fifty" from either Canon or Nikon. Just not competitive in my opinion.

Sure, but you can't let the tiny 50mm FF options boss your expectations here. That FL seems to break all the rules of physics in terms of FF + f/2 or faster + small in a way that you just don't see at any other FL.

See a 24-35-50-85 comparison as an example with all lenses being intended for the FF image circle and the lens opening up to f/1.4. I recognize the 50 f/1.4 USM is a bit of a goat / 2nd class citizen for some, but it's not the only example of this odd tiny 50mm lens phenomenon -- Canon makes many tiny + fast double gauss 50mm lenses that it cannot reproduce at other FLs at that aperture.

So I think looking at 35mm-ish primes (see second pic) is a more fair / reasonable benchmark to consider with FF mirrorless. This is one area that -- like with most other FLs -- chasing aperture disproportionately punishes you. Looking at that shot, the small camp should abandon chasing f/1.4 and buy a bag of f/2 IS primes.

- A