Will it be the EOS M1? [CR2]

[Yasko]

Mirrorless makes sense as long as the lenses are small, with a 24-70 2.8 lens, the size advantage is gone.

So if they bring a FF mirrorless camera, it would need some smaller lenses, which use the mirrorless advantage, bigger ones can remain EF lenses with adapter.

Canon just released long living value lenses like the new T/S lenses and the 85mm these would not be developped shortly before there mount gets obsolete.

If customers would have a concern that the mount will be obsolete soon, just this would make it obsolete, nobody would buy anything expensive for it anymore

Small lenses and full frame are contradictionary. There are small lenses (40 mm f 2.8) but full frame needs big glass if you want large apertures. So I guess you will have to cope with that.

 

[ahsanford]

Great feedback on the chart, gang -- I mean that. I've posted it a number of times and it never stirs this kind of conversation. Appreciated!

What impresses me about the mount decision is how obvious the decision is to the person responding to the question -- yet I'm still guessing it's about a 50-50 split here (previous CR polling is here, btw). Some folks want an EF-embracing / no doubt of EF's future / no need for adaptors / 'why chase size savings if lenses will still be big' completely seamless transition to mirrorless, and others are convinced it 100% will be a thin new mount because that's what the market is, any small bit smaller/lighter is a good thing, adaptors are simple and work well, etc.

I find the obviousness of what will happen vs. the clear split in our opinion as an interesting parallel to our times. So much of what we read, process, interpret these days instantly segregates into camps of A vs. B where each side is convinced they are right. I am not. I have no idea which way Canon will land on this.

- A

 

[jolyonralph]

People get hung up with the sizes of zoom lenses on mirrorless.

Honestly, the only lenses I ever use on my A7RII are the 35mm f/2.8 and the absolutely wonderful 55mm f/1.8

If I want a 2.8 zoom it's going to be heavy whatever mount I use. And with 40 megapixels using a prime and cropping is good enough for me - I don't need a 24-70.

 

[ahsanford]

People get hung up with the sizes of zoom lenses on mirrorless.

Honestly, the only lenses I ever use on my A7RII are the 35mm f/2.8 and the absolutely wonderful 55mm f/1.8

If I want a 2.8 zoom it's going to be heavy whatever mount I use. And with 40 megapixels using a prime and cropping is good enough for me - I don't need a 24-70.

I'm shocked that someone who is all in favor of a thin mount mirrorless only uses modestly sized primes.

I'm not saying your perspective is incorrect or misplaced, it just walks completely against the grain of working pros who tend to lug f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes around all day. I'm going to be brave and guess that seamlessness in handling/controls/etc. with their primary SLR on the other shoulder is a pretty high priority for those folks, and that might imply full EF mount would get their vote.

- A

 

[MayaTlab]

it just walks completely against the grain of working pros who tend to lug f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes around all day.

I feel that this is the picture Canon wants people to believe happens, but I don't think that it's representative of what is really happening in all fields of professional photography.

Here in Paris, for fashion, I'm not seeing a truckload of big L lenses being systematically used by professionals using Canon cameras. I believe that I've seen the whole gamut of photographic equipment used, honestly. There's been Phase One XF, Hasselblad (a lot), Sony A7 (a lot of A7RIIs), Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc... and with all kinds of lenses of various sizes and max apertures. And thats not even counting film photographers, who are aplenty .

This is purely anecdotal, but, for example, I have yet to assist on a shoot with a Canon 85mm f1.2 .

The same goes for Lighting. There's been Broncolor, Profoto, but there's also been the sort of old equipment you can't even read the brand because the paint has faded, fresnels, LEDs, Youngnuo speedlites, the sun, etc...

 

[ahsanford]

it just walks completely against the grain of working pros who tend to lug f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes around all day.

I feel that this is the picture Canon wants people to believe happens, but I don't think that it's representative of what is really happening in all fields of professional photography.

Respectfully disagree, and its not Canon informing that opinion -- I use my own eyes for this.

Reportage: I always see (depending on the scene) 16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200 2.8 zooms.

Sports: Same, plus longer big whites.

Weddings: Same, but throw in a fast f/1.2 prime or a 100L (because of it's IS).

Concerts: Depending on the lighting/event in question, bleedingly fast L primes are common.

I can't speak to wildlife/macro/street professionals as I'm not sure which are working pros vs. enthusiasts or I simply don't bump into them in my travels, I don't see them in the background on TV, etc.

I'm not saying that aren't pros that subscribe to the notion of "with today's cameras, f/4 is the new f/2.8 if you know what I mean". There are folks knocking out a fairly mundane family portraits, or the guy who bangs out head shots for actors on the cheap around where I live -- they might not be slinging pricey gear around. Those folks are out there, don't get me wrong, but I doubt they are the majority of working pros.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon is very well aware that pros want any mirrorless camera to use EF lenses naitively. They have mentioned this in various interviews thru the years.

So, a mirrorless that does not use EF lenses natively may well be seen as another consumer camera by pros, and panned by them. It its target market is enthusiasts, it might gain a little traction.

 

[neonlight]

Seems obvious to me that the only advantage of the MILC (apart from no mirror etc) is that the lenses can be shorter, not smaller. Cannot be EF-M therefore, but it is very likely that Canon will adapt their EF range to some new format, but also provide an adapter for all EF lenses. They will not throw away the EF range on a new body.
So I expect this to be FF MILC with a new range of dedicated lenses (shorter) but with an adapter so everyone with EF lenses can use it.

Probably.

 

[ahsanford]

Seems obvious to me that the only advantage of the MILC (apart from no mirror etc) is that the lenses can be shorter, not smaller.

It depends on the lens design decisions that are made and a sliding scale of speed and focal length.

In general, with the exception of fast 50s (which can seemingly defy physics for small size), f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms devour your size savings, as do lenses longer than 85-100mm or so.

But if you want to sneak on a 35 f/2 or (better yet) 35 f/2.8, the length difference is non-trivial. So I see travel / street / family / candids being the most rewarded from a size perspective. But so many other forms of photography won't enjoy those size benefits because they need faster or longer FL glass.

Don't get me wrong, in general I want a smaller rig for the same IQ (provided the grip doesn't disappear) -- but I also love my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II from time to time.

- A

 

[Woody]

Sony may be leading the way in full frame mirrorless cameras, but Nikon (likely ahead of Canon) and Canon appear to finally be coming to the table.
We wouldn’t be shocked to see a “development” announcement shortly after Nikon announces their full frame mirrorless camera.

Nikon never said they're going to release a mirrorless FF camera.

 

[gmrza]

Once again, this discussion illustrates why a full-frame mirrorless may never come to market.

No matter what you do, half the people who claim to want a full-frame mirrorless will immediately reject whatever Canon puts out because it doesn't match exactly what they imagined.

I'm one who seriously doubts they will add a fourth mount. I don't really care, but I see all sorts of practical problems down the road if they do. Sticking with the EF Mount is the safest bet and risks the least, so I'm guessing that's what will happen. Time will tell.

Aside from this, there are still very real challenges that mirrorless cameras need to overcome. If Canon were to use a native EF mount, the size benefit of a mirrorless assembly would be lost. Therefor, to get the size benefit of a mirrorless body, a new lens mount is needed. That doesn't stop Canon from providing an adaptor, like it foes for EF-M.
Canon's sensors still do not deal very well with light coming from an oblique angle - which is what happens with you move the back element of the lens closer. This is a very real technical problem.
As you try to improve the quality of a lens, you come up against a number of physical constraints, which just can't be dealt with with a small lens. This is especially true with telephoto lenses. Once the lens reaches a larger size, the size of the camera body becomes irrelevant.
Many professional users want to use cameras in adverse environments where handling is difficult, and where often gloves are necessary. - Small camera bodies are not easy to handle with gloved hands.

This means that any mirrorless design will not have broad (or at least not universal) appeal. That creates commercial constraints, due to lower volumes.

This is not an easy landscape for any camera manufacturer to navigate.

 

[ahsanford]

I see this as two large market segments -- 'keep it small' and 'keep it seamless' that have relatively contradictory asks of Canon that speak to fundamentally different form factor camera lines w.r.t. the mount and lens ecosystem.

After that, sure -- we'll get wrapped around the axle about how they did / didn't...

• Automate the AFMA process
• Give us spot metering at any AF point
• Offer some kind of eye AF routine
• Give us a blackout free EVF
• Give us an SLR like control/button setup

...the way we wanted them to. That's going to happen.

But those things get sorted out in the next model or two without a huge impact to customer satisfaction, loyalty, etc. I see the mount decision as the huge fork in the road Canon will have to get right or potentially suffer for a long time:

• New mount and a less than perfect adapter or super tiny grip = angry customers who wanted a seamless EF experience, an identically handling second body to their primary FF SLR, etc.
  
  
• Keep the full EF mount and you horribly p--- off the 'keep it small' crowd, the folks who wanted to dabble with Nikon lenses, build small street/travel rigs, be more likely to carry a smaller rig around with them more of the time, etc.

Yes -- they certainly could end up doing both -- it's not like they're going to sign up for a dozen FF mirrorless lenses out of the gate. But the first body that comes out will all but certainly set the 'losing' party into a tantrum and send a small short-sighted/short-tempered portion of them to the exits.

- A

 

[scyrene]

so funny, all the whimpering re. new native FF mirrorless mount. Of course both Nikon and Canon FF MILCs will come with new, short FFD mounts.

Oh, yes...of course. Because your hit rate for predicting Canon's actions is what? 10%? 20% in a good year?

Of course, because it is the only solution making any sense at all.
A Pentax K-01 style Canon mirrorless cam [with bolted-on fixed pig snout] would not provide better AF performance or IQ with EF glass than a slim body with adaptor. So its much smarter to make it smaller, because many people like the option of being able to go small (at times) and, secondly but more importantly, Canon will sell many more new EF-X? lenses over the next 20 years as people move to their FF MILCs and acquire some new lenses in due course ... a lot more units than just continueing to sell Mk. II, Mk. III, Mk. IV ... mirrorslapper EF lenses. Canon is NOT stupid in that respect.

Depends on your sense of 'sense'. We know too little about the positioning of this camera, and even its bauplan, but it makes as much sense a priori that it should be EF as not:

The FF mount mirrorless decision (EF vs. thinner than EF) remains a 50-50 call at best.

Simply this.

• No mirror = less mechanical elements that can fail

Being slightly cheeky: an EVF is one extra element to fail, and we still don't have proof that mechanical elements fail sooner than electrical :

 

[scyrene]

(from the image)

No need to buy new lenses.
Big mount = chunky grip = more battery.
You can't accidentally leave a mount adapter at home if it doesn't exist.
Canon can focus lens resources on EF / EF-S / EF-M instead of building up a portfolio in this new thin mount.

In order: Wrong, wrong, tenuous and unconnected to the point

No need to buy new lenses. You don't need to buy new lenses in any case assuming you have the EF adapter.

Big mount = chunky grip = more battery. - Newsflash. you don't have to have a weedy battery in a mirrorless. Canon's mirrorless do because they use the same cheap batteries as the newer Rebels. Look at the Sony A9 and you'll see that what you're saying is basically nonsense.

You can't accidentally leave a mount adapter at home if it doesn't exist. - Your forgetfulness isn't really a great reason to define which lens mount should be used.

Canon can focus lens resources on EF / EF-S / EF-M instead of building up a portfolio in this new thin mount. - Canon will focus their lens resources in the same way they always do - whatever can bring them the best profit. You may prefer they don't design new lenses for a mount you don't want to buy, but that's your problem not theirs. Personally, I have no interest in Canon Cinema cameras or their lenses, but I don't bitch that they are wasting resources that should be dedicated to designing 50mm f1.4IS lenses or whatever

Try not to let your preferences cloud your judgment. 1) Entrenched lens ownership matters, though to what extent is debatable. As for the use of an adaptor - adaptors are never perfect, and add an extra element of uncertainly into the mix. Professionals are less likely to want to try novel approaches, I suspect. 2) Are there *any* mirrorless cameras with battery lives approaching those of DSLRs?

People get hung up with the sizes of zoom lenses on mirrorless.

Honestly, the only lenses I ever use on my A7RII are the 35mm f/2.8 and the absolutely wonderful 55mm f/1.8

If I want a 2.8 zoom it's going to be heavy whatever mount I use. And with 40 megapixels using a prime and cropping is good enough for me - I don't need a 24-70.

Your shooting is not very broad then. That's no criticism! But when looking to develop bodies for a wide audience, that is not enough.

 

[scyrene]

I can't speak to wildlife/macro/street professionals as I'm not sure which are working pros vs. enthusiasts or I simply don't bump into them in my travels, I don't see them in the background on TV, etc.

For extreme macro, the MP-E is king. For really extreme macro, Nikon microscope objectives seem pretty ubiquitous from what I've seen.

 

[scyrene]

Aside from this, there are still very real challenges that mirrorless cameras need to overcome. If Canon were to use a native EF mount, the size benefit of a mirrorless assembly would be lost.

But as many have said here and elsewhere for some years, many would happily accept a mirrorless body the same size as a DSLR because they like the ergonomics of that size, especially with long lenses. The mirrorless 'size advantage' is just one small element in this discussion.

 

[sanj]

One day there will be no mirror cameras. Current lenses will be challenged by smaller (comparatively) lenses with great IQ.

 

[rrcphoto]

another point for the "con" list...

developing a full frame camera would require an entirely different sensor and/or technology used for that sensor than the current sensors used for DSLR's. Offsetted microlenses, BSI or some other technologies need to be used to get rid of the cast/vigetting in the corners that would result from using a normal full frame sensor that canon usually develops.

using the EF mount basically canon could re-use an existing sensor with no other expenses added.

 

[rrcphoto]

Aside from this, there are still very real challenges that mirrorless cameras need to overcome. If Canon were to use a native EF mount, the size benefit of a mirrorless assembly would be lost.

not true at all.

a full frame mirrorless camera can be made the same size as an SL2 with a 100% viewfinder. that's simply impossible to do with an DSLR.

what prevents the cameras being this small is the fact that the vast majority of people want better ergonomics. ergonomics require bigger cameras.

 

[BillB]

I see this as two large market segments -- 'keep it small' and 'keep it seamless' that have relatively contradictory asks of Canon that speak to fundamentally different form factor camera lines w.r.t. the mount and lens ecosystem.

After that, sure -- we'll get wrapped around the axle about how they did / didn't...

• Automate the AFMA process
• Give us spot metering at any AF point
• Offer some kind of eye AF routine
• Give us a blackout free EVF
• Give us an SLR like control/button setup

...the way we wanted them to. That's going to happen.

But those things get sorted out in the next model or two without a huge impact to customer satisfaction, loyalty, etc. I see the mount decision as the huge fork in the road Canon will have to get right or potentially suffer for a long time:

• New mount and a less than perfect adapter or super tiny grip = angry customers who wanted a seamless EF experience, an identically handling second body to their primary FF SLR, etc.
  
  
• Keep the full EF mount and you horribly p--- off the 'keep it small' crowd, the folks who wanted to dabble with Nikon lenses, build small street/travel rigs, be more likely to carry a smaller rig around with them more of the time, etc.

Yes -- they certainly could end up doing both -- it's not like they're going to sign up for a dozen FF mirrorless lenses out of the gate. But the first body that comes out will all but certainly set the 'losing' party into a tantrum and send a small short-sighted/short-tempered portion of them to the exits.

- A

One qualification might be that the keep it small party that is important here also wants full frame. At best, fullframe mirrorless is only going to be small in relation to a full frame DSLR. Someone interested in a really small camera, or a less expensive choice, might likely go with (or stay with) a smaller format.