Will it be the EOS M1? [CR2]

[Loswr]

If they go to a new FF mirrorless mount they need to make the flange focal distance big enough that they can create an adapter for the EF-M mount. It would make no sense to create lenses that cannot be used with existing mirrorless cameras.

Excellent point. I can't see soemthing much thinner than an EF12 tube being practical. That puts the flange focal distance (FFD) for this hypothetical 'optimal lens mount for a Canon FF MILC' at somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 mm. That's basically half way from the EF-M to the EF FFD, so might as well go the rest of the way and just keep the EF mount.

 

[traveller]

If they go to a new FF mirrorless mount they need to make the flange focal distance big enough that they can create an adapter for the EF-M mount. It would make no sense to create lenses that cannot be used with existing mirrorless cameras.

Personally, I can't see Canon using a new mount. I cannot believe when they designed the EF-M mount that they did not consider the possibility of fitting a full frame sensor in the future. I'm aware of certain people's opinions about the deficiencies of this mount (threat diameter too small, flange back distance too short), but I believe that Canon made the decision that this was the best trade off across both APS-C and FF sensors, balancing performance against size considerations. The EF-M mount has exactly the same flange back distance (18mm) as the Sony (F)E-mount and a throat diameter that is 3mm wider (47mm vs 44mm). I see no reason why Canon would want to introduce yet another mount to confuse the market.

 

[preppyak]

So, will canon risk producing a body that reviews will find has only mixed performance depending on what lens you pair with it? I hope not.

If it cant use EF lenses, then its dead in the water from Day 1. Sony has taken almost 5 years to build out an FE lens line, and even then its sparse compared to Nikon F and Canon EF, to the point that I know I havent bought into the Sony "system" (lots of adapted lenses for me).

Of course, the converse problem is a lot of EF mount lenses are massive, so the size savings isnt there. Sony + kit vs Canon + kit is a major size difference. But I think people would settle for large lenses for 2-3 years as Canon builds out smaller EF lenses for mirrorless. A new mount though...that'd convince me to move on from Canon entirely after watching the 6dII flop as well

 

[Loswr]

Sony has taken almost 5 years to build out an FE lens line, and even then its sparse compared to Nikon F and Canon EF...

That's about the same for the EF-M. AFter ~5 years, the line has 7 lenses covering most use cases – a standard zoom (two of those), a UWA zoom, a telezoom, a superzoom, a fast/wide prime, and a dedicated macro lens.

But, the M lineup is solidly consumer-oriented so no fast standard zoom, no short tele prime, etc. Presumably, a FF MILC would need more native lenses for the more diverse user base.

I still think it's most likely they'll keep the EF mount for FF MILCs.

 

[rrcphoto]

EF-M 18-150 vs. EF-S 18-135 ...

sure if you forget that the EF-M 18-150 is a much slower lens throughout the zoom range and ends up at 6.3.
:

partially correct. From 24mm upwards the EF-M 18-150 is a bit slower. On the other hand it has 15mm more focal length [150mm vs. 135]. For the purpose of my comparison I considered those 2 factors about even.

wrong again.

focal length will affect length of the lens.

apeture affects diameter.
the 18-135mm is 76.6 x 96.0mm, 480g

the 18-150mm is 60.9 x 86.5mm, 300g

while there is some savings there, the 18-150 goes to f5.0 really fast, alot quicker than the 18-135mm.

also with the 150 EF-M, you really do need to run optical corrections as the CA and softness is bothersome without.

while it's a fantastic lens, given the fact it *IS* slower, the corrections are heavier, the saving really arent that large.

one of the reasons canon's EF-M's are also small in diameter is because of the lens mount. there isn't enough room in the M3-5's for larger diameter lenses without getting into the same problem that the Sony's have.

 

[rrcphoto]

If they go to a new FF mirrorless mount they need to make the flange focal distance big enough that they can create an adapter for the EF-M mount. It would make no sense to create lenses that cannot be used with existing mirrorless cameras.

Personally, I can't see Canon using a new mount. I cannot believe when they designed the EF-M mount that they did not consider the possibility of fitting a full frame sensor in the future. I'm aware of certain people's opinions about the deficiencies of this mount (threat diameter too small, flange back distance too short), but I believe that Canon made the decision that this was the best trade off across both APS-C and FF sensors, balancing performance against size considerations. The EF-M mount has exactly the same flange back distance (18mm) as the Sony (F)E-mount and a throat diameter that is 3mm wider (47mm vs 44mm). I see no reason why Canon would want to introduce yet another mount to confuse the market.

the problem with using the EF-M mount for full frame isn't the mechanical issues - it's the sensor issues. Also the electronics isn't centered on the EF-M mount, making it a little more problematic for a full frame sensor size.

 

[rrcphoto]

Sony has taken almost 5 years to build out an FE lens line, and even then its sparse compared to Nikon F and Canon EF...

That's about the same for the EF-M. AFter ~5 years, the line has 7 lenses covering most use cases – a standard zoom (two of those), a UWA zoom, a telezoom, a superzoom, a fast/wide prime, and a dedicated macro lens.

But, the M lineup is solidly consumer-oriented so no fast standard zoom, no short tele prime, etc. Presumably, a FF MILC would need more native lenses for the more diverse user base.

but do they build it out at the expense of the EF mount? in other words. do a sony? sony lost all their A mount marketshare which at one time was projected at nearly 18%.

Now it's next to nothing.

 

[AvTvM]

but do they build it out at the expense of the EF mount? in other words. do a sony? sony lost all their A mount marketshare which at one time was projected at nearly 18%.
Now it's next to nothing.

I am convinced the overwhelming majority of Sony A-mount customers did not switch to Canon or Nikon for full-frame DSLRs. If anything, they simply bought into Sony mirrorless FF ... in addition to their A-Mount SLTs and got one of the not very expensive Sony A- to E-mount adapters. By far the easiest, most convenient and functional solution.

I expect exactly the same to happen, when Canon comes with a brand new FF MILC system with a new EF-X mount to which all existing EF lenses are compatible by means of a simple and cheap adapter. As you can tell from many of the postings in this and similar threads here, many Canon customers do not YET understand that a new mount will be no real issue this time round - as opposed to the 1987 move from FD to EF.

Once Canon gets the message across ... "great new mirrorless camera, great new native lenses, but all existing EF lenses can also be used with simple adapter" - any initial bitching and moaning will quickly subside and people will gradually and over time smoothly switch from their Canon DSLRs / EF lenses to Canon mirrorless.

It is already happening for APS-C ... "Rebels" --> EOS M's, EF-S ->> EF-M lenses. As soon as EOS M models will be priced exactly like equivalent Rebels/xxDs, the changeover will turn into a massive landslide. Rebel phaseout, EF-S phase-out, then xxD and 7D line phase-out. Done.

I expect exactly the same to happen with FF sensored Canon systems. At the end of the day things will be EF-M [APS-C] and EF-X? [FF] just like before EF-S and EF. 2 sensor sizes, 2 mounts. Lenses for larger sensor can be used on smaller sensor as well. No change to current situation [

 

[dak723]

EF-M 18-150 vs. EF-S 18-135 ...

sure if you forget that the EF-M 18-150 is a much slower lens throughout the zoom range and ends up at 6.3.
:

partially correct. From 24mm upwards the EF-M 18-150 is a bit slower. On the other hand it has 15mm more focal length [150mm vs. 135]. For the purpose of my comparison I considered those 2 factors about even.

wrong again.

focal length will affect length of the lens.

apeture affects diameter.

Yes, perhaps you need to put this in all caps and a very large font.

If you want the same quality lenses with same focal length and same aperture - they will be essentially the same size regardless of mount.

 

[Loswr]

If you want the same quality lenses with same focal length and same aperture - they will be essentially the same size regardless of mount.

Well, some lenses could be 10-15mm shorter with the 'optimized EF-X mount'. :

 

[Larsskv]

but do they build it out at the expense of the EF mount? in other words. do a sony? sony lost all their A mount marketshare which at one time was projected at nearly 18%.
Now it's next to nothing.

I am convinced the overwhelming majority of Sony A-mount customers did not switch to Canon or Nikon for full-frame DSLRs. If anything, they simply bought into Sony mirrorless FF ... in addition to their A-Mount SLTs and got one of the not very expensive Sony A- to E-mount adapters. By far the easiest, most convenient and functional solution.

I expect exactly the same to happen, when Canon comes with a brand new FF MILC system with a new EF-X mount to which all existing EF lenses are compatible by means of a simple and cheap adapter. As you can tell from many of the postings in this and similar threads here, many Canon customers do not YET understand that a new mount will be no real issue this time round - as opposed to the 1987 move from FD to EF.

Once Canon gets the message across ... "great new mirrorless camera, great new native lenses, but all existing EF lenses can also be used with simple adapter" - any initial bitching and moaning will quickly subside and people will gradually and over time smoothly switch from their Canon DSLRs / EF lenses to Canon mirrorless.

It is already happening for APS-C ... "Rebels" --> EOS M's, EF-S ->> EF-M lenses. As soon as EOS M models will be priced exactly like equivalent Rebels/xxDs, the changeover will turn into a massive landslide. Rebel phaseout, EF-S phase-out, then xxD and 7D line phase-out. Done.

I expect exactly the same to happen with FF sensored Canon systems. At the end of the day things will be EF-M [APS-C] and EF-X? [FF] just like before EF-S and EF. 2 sensor sizes, 2 mounts. Lenses for larger sensor can be used on smaller sensor as well. No change to current situation [

+1. For the first time I agree completely with AvTvM.

I would like to add a smaller mirrorless FF camera, with reasonably small f2 lenses with L quality, to my kit. In addition to my DSLRs.

 

[eosuser1234]

but do they build it out at the expense of the EF mount? in other words. do a sony? sony lost all their A mount marketshare which at one time was projected at nearly 18%.
Now it's next to nothing.

I am convinced the overwhelming majority of Sony A-mount customers did not switch to Canon or Nikon for full-frame DSLRs. If anything, they simply bought into Sony mirrorless FF ... in addition to their A-Mount SLTs and got one of the not very expensive Sony A- to E-mount adapters. By far the easiest, most convenient and functional solution.

I expect exactly the same to happen, when Canon comes with a brand new FF MILC system with a new EF-X mount to which all existing EF lenses are compatible by means of a simple and cheap adapter. As you can tell from many of the postings in this and similar threads here, many Canon customers do not YET understand that a new mount will be no real issue this time round - as opposed to the 1987 move from FD to EF.

Once Canon gets the message across ... "great new mirrorless camera, great new native lenses, but all existing EF lenses can also be used with simple adapter" - any initial bitching and moaning will quickly subside and people will gradually and over time smoothly switch from their Canon DSLRs / EF lenses to Canon mirrorless.

It is already happening for APS-C ... "Rebels" --> EOS M's, EF-S ->> EF-M lenses. As soon as EOS M models will be priced exactly like equivalent Rebels/xxDs, the changeover will turn into a massive landslide. Rebel phaseout, EF-S phase-out, then xxD and 7D line phase-out. Done.

I expect exactly the same to happen with FF sensored Canon systems. At the end of the day things will be EF-M [APS-C] and EF-X? [FF] just like before EF-S and EF. 2 sensor sizes, 2 mounts. Lenses for larger sensor can be used on smaller sensor as well. No change to current situation [

And in reality lenses for the APS-C (EF-M) will be able to be used on the full frame sensor in a special crop mode where the camera recognizes the attached lens and switches into that mode automatically. It is like those Teslas that are supposed to run on high octane, but take regular as well and the computer adjusts everything in the engine... The future looks fun.

 

[AvTvM]

Thanks to the painful 1987 decision to go fully electronic with EF mount/lenses, Canon as a company and Canon customers are in an excellent position for adding / switching to Canon mirrorless systems. 8)

For Nikon/ians things are way tougher ... all older F-mount lenses [pre AF-S and pre- E aperture] require mechanical coupling/elements for AF and/or aperture control. No simple and cheap adapter for that one. So pressure on Nikon is much higher to keep F-mount. Which will preclude them from offering excellent small cameras and excellent, smaller lenses. AN outstanding opportunity for Canon to finish Nikon once and for all. ;D

 

[Talys]

My biggest issue with a new mount isn't the adapter.

It's that I have not yet found an EVF which I enjoy using for wildlife photography, and therefore I will not be purchasing a high-end mirrorless any time soon. My preference is for Canon to devote as many resources building/refreshing lenses as possible on the platform I prefer, which will still be using EF mount lenses.

Were I to go to mirrorless, as completionist, if there is a better lens/body combo, I would rather have that than to use an inferior combination involving an adapter. I am not happy having A+B when both A and B are expensive, top of the line parts, if A+C is superior and not wildly different in price. Unfortunately, multiply that over a half dozen "must have" lenses, and my resistance to change goes up for financial reasons. The benefit would then have to be huge.

Finally, the one thing that could make me reconsider is if telephotos at 400mm+ could shrink in size and weight substantially. Frankly, the main reason I don't own a 600mm f/4 isn't the cost. Even though it's a lot of money for me as a hobby item, I'd pull the trigger if I wanted it badly enough. I mean, I've blown more money on things that cost more that I use a whole lot less than I would with that. But I don't, because it's just too heavy. If mirrorless changed that equation, I'd reconsider. But -- realistically, this does not seem to be the case, not in any meaningful way. It will not make a body/lens combo that is currently too heavy to comfortably shoot handheld into one that isn't.

On body+lens up to 200mm, I simply don't care to have a smaller, lighter camera. I'm happy with carrying a camera (body+lens) up to around 3kg for a whole day. Now obviously, if mirrorless could drop 3kg to 1kg, that would be something eyebrow-raising. But the difference between 3kg and 2.8kg just isn't enough to make me excited, even less so if then I must also carry 2 extra 80g batteries.

 

[jolyonralph]

Mirrorless won't change the size or weight of the big white lenses.

At the moment, anyone who shoots big white lenses for wildlife would be *completely crazy* to switch to mirrorless. Except for the frame rate. That's one thing that may tempt you. 20 frames per second? Possible with mirrorless. Yes, the current EVFs are poor, but they can only get better.

The only other route that Canon could take, and they've certainly got some recent patents suggesting they're thinking about it, is pellicle (fixed) mirror. Nobody liked it much before because it steals light from the sensor, but if you're prepared for that compromise you can have your mirror and your fast framerate.

 

[Loswr]

I expect exactly the same to happen with FF sensored Canon systems. At the end of the day things will be EF-M [APS-C] and EF-X? [FF] just like before EF-S and EF. 2 sensor sizes, 2 mounts. Lenses for larger sensor can be used on smaller sensor as well. No change to current situation

And in reality lenses for the APS-C (EF-M) will be able to be used on the full frame sensor in a special crop mode where the camera recognizes the attached lens and switches into that mode automatically.

That's not what AvTvM is proposing, even though he fails to grasp that. In his world, EF-M lenses don't work on FF MILCs, and those FF 'EF-X' lenses don't work on the APS-C M-series bodies. Silly? Yes. But that's what AvTvM is actually suggesting (actually suggesting, the part in red above doesn't align with his numbers). His 'optimized' EF-X has a 48-50 mm throat diameter and a 22-24 mm flange focal distance (FFD). They both are larger than the EF-M mount, so EF-M lenses would need to stick into the camera body with no way to actually mount them (and no adapter possible). The 22-24 mm FFD means an adapter to mount his EF-X lenses on an APS-C EOS M body would need to be a mere 6-8 mm thick – practically, that's not really feasible (it's not quite an EdMika, but close).

So, in the AvTvM Universe, we'd have mutually exclusive EF-M and EF-X. Fortunately for all of us, the AvTvM Universe exists only in his head, with no connections to reality.

 

[AvTvM]

slim adapters exist for many mounts. no real issue.

ps: neuro cut out the ongoing ad hominem attacks. you dont have to share my opinions, but you could disagree in a normal, civilized manner.

 

[Loswr]

slim adapters exist for many mounts. no real issue.

Which OEMs offer slim mount adapters <8 mm thick?

 

[Jopa]

I still think it's most likely they'll keep the EF mount for FF MILCs.

I hope so too. Otherwise it will be the same as maintaining 2 different camera systems despite it's one brand. M is M, but FF should stay EF.

 

[dsut4392]

--

A very good example of that is grip height vs pentaprism height. I have no understanding why every single camera manufacturers insists that the central pentaprism must be towering over the rest of the body by 2 cm or more, even when it would have made sense to raise the grip height - while keeping the pentaprism height constant - to avoid having your little finger dangle in the void below.

Let me guess, you close the eye that's not looking through the viewfinder?