# Canon High End Mirrorless Camera Talk [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 31, 2017)

```
We’re told that a roadmap slide at a recent Canon presentation mentioned a “high end mirrorless ILC” to be announced in Q4 of 2018.</p>
<p>Canon recently showed that sales of their EOS M system have grown 70% over the past year, and with Nikon set to announce a new high end mirrorless system, it’s obviously time for Canon to enter the same area.</p>
<p>With a product that far off, obviously there is no specifications or leaks about what is in the pipeline, Canon likely hasn’t come close to settling on the feature set of the camera. While “high end” doesn’t mean full frame, it’s safe to say that the Canon world likely won’t be ok with another APS-C mirrorless camera.</p>
<p>It was mentioned that no “high end” lenses for the mirrorless ILC were shown on the roadmap.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> While “high end” doesn’t mean full frame, it’s safe to say that the Canon world likely won’t be ok with another APS-C mirrorless camera.



Or it could be an M5 mark II...


----------



## jebrady03 (Jul 31, 2017)

Canon better look at what Sony is doing and then aim to make that look insufficient, because that's what Sony is doing (beating their own best) *and* they have a relatively complete lens ecosystem for most people up to 200mm.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 31, 2017)

It tells me that upcoming Canon MILC body will likely be EF mount equipped. I have no objection to that 



Canon Rumors said:


> ...It was mentioned that no “high end” lenses for the mirrorless ILC were shown on the roadmap...


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 31, 2017)

Too far out to speculate, but yeah, they should take note of where Sony is going in mirrorless.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 31, 2017)

Dream wishlist:

- Fullframe, 5D IV sensor-like quality
- EF mount or at least EF/EF-M adapter in box (there should not be compatibility issues, since it's basically just a close-up ring anyway)
- DSLR sized grip with LP-E6N battery (at least 500 photos on one charge with EVF)
- EVF with at least 0.75x magnification
- Advanced DPAF, since without fast AF, it would be DOA


----------



## camerone (Jul 31, 2017)

Unlikely to happen, but wouldn't a modular mirrorless system be cool? Almost like a RED system but for photos. You could interchange the grip, the EVF, the screen, maybe even the sensor and card slots... a completely interchangeable system! Pay only for the megapixels you want, or the video capabilities you want; you don't have to pay for a flip-out screen if you don't want it, etc. Won't happen but it's fun to dream


----------



## amorse (Jul 31, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Dream wishlist:
> 
> - Fullframe, 5D IV sensor-like quality
> - EF mount or at least EF/EF-M adapter in box (there should not be compatibility issues, since it's basically just a close-up ring anyway)
> ...



Sounds good to me! Q4 2018 seems pretty far off though, the benchmark for competition could look quite different by then. We may be comparing this camera to a 5D SR II, a7RIII or a D850. Who knows, Canon could have a few other key developments in their pipeline to position this at the higher-end of the market.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 31, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> Too far out to speculate, but yeah, they should take note of where Sony is going in mirrorless.



except a negligible amount of people are purchasing sony's .. so why repeat a mistake?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 31, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Dream wishlist:
> 
> - Fullframe, 5D IV sensor-like quality
> - EF mount or at least EF/EF-M adapter in box (there should not be compatibility issues, since it's basically just a close-up ring anyway)
> ...



mine would be an SL2 sized mirrorless full frame. that's simply something canon cannot do with a mirror.


----------



## camerone (Jul 31, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Dream wishlist:
> 
> - Fullframe, 5D IV sensor-like quality
> - EF mount or at least EF/EF-M adapter in box (there should not be compatibility issues, since it's basically just a close-up ring anyway)
> ...



add good eye-controlled AF to that list... with DPAF, focus points wouldn't really be a limitation...


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 31, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Too far out to speculate, but yeah, they should take note of where Sony is going in mirrorless.
> ...



I used to have the same opinion when it was the A7 but the amount of people I know who are buying A9's in pairs as well is staggering. Professional wedding photographers are inhaling them off the shelves. Interestingly a lot of folks are leaving Nikon due to the similarities in sensor output but less so with Canon.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2017)

High end mirrorless?

7D3!

26Mpixels
Dual card slots (UHS-2)
4K video at 60FPS
30FPS burst mode at full resolution, 60 and 120 at reduced resolutions
Takes all EF and EF-S lenses
wifi and Bluetooth

and a pop up flash!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

wockawocka said:


> I used to have the same opinion when it was the A7 but the amount of people I know who are buying A9's in pairs as well is staggering.



So, you must personally know millions of people...or you're easily staggered.


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I used to have the same opinion when it was the A7 but the amount of people I know who are buying A9's in pairs as well is staggering.
> ...



Not really. I saw all the A7 hyperbole but the large majority of people didn't bite. The A9 has changed things. It's almost as if the A7 was ok, but not good enough for the working pro's. The speed of the A9, greater af points across pretty much the whole frame and dual card slots appear to of sealed the deal.

I know a big enough sample of professionals to say it's very different with the A9 vs the previous models.

Me personally, I'm not leaving my 5D4's, love the things and hate Sony colours and their flash system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

wockawocka said:


> I know a big enough sample of professionals to say it's very different with the A9 vs the previous models.



Fair enough. The A9 sales could be 10-fold more than the a7 sales, and still amount to just a drop in the ocean of the ILC market.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 31, 2017)

Hope this doesn't screw up the 5DV in 3 years.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 31, 2017)

What are the advantages of mirrorless? Besides very high shutter speeds? Size and weight are not issues for me; in fact, I like how the 5D IV feels with a Sigma 135mm Art on it.

Please direct me to the thread where this was discussed. Thanks!


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 31, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> What are the advantages of mirrorless? Besides very high shutter speeds? Size and weight are not issues for me; in fact, I like how the 5D IV feels with a Sigma 135mm Art on it.
> 
> Please direct me to the thread where this was discussed. Thanks!



To start, think about the benefits of Live View:


live histogram
focus peaking
zebras
seeing what the sensor sees
spot focus anywhere

Also, once you remove the mirror apparatus (size and location) you're free to make a number of changes, as suits a particular need:


Want it smaller and lighter? Just squeeze it together and make a smaller device
Want 16 usable stops of DR? Use two sensors and a partial mirror to have full-time integrated HDR
Want better light collection, color, resolution from the same pixel count? Install a trichroic prism and 3-sensor system for separate R,G,B collection.
Want maximum size from each capture? Use a 42mm square sensor to grab the whole image circle, and never have to choose "portrait" or "landscape" at capture.
Want a disruptive design? Make the "camera" just a large lens cap, and move all control, preview, etc. to your mobile device or VR goggles.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> Please direct me to the thread where this was discussed. Thanks!



You should really ask AvTvM for help with that...


----------



## rjbray01 (Jul 31, 2017)

Surely we can guess at most aspects of the camera : Full Frame, EF lens mount, 4K - probably cropped with unpopular codec, reasonable dynamic range, and perhaps silent shutter with high FPS too and perhaps viewfinder magnification to match Sony.

But, it seems to me there is one feature which is utterly paramount above all else : In Body Stabilization for Still Shots. 

This would overnight dramatically improve the low-light performance of all the great non-IS lenses - including the 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 II, all the Canon (and Sigma Art series) Primes. 

I can't think of anything which would be more likely to convince Canon owners to stick with Canon ... than if all their lenses were upgraded by 3 or 4 stops. 

Anyone else agree ?


----------



## sanj (Jul 31, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> What are the advantages of mirrorless? Besides very high shutter speeds? Size and weight are not issues for me; in fact, I like how the 5D IV feels with a Sigma 135mm Art on it.
> 
> Please direct me to the thread where this was discussed. Thanks!



Size and weight are of real importance to me.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I know a big enough sample of professionals to say it's very different with the A9 vs the previous models.
> ...



All aboard the Sony hypetrain


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

sanj said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Size and weight are not issues for me
> ...



Exactly. But which of you is in the majority? I have no idea...I'll just have to wait until Canon releases either a FF MILC with a native EF mount, or a compact FF MILC with an adapter for EF lenses, and then I'll know.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 31, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > What are the advantages of mirrorless? Besides very high shutter speeds? Size and weight are not issues for me; in fact, I like how the 5D IV feels with a Sigma 135mm Art on it.
> ...


Are those necessarily benefits of mirrorless? Seems like several of those are introducing new, and likely complex and expensive, new technologies. 

The standard "pro" list of mirrorless as I know it:

Bodies can be smaller as you do not need the mirror box.
Lenses can be placed closer to the sensor as you no longer need to account for space for the mirror. This, in theory, could make lenses a bit smaller. In practice...see the G-series lenses.  But, there does seem to be some benefit if you look at EF-m vs EFs lenses
FPS would no longer be limited by the motion of the mirror
Could potentially be much quieter
Removal of the mirror could result in a cost savings and eliminates a moving part that could fail
On sensor AF could be wider, covering close to the entire frame

On the "Con" side:

Many are fine with current dSLR ergonomics and do not want smaller ergonomics
Smaller body likely equals smaller battery which could impact both number of shots per battery charge and voltage to drive AF
Until we have a truly rapid global shutter, we will still need a mechanical shutter which will limit FPS
New lens mount would make all of our current lenses obsolete
No mirror eliminates the possibility of an optical viewfinder, thus you end up with electric view finders
Until recently, sensor AF was not as fast as PDAF

I own both. I personally enjoy the 5DIII ergonomics and OVF. Is the market eventually headed mirrorless? Likely, as I hear it will eventually be less expensive to manufacture and the less expensive products do tend to win out in the long run. 

But, I am one of those practical people (usually) that buys the best camera available at the time and defines "best" as fitting my personal needs. I own the G7X and M3 for size/weight advantages and the 5DIII for everything else.

Lots of articles out there on this. For example:

https://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr


----------



## Khalai (Jul 31, 2017)

docsmith said:


> On the "Con" side:
> 
> Many are fine with current dSLR ergonomics and do not want smaller ergonomics
> Smaller body likely equals smaller batter which could impact both number of shots per battery charge and voltage to drive AF
> ...



Which is why I seriously doubt that Canon will abandon EF mount after three decades. Canon is thriving from their awesome glass, some of which are not found elsewhere, some of which belongs to the top tier class, which rivals even much more expensive lenses (35/1.4L II vs 28/1.4 Otus for example). I could be wrong of course, but I'd bet my all Zeiss glass, that Canon will not abandon EF mount anytime soon


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Lots of articles out there on this.



I like this one, predicting the death of the dSLR at the hands of mirrorless. It's from 2010. Kinda ironic that the headline photo is a Samsung MILC. 

Then there's this one, from October 2013, which puts a 5-year time limit on the life of the consumer dSLR. Just one year left, then...poof.


----------



## RGF (Jul 31, 2017)

another camera for canon to try experiments on. perhaps canon will get innovative


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 31, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> To start, think about the benefits of Live View:
> 
> 
> live histogram
> ...



_Really - zebras? Is that an arcane term for some sort of banding?
_
Use two sensors and a partial mirror to have full-time integrated HDR: _Why hasn't this been done, to satisfy those who require lots of DR?
_
Want maximum size from each capture? Use a 42mm square sensor to grab the whole image circle, and never have to choose "portrait" or "landscape" at capture: _What does this have to do with mirrorless?

But thanks for your effort._


----------



## Khalai (Jul 31, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > To start, think about the benefits of Live View:
> ...



Square mirror requires very long flange distance. Sans mirror, it's much more feasible, even with current lenses and mounts


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 31, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



Yes: you can't do those until you remove the OVF/focus mirror. 3-chip video cameras have been in use a long time, it's not new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-CCD_camera. Only the last item is really "new," and CamRanger is a pretty close approximation.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 31, 2017)

docsmith said:


> The standard "pro" list of mirrorless as I know it:
> 
> Bodies can be smaller as you do not need the mirror box.
> Lenses can be placed closer to the sensor as you no longer need to account for space for the mirror. This, in theory, could make lenses a bit smaller. In practice...see the G-series lenses.  But, there does seem to be some benefit if you look at EF-m vs EFs lenses
> ...



Thank you; this is what I hoped for. For me, I don't see a great benefit to mirrorless at this time. But it is interesting to see it discussed.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 31, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Square mirror requires very long flange distance. Sans mirror, it's much more feasible, even with current lenses and mounts



This thread is interesting! So why not a 36mm square sensor? Personally, I have no problem with square images.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 31, 2017)

Khalai said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > On the "Con" side:
> ...



Agreed, but let's not forget the long term impacts. If there is a true benefit, then Canon should introduce a new mount. In the long run, it will pay off. If the benefit is small or negligible, I expect Canon to stick with the EF mount. Either way, I expect a long transitional period. 

In another thread, about 6 months ago, I predicted that Canon would be selling dSLRs until ~2030, so another 13 years, or 12 years after the release of the "high end" mirrorless body. Technically, that is enough time for 3 more generations of the 5D and 1Dx bodies, my guess would be that we see 2 more generations (2020 and 2025). If there is a mount change, that is enough of a transitional period.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 31, 2017)

wockawocka said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



well, looking at bhphotovideo and amazon.. they don't appear to be flying off the shelves there. the only ones that seem to be flying off the shelves is the 5D Mark IV.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 31, 2017)

Fourth Quarter 2018 is a long ways away. A lot can change between then and now. But it will give people on this forum lots to argue about in the meantime and that may be why someone slipped that slide into the presentation. 

My thoughts. 

I can't see a fourth lens mount from Canon. So I would guess either APS-C with existing EF-M mount or full-frame with EF mount. 

Full frame is not guaranteed. The Fuji X-Pro is certainly high-end and not full-frame. The 7DII is high-end. I could see a 7DIII and a high-end mirrorless sharing the same sensor. We've had like a gazillion pages of discussion about how the new 6DII sensor is no better than the 80D. One might reasonably expect the 7DIII sensor to be even better than the 80D sensor, so perhaps Canon is confident that they won't need to go full-frame.

We don't have access to Canon's market research, so we don't know what the driving factors are behind mirrorless. If it is size, then APS-C is the more likely sensor size. If it is something else, then a full-frame sensor is possible -- but I'd like to know what that "something" might be.


----------



## Ditboy (Jul 31, 2017)

Introduced Q4 of 2018? Kiss it goodbye Canon, Sony will be way too far out front to catch. Been a Canon user for 40 years. I went to a Sony a9 demo this weekend. It's the real deal. When they add some serious long glass, the tide will turn. Sony is playing it really smart too, marketing to Canon users. The rep had a metabones adaptor for EF glass and passed it around with a 24-70 mounted. "Buy our bodies now and convert glass to native Sony as you can" is the feeling I got. 2019? Too late. The sidelines will still be white lenses, but with Sony on them. And for those who don't shoot sports or nature, Fuji is positioned well right now too.


----------



## Yasko (Jul 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I know a big enough sample of professionals to say it's very different with the A9 vs the previous models.
> ...



Never underestimate the power of tenth


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 31, 2017)

Ditboy said:


> Introduced Q4 of 2018? Kiss it goodbye Canon, Sony will be way too far out front to catch. Been a Canon user for 40 years. I went to a Sony a9 demo this weekend. It's the real deal. When they add some serious long glass, the tide will turn. Sony is playing it really smart too, marketing to Canon users. The rep had a metabones adaptor for EF glass and passed it around with a 24-70 mounted. "Buy our bodies now and convert glass to native Sony as you can" is the feeling I got. 2019? Too late. The sidelines will still be white lenses, but with Sony on them. And for those who don't shoot sports or nature, Fuji is positioned well right now too.



As a photojournalist that just tried out an A9 this past weekend.. I'm not sold at all. The EVF was terrible even in high performance mode, which really surprised me since all I've heard about online is "how great the EVF is," but I guess the greatness comes from how terrible they always have been. I wasn't a fan of the ergonomics or the menu system and found it extremely un-intuitive at every turn. Even with just the 70-200 on it I despised the size of it, and adding the grip really didn't do much for me either. It's an uncomfortable camera in general. I would absolutely hate to imagine putting some real long glass on it. As someone that depends on getting the shots to pay the bills, it really makes no sense to switch to something that will only get in the way of how I shoot.

But even beyond that, as a platinum professional service member, it's going to take a lot more than improving the problems with the A9 to get me to even begin thinking about changing brands, and that goes for most of the professional news/sports organizations that I know that depend on professional services day in and day out. That simply won't change in the course of a few years. Once Canon decides to drop their own flagship, professional mirrorless camera, I'm sure it will be at a time when the technology is actually there.


----------



## HarryFilm (Jul 31, 2017)

Adding some fuel to this NEW CAMERA rumour fire, I am adding my juicy tidbit
from an update of one of my previous posts where I alluded to a VERY HIGH END medium format Canon camera using a 1Dx Mark 2 body style with possibly a 65mm/70mm-type medium format sensor.

See original post:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32297.0

I also alluded to a grainy Skype video seen that seemed to correlate to just such a system.

Now the interesting thing is that I have SEEN a much clearer Skype-streamed copy of that video from Germany containing a now much more obvious large medium format unmistakeably Canon Camera design that was definitely used on a football pitch (i.e. soccer field for you Americans) in Munich, Germany (i.e. Olympiapark sports complex)

I also have a better ability to make a direct comparison of the actual size and I can say it is twice the size of a 1Dxmk2 and depthwise from front-to-back is about twice the depth of the 1Dxmk2. I can also say the lenses are HUGE and probably very heavy but I think I can live with that since it has been told to me over and over again by my Germany/Netherlands contacts that it shoot 25 fps at 50 megapixels
48 bit colour (16-bits per colour channel!) onto user-specified INTERNAL SSD hard disks OR CFAST cards OR BOTH! It has ALSO been told to me over and over again that it shoots 50 megapixel 25 fps 48bit colour RAW and 4:4:4 Wavelet-based JPEG-2000 images. It HAS the ability to shoot 50/60 fps 4K video sampled from the ENTIRE SENSOR area and NOT cropped. It HAS an articulating OLED touchscreen with a stated resolution of 1920 x 1200 (that's a weird resolution!), a 3.5mm microphone input jack AND a headphone/audio output jack! 10-bit 4:2:2 MP4-style (is it Canon AVC?) video codec will be there at the starting gate along with CLOG 1/2/3 as told to me!

It is obvious to me that the design of the mirrorless camera and it's construction indicates a well-along body and lens design that is nearly production ready. It has again, been iterated over and over again to me that the 56mm by 42mm CMOS Bayer Pattern Global Shutter Sensor resolution is 8192 by 6036 pixels (4:3 aspect ratio) and the individual photosite size is 6.82 microns per pixel with a 14.5 EV at ISO 100 of Dynamic range (that's BETTER than the 1Dx Mk2!). Mid-2018 seems to be an announce date window with a price point being somewhere between 12 000 Euros to 16 000 Euros!

THAT is the information that has been repeated to me over and over again from said tech head/engineering types who seem to KNOW A LOT ABOUT the internal specifications of the camera AND who have shown me a MUCH BETTER COPY of a video that was taken at Olympiapark sports complex in Munich, Germany.

Let the comments rip and tear into this!

But in MY BOOKS --- I saw what I saw and I am pretty sure what I saw was a FULLY WORKING Canon Medium Format STILLS camera!


----------



## Woody (Aug 1, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> well, looking at bhphotovideo and amazon.. they don't appear to be flying off the shelves there. the only ones that seem to be flying off the shelves is the 5D Mark IV.



According to CIPA, ratio of DSLR to MILC shipment:

2015 Jan-May = 3.42:1 (2015 Jan-Dec = 2.90:1)
2016 Jan-May = 3.02:1 (2016 Jan-Dec = 2.67:1)
2017 Jan-May = 1.76:1


----------



## scyrene (Aug 1, 2017)

Ditboy said:


> Introduced Q4 of 2018? Kiss it goodbye Canon, Sony will be way too far out front to catch. Been a Canon user for 40 years. I went to a Sony a9 demo this weekend. It's the real deal. When they add some serious long glass, the tide will turn. Sony is playing it really smart too, marketing to Canon users. The rep had a metabones adaptor for EF glass and passed it around with a 24-70 mounted. "Buy our bodies now and convert glass to native Sony as you can" is the feeling I got. 2019? Too late. The sidelines will still be white lenses, but with Sony on them. And for those who don't shoot sports or nature, Fuji is positioned well right now too.



LOL


----------



## scyrene (Aug 1, 2017)

HarryFilm said:


> Adding some fuel to this NEW CAMERA rumour fire, I am adding my juicy tidbit
> from an update of one of my previous posts where I alluded to a VERY HIGH END medium format Canon camera using a 1Dx Mark 2 body style with possibly a 65mm/70mm-type medium format sensor.
> 
> See original post:
> ...



Even more LOL.


----------



## gmrza (Aug 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



There are however a few interesting challenges for mirrorless bodies, some of which may not be possible to address:


Beyond a certain focal length - possibly around 200mm - the weight of the body becomes academic as the lenses are so heavy
If Canon retains the EF mount for a FF mirrorless system, then the flange distance cannot change, meaning the depth of the body cannot change
With a shorter flange distance, the incident angle of the light reaching the sensor becomes more oblique - something that Canon's sensors don't cope with very well. (This is also an issue with very fast lenses like the 85mm f/1.2.) Canon probably needs to do some work on its sensors to address this first.
Mirrorless sensors can't focus during the period when the sensor is being read out (yet). This is something DSLRs can do (because the mirror is down), and a key feature for sports and action photographers.

I have no doubt that the days of the reflex mirror are numbered, but there are still some technical challenges which need to be overcome before it can be put into complete retirement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2017)

HarryFilm said:


> But in MY BOOKS --- I saw what I saw and I am pretty sure what I saw was a FULLY WORKING Canon Medium Format STILLS camera!



And the evidence you said you'd provide? Yeah. 

In MY BOOKS, use of psychoactive agents is a distinct possibility.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2017)

Ditboy said:


> 2019? Too late. The sidelines will still be white lenses, but with Sony on them. And for those who don't shoot sports or nature, Fuji is positioned well right now too.



You're assuming Sony will still be making MILCs in 2019, and that's far from a given. Can you say 'Samsung MILC'? Can you say 'Sony dSLR'? Not anymore. 

Fuji is well positioned to be a boutique, niche ILC brand in the future...just like they are today. 

Seems like they're passing out crazy pills like candy.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 1, 2017)

Woody said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > well, looking at bhphotovideo and amazon.. they don't appear to be flying off the shelves there. the only ones that seem to be flying off the shelves is the 5D Mark IV.
> ...



except we were talking the Sony A9.

also .. those CIPA numbers.. they have canon to thank for alot of it.

70% increase in MILC sales over 2Q 2016 with the same amount of ILC's sold.

that means a dramatic change in the CIPA numbers.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> HarryFilm said:
> 
> 
> > But in MY BOOKS --- I saw what I saw and I am pretty sure what I saw was a FULLY WORKING Canon Medium Format STILLS camera!
> ...



Sambuca (Licorice flavour) and Asbach Uralt (Fine German Brandy)
are my two favourite agents of mind-bending alteration....!!!

Now after that, I now confidently say Canon Medium Format (it could 
also be viewed as a large format flagship sports/action camera!) is 
where the heat is on in terms of the rumour mill in the Canon world

Don't be surprised to see some sort of talk at IBC or soon 
after coming from Canon! What is interesting to me is that 
after the Canon C700 Cinema EOS Global Shutter option 
becoming available, Canon execs did mention something 
about global shutter sensors becoming a mainstay in all
their product lines in the not too far future!

Again, large sensor 48-bit colour, 50 megapixel 
mirrorless is what Canon will be giving us next year! 

YOU CAN TAKE STATEMENT THAT TO THE BANK!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2017)

HarryFilm said:


> Again, large sensor 48-bit colour, 50 megapixel
> mirrorless is what Canon will be giving us next year!
> 
> YOU CAN TAKE STATEMENT THAT TO THE BANK!



I could, if I wanted to be poor. I'll pass.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 1, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> well, looking at bhphotovideo and amazon.. they don't appear to be flying off the shelves there. the only ones that seem to be flying off the shelves is the 5D Mark IV.



Do you have a link so I can see their sales listings of camera? Thanks


----------



## ethanz (Aug 1, 2017)

Here's proof that Sony is winning and Canon is *******. A PJ using a sony at the White House. I don't see any Canons there. Pros are throwing out their 1dx2's and buying the Sonys. Sorry Neuro, better get rid of your Canon stuff, because its junk.

: : : : :


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 1, 2017)

ethanz said:


> Here's proof that Sony is winning and Canon is *******. A PJ using a sony at the White House. I don't see any Canons there. Pros are throwing out their 1dx2's and buying the Sonys. Sorry Neuro, better get rid of your Canon stuff, because its junk.
> 
> : : : : :



Humor aside, I figure it's a matter of time until press shifts to quieter cameras for this type of coverage, now that it's available.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2017)

ethanz said:


> Here's proof that Sony is winning and Canon is *******. A PJ using a sony at the White House. I don't see any Canons there. Pros are throwing out their 1dx2's and buying the Sonys. Sorry Neuro, better get rid of your Canon stuff, because its junk.



I thought you knew...all the good, qualified PJs have been banned from covering this administration's White House. So those poor saps were stuck with what got left behind in the equipment closet.

;D


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 1, 2017)

rjbray01 said:


> Surely we can guess at most aspects of the camera : Full Frame, EF lens mount, 4K - probably cropped with unpopular codec, reasonable dynamic range, and perhaps silent shutter with high FPS too and perhaps viewfinder magnification to match Sony.
> 
> But, it seems to me there is one feature which is utterly paramount above all else : In Body Stabilization for Still Shots.
> 
> ...



Totally agree that would be a huge plus. But increased dynamic range and 4K are necessities.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 1, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > Here's proof that Sony is winning and Canon is *******. A PJ using a sony at the White House. I don't see any Canons there. Pros are throwing out their 1dx2's and buying the Sonys. Sorry Neuro, better get rid of your Canon stuff, because its junk.
> ...



I was kind of surprised to see someone using a Sony so I knew I had to screenshot it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > Here's proof that Sony is winning and Canon is *******. A PJ using a sony at the White House. I don't see any Canons there. Pros are throwing out their 1dx2's and buying the Sonys. Sorry Neuro, better get rid of your Canon stuff, because its junk.
> ...


Peter Souza, Obama's photographer, who has created some absolutely fantastic images had a brief dalliance with Sony, he used 5D models for years but moved to Sony while using the 5D MkIII's which he used a lot. He dropped Sony after less than a year and went to 5D MkIV's.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 1, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > Here's proof that Sony is winning and Canon is *******. A PJ using a sony at the White House. I don't see any Canons there. Pros are throwing out their 1dx2's and buying the Sonys. Sorry Neuro, better get rid of your Canon stuff, because its junk.
> ...



I don't disagree with this eventually happening, but having covered assignments at the White House, no one is ever all that bothered by the noise other than TV crews, it's just part of life there. It doesn't really matter if your own camera is silent if there's still going to be 15 other D5s or 1DX2s in these scenarios, so that itself is not going to be a driving change in that respect. So far the ones I have talked to are mainly interested in seeing their exposures in the EVF, but I'd say a majority cares much more about battery life than anything else.


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 1, 2017)

ethanz said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > ethanz said:
> ...



I think the Associated Press has been trying it out. AP's Andy Harnik has been using a A9 alongside his 1DX mark II recently, but I'm not sure if that's his personal A9 or if the AP is actually trying it out. Strange to see them mixing Canon and Sony though, so I doubt it's any sign of a real change.


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 1, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > ethanz said:
> ...



I sort of remember reading about it. The a7 line is horrible as working tools and it's silent electronic shutter is basically a gimmick. The a9 is a different story but I still have serious doubts as to it's durability.


----------



## Woody (Aug 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're assuming Sony will still be making MILCs in 2019, and that's far from a given. Can you say 'Samsung MILC'? Can you say 'Sony dSLR'? Not anymore.
> 
> Fuji is well positioned to be a boutique, niche ILC brand in the future...just like they are today.



Precisely my sentiments


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 1, 2017)

ethanz said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > well, looking at bhphotovideo and amazon.. they don't appear to be flying off the shelves there. the only ones that seem to be flying off the shelves is the 5D Mark IV.
> ...



https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?setNs=p_POPULARITY%7c1&Ns=p_POPULARITY%7c1&ci=9811&srtclk=sort&N=4288586282

https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/12556502011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_electronics_1_4


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 1, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > ethanz said:
> ...



he didn't even use sony for that long - a few weeks.

there was only one press photo taken with Sony .. the rest were from the 5D's.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2017)

If Canon is coming out with a high end mirrorless in Q4 of 2018, that's 15-18 months from now, likely 16. They will have certainly set the design by now, and long lead time parts will be on order, it takes on the order of 1 year for some hard tooling, and developing the sensor likely takes longer. We are never getting the latest tech when we buy a new camera model, its always 1-1/2 - 2 years out of date. 

If features change between now and the introduction, it will be because they could not be developed in time to meet the schedule. Assembly is going to start 6 months before the first shipments, so there is really about 12 months to get it all done.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> HarryFilm said:
> 
> 
> > Again, large sensor 48-bit colour, 50 megapixel
> ...



-----

While I do understand your skepticism, some recent engineering specs and math equations sent to me by my Germany/Netherlands contacts seems to indicate quite clearly that Canon has solved the write speed/recording format issue quite nicely with the system I saw demonstrated VERY CLEARLY on a recent Skype call.

It definitely looks like the two internal SSD cards and/or the two CFAST cards
are being interleaved for still photo use in RAW and JPEG-2000 modes. At 296 megabytes per frame at 25 fps the RAW frame rate is theoretically 3.7 gigabytes per second per drive or card. EVIDENTLY it seams RAW isn't really *RAW* but rather a modified RAW-lite similar to what's in the recently introduced Canon C200 Cinema camera which is PROBABLY a run-length encoded image format at about a 3:1 to 5:1 compression ratio which means a high of 1.2 gigabytes per second down to as low as 741 megabytes per second. I would expect a large 12 to 16 gigabytes internal RAM buffer would bring buffer write times to around less than 4 seconds in RAW-lite mode. which is enough for a 3-to-4 second burst shooting speed at 25 fps!

Using JPEG-2000 4:4:4 codecs, the compression ratios are down to 10:1 to 15:1 or 370 megabytes per second or as low as 247 megabytes per second for a 50 megapixel image sequence. That is what it looks like the performance parameters are going to be for now! This would seem to indicate that there will be not only two high-speed DIGIC processors onboard but that it was mentioned that two separate FPGA chips (Field Programmable Gate Array) were added to take the compression load off the DIGICs!

Cost-wise that would be less than $400 Euros to add both those powerful FPGA chips, which makes engineering and financial sense to me since FPGA's are ALSO FLASH UPDATEABLE in the field which means NEW codecs could be added later!

---

I do have a technical surprise for everyone here since my Germany/Netherland contacts have a specific public reveal/public leak in mind (which they haven't told me about yet!) but it seems they want to do something just before the International Broadcasters Convention (IBC) which is 14-to-19 September 2017 in Amsterdam. 
It seems they have certain imagery and documents which they will release then which will remove all doubt about their claims! They were SUPPOSED to release this just after NAB 2017 but that did not happen! We shall see!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2017)

: : :


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 1, 2017)

HarryFilm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > HarryFilm said:
> ...



Well, I guess we'll see who's right this fall 

My money is on this camera NOT having 4K judging on Canon's stinginess in this matter but I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 1, 2017)

Again, I truly do understand and am very sympathetic to your skepticism (I WOULD BE TOO!) but when a live Skype Stream shows such clear video (I should have done a screen capture!) of such an obvious Canon 1Dx mk2-like Design (it looks VERY DIFFERENT than the recently introduced Canon C200 Cinema EOS camera which has a basic video box look to it!), it means to me something is coming up REAL SOON NOW!

HOW my contacts actually GOT the specifications is very unclear to me but because they are literally electrical/chip engineers and computer scientist professionals, I just cannot easily dismiss their claims. They've been right far too many times within the last 10 years on various product launches for me to say clearly that its all just B.S. !!! 

I'm just passing along what I get because I am NOT PART OF their "Team" and I have NO other information as to the HOWS of them getting their clearly high-level technical information! They may have or actually BE the people on the inside! That is only a supposition as I have NO definitive proof ...BUT... I'm personally putting some of that information currency I've gotten INTO THE BANK because I think it's at least 90% true!

And you are right....we shall see soon enough if it's at all true!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2017)

We already saw, around the time of NAB. 

But by all means, use more CAPITALIZATION. It really helps convince everyone that you know the TRUTH.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 1, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



It seems I'm the only person in this world that hates AFMA calibration.


----------



## Woody (Aug 1, 2017)

Jopa said:


> It seems I'm the only person in this world that hates AFMA calibration.



No, you're not. I hate it with a passion.

I don't care about zebra/live view/focus peaking/4k video etc. 

But I care about AF accuracy. Apart from possible weight/size reduction (not major), this is the single biggest attraction of MILCs to me.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 1, 2017)

+1
Interleaving the data across 2 cards is just asking for a trouble... the odds for the data being lost being doubled. Not a single chance Canon will be looking into something like this. Plain crazy (mild statement).




neuroanatomist said:


> : : :


----------



## rjbray01 (Aug 1, 2017)

Thinking of what to expect from a new "high end" Mirrorless from Canon ...

Question : how does in-body stabilization for stills shots actually work ? Its just occurred to me that for video all that is happening is that camera shake is being removed by mapping one frame to the next and aligning the pictures on top of one another ... but for still shots this doesn't make any sense at all. Does it work by gyroscopes allowing the sensor to "float" ? Or what ? Does it actually offer any huge advantage in the way that lens optical stabilization does ? 

I would love to hear if anyone knows anything about this ... 

thanks


----------



## Jopa (Aug 1, 2017)

Woody said:


> I don't care about zebra/live view/focus peaking/4k video etc.



LOL I couldn't care less either! If Canon makes a FF mirrorless the first thing I would do is to buy the _notorious_ Sigma 50 Art


----------



## SPKoko (Aug 1, 2017)

Woody said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > It seems I'm the only person in this world that hates AFMA calibration.
> ...



*This!!! 100% this!!!!!* After getting a m43 and seeing that all the photos (of still subjects) taken at f1.8 have 100% accurate focus, I cannot look back to AFMA again!


----------



## mahdi_mak2000 (Aug 1, 2017)

I believe they should go with this sigma quattro design. a built in M to EF mount. to compensate the camera flange distance of EF mounts.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 1, 2017)

> Interleaving the data across 2 cards is just asking for a trouble... 

There are two types of data loss:

One is when your card fails and you lose data that you have recorded.

The other, less obvious, is the loss of a shot because your buffer is full and you are cannot therefore record it to card.

While it certainly shouldn't be the default, I can see a good case for a system where, for example, during shooting photos are written alternatively to each of the cards in order to maximise throughput and therefore increase the number of shots that can be taken before your buffer fills up.

A background task would then at low priority mirror the shots between the two cards so that they are not written concurrently but delayed.

As I said, many people would not trust this. But for some people this may be essential to get the performance out of the camera they need. So why not make it an option?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 1, 2017)

You loose a few a shots due to the buffer is full and you loose entire content of the card due to the card failure.
this is an extreme risk as the data being spanned across 2 cards and each card contains half of the entire data only. Most people would not have a clue. Canon plays safe. Always.




jolyonralph said:


> > Interleaving the data across 2 cards is just asking for a trouble...
> 
> There are two types of data loss:
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2017)

mahdi_mak2000 said:


> I believe they should go with this sigma quattro design. a built in M to EF mount. to compensate the camera flange distance of EF mounts.


WOW! 

A high end camera with terrible ergonomics and a striking lack of controls..... no thanks!


----------



## Woody (Aug 1, 2017)

Jopa said:


> If Canon makes a FF mirrorless the first thing I would do is to buy the _notorious_ Sigma 50 Art



I am not entirely certain if Sigma Art lenses fare better on MILCs. Will give it another try in future.

On the other hand, I find STM lenses AF very accurately (including 50 f/1.8 STM) through the OVF on my 77D. Strange


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 1, 2017)

Don, Mahdi was referring to the protruding lens mount on the Sigma cam. a built in, integrated adapter to compensate the longer EF flange distance. that's all.



Don Haines said:


> mahdi_mak2000 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe they should go with this sigma quattro design. a built in M to EF mount. to compensate the camera flange distance of EF mounts.
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 1, 2017)

yes, they do. Art glass AF consistency is superb on Canon bodies in Live View mode. 



Woody said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon makes a FF mirrorless the first thing I would do is to buy the _notorious_ Sigma 50 Art
> ...


----------



## Khalai (Aug 1, 2017)

mahdi_mak2000 said:


> I believe they should go with this sigma quattro design. a built in M to EF mount. to compensate the camera flange distance of EF mounts.



They can keep current form-factor, just lose the mirror, lose the front prism bulge and I'm all good. Current grips on FF cameras are just about right, they can accomodate multiple card slots and most of all, large battery. Add a tilting screen while at it please. I don't want any small A7 nonsense, that camera is a pain to hold for a longer periods of time.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Don, Mahdi was referring to the protruding lens mount on the Sigma cam. a built in, integrated adapter to compensate the longer EF flange distance. that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but look what it has bone to the grip, and there isn't the real estate for the controls that one expects on a high end camera..... the shape of cameras has evolved to where it is now for a reason. A high end mirrorless should not look much different than current DSLRs


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 1, 2017)

you are correct, but the photo is only to demonstrate the protruding mount and nothing else.



Don Haines said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Don, Mahdi was referring to the protruding lens mount on the Sigma cam. a built in, integrated adapter to compensate the longer EF flange distance. that's all.
> ...


----------



## Khalai (Aug 1, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> you are correct, but the photo is only to demonstrate the protruding mount and nothing else.



No need for protruding mount, if they keep the current form factor. Better rigidity, better handling, more space for buttons etc. As someone already pointed out, DSLR body design is ergonomically honed by decades. No need to fix something, which is not broken


----------



## Bahrd (Aug 1, 2017)

HarryFilm said:


> Using JPEG-2000 4:4:4 codecs, the compression ratios are down to 10:1 to 15:1 or 370 megabytes per second or as low as 247 megabytes per second for a 50 megapixel image sequence. That is what it looks like the performance parameters are going to be for now! This would seem to indicate that there will be not only two high-speed DIGIC processors onboard but that it was mentioned that two separate FPGA chips (Field Programmable Gate Array) were added to take the compression load off the DIGICs!



Great to see a JPEG2000 resurrection! I know about a few FPGA implementations of the standard - there is likely the one made by Dr. David Taubman's team (the KAKADU provider). It was 2006 when I applied to NSF (to no avail, however) for a grant to make one using Xilinx'a FPGA with PowerPCs onboard. 

Anyway, it actually makes sense - in my opinion - for Canon to create a mirrorless MF camera (rather than FF/APS-C/H) which will be used to test and implement a new tech...


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 1, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> You loose a few a shots due to the buffer is full and you loose entire content of the card due to the card failure.



How often do you lose cards? I've got close to 280,000 shots since 1999 in my Lightroom library In the time since I've been taking it seriously (2010) I have had TWO times when cards have failed on me, and both times I was able to get back probably everything using data recovery software. I would probably go on about making sure you only use quality cards, but I've used some pretty cheap SD and CF cards too.

How many times have I failed to get a good shot because the buffer is full? Too many to recall. 

Now, i'm not a professional and no-one is paying me to take these shots. If I was doing a paid wedding shoot, for example, then I'd be more paranoid and I'd prefer to record concurrently to two reliable cards.

But most photographers aren't professional. And the balance of risks for me certainly is in favour of using a staggered saving approach to increase buffer throughput performance.

As I said before, it should NOT be the default behaviour however. So, if it's not the default, what could anyone possibly have against this idea?


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 1, 2017)

Khalai said:


> No need for protruding mount, if they keep the current form factor. Better rigidity, better handling, more space for buttons etc. As someone already pointed out, DSLR body design is ergonomically honed by decades. No need to fix something, which is not broken



And also, no need to have an empty box inside there. If you no longer have a mirror assembly, why not use the space for some kind of drop-down / flip down filter, eg neutral density filter?


----------



## Khalai (Aug 1, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > No need for protruding mount, if they keep the current form factor. Better rigidity, better handling, more space for buttons etc. As someone already pointed out, DSLR body design is ergonomically honed by decades. No need to fix something, which is not broken
> ...



Neat idea


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > No need for protruding mount, if they keep the current form factor. Better rigidity, better handling, more space for buttons etc. As someone already pointed out, DSLR body design is ergonomically honed by decades. No need to fix something, which is not broken
> ...



That is a great example of both thinking outside the box, and thinking inside the box , at the same time....


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 1, 2017)

Have we not been around this sandbox? 

If it is full-frame and utilises EF lenses then your governed by the back focus which will set a certain size of camera and not make it massively smaller than say a 6D MKII (minus the pentaprism housing). The lenses will be no smaller so all that effort will be primarily for a small gain in camera body weight and possibly to the detriment of in hand balance. 

A shorter back focus will require new lenses for full-frame for marginal savings in lens design to compliment the camera so what is the real point? 

We may just see a mirrorless camera the size of a 6D MKII.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Have we not been around this sandbox?
> 
> If it is full-frame and utilises EF lenses then your governed by the back focus which will set a certain size of camera and not make it massively smaller than say a 6D MKII (minus the pentaprism housing). The lenses will be no smaller so all that effort will be primarily for a small gain in camera body weight and possibly to the detriment of in hand balance.
> 
> ...



And therein lies the conundrum that is mirrorless, is the reason for its exiistance to save size and weight or is it because it does stuff better than a camera with a mirror?

Canon decided that with regards the M line of mirrorless size and weight were the critical issue so we have small, slow short registration distance lenses and smaller bodies with comparatively poor battery life. This feature set attracts a certain kind of buyer and is much more popular in emerging markets.

If they decide the reasoning behind a ff mirrorless is that it offers a feature set not possibly with a mirror, something particularly interesting to current shooters not so much forum trolls, then the size and weight is close to irrelevant. We have already seen the lenses that we want, 70-200 f2.8's, fast primes etc don't get smaller just because they are attached to mirrorless bodies, so the 20mm difference in body depth is of little consequence.

I cannot see Canon making anything but an EF native compatible ff mirrorless, nothing else makes business sense.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 1, 2017)

Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 1, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.



True, they really did treat the M line as something you shouldn't be picking up for serious shooting.


----------



## snoke (Aug 1, 2017)

wockawocka said:


> Professional wedding photographers are inhaling them off the shelves. Interestingly a lot of folks are leaving Nikon due to the similarities in sensor output but less so with Canon.



And why not?

Native glass = 20fps with silent shutter. Nobody hear anything in church. Big win.

Go to grand slam tennis match. Everyone must be silent for serve (and during points.) Photographers have exception. With camera like A9, this can change. Don't need 400/2.8 or 500/4 or 600/5.6 for tennis when sitting as pro.

Coincidence that this rumor arrive and you say this? I think not. Canon make defensive rumor to stop defection. If Canon smart then watching Nikon defections and be worried it next.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.
> ...



Canon did not deny that, it was originally aimed at a small market, a very small camera for women shooters in Japan. 

To me, the best feature of a mirrorless is removal of the mirror assemblies, and associated Rube Goldberg claptrap. All that complex mechanism is responsible to lens focusing errors and the need for AFMA. 

Accurate autofocus every time is possible with a mirrorless.

Downside is the need for a EVF, which is a new failure point to replace the old. Electronics are generally more reliable than mechanical items, so that should still be a reliability improvement. The other negatives of a EVF remain.

I'd like to see a bridge camera with a hybrid optical / evf setup, Canon and others have plenty of patents, so we know its been considered, but that might be even more unreliable due to many more parts and failure points.

I want a reliable camera with as few failure modes as possible that autofocuses perfectly every time and uses my existing EF lenses. Fancy features like wi-fi and GPS eat up the battery, add keeping the camera in live view all the time, evf, and battery life drops even more ... A lot more!

I suspect that power management and battery life are the biggest problems Manufacturers face with mirrorless designs. A more powerful processor to manage the dual pixel autofocus at pro level speeds only adds to battery woes. A hybrid design could retain the current fast enough for many uses level of AF in mirrorless mode and not require a more powerful processor.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Have we not been around this sandbox?
> ...


I agree!

For some people, the big criteria is small, and you can't beat an "M" series camera. For others, the criteria is quality, and you can't beat a FF camera with EF lenses and the real estate to get proper controls and ergonomics...


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 1, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> no tethering ability of any kind



mmm wrong. I can wifi tether quite easily. I literally just tap my phone to the bottom of the camera. Done.

PS I've also used auto-ISO on the M's for now what would be 100's of thousands of shots. I never felt crippled by it.

Again, I think some are way too focused on specs without actually using the products.

the M3 was IMO. a disaster. however the M5/M6's are quite good. Ergonomically the M6/5 are as good or better than any other mirrorless. tri-navigational wheels are pretty much unheard of since the NEX-7. and the M5's three navigational wheels AND exposure compensation is outlandishly good for a mirrorless. the fact that it's still smaller than most other higher end mirrorless that are APS-C is just icing on the cake.

a few authors on dpreview even commented that they'd take a M5 out versus a Sony A6x000 series body because it just works and feels better.

Again.. it's about actually using the products versus looking at specs.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 1, 2017)

I feel reasonably qualified to talk about the M5/M6 vs the A6000 as I have all three here.

I was underwhelmed by the M5 at first, I thought there were problems with the ergonomics - but I have to say that over time, I have fewer and fewer problems with it, and I'm now pretty happy with the way it works.

I got the M6 thinking I may prefer it to the M5, and in general the layout is slightly better and I prefer the adjustable EVF-DC1 viewfinder to the built-in M5 viewfinder even though it's slightly slower. 

Since getting the M6, I haven't used the A6000 once - in fact I have promised it to someone else now, and as much I enjoyed using it, I won't miss it.

With the M5 and M6 Canon have pretty much nailed the mirrorless APS-C cameras. Focus speed and accuracy is superb. It took them some time, but they have done it.

I'd like to see more native EF-M lenses. But then if a decent FF mirrorless camera comes out, as long as it has the 5D IV sensor not the 6D II sensor, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 1, 2017)

Khalai said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > you are correct, but the photo is only to demonstrate the protruding mount and nothing else.
> ...



But...if you don't change things...that's not innovative! And Canon needs to be innovative or..or...well, you know...


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 1, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I feel reasonably qualified to talk about the M5/M6 vs the A6000 as I have all three here.
> 
> I was underwhelmed by the M5 at first, I thought there were problems with the ergonomics - but I have to say that over time, I have fewer and fewer problems with it, and I'm now pretty happy with the way it works.
> 
> ...



I'm always interested it see people's opinion's of the M6 versus the M5. I'm debating on changing my kit "down" to dual M6's instead of M5's simply because of the articulating EVF and smaller camera bodies in general.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 1, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > no tethering ability of any kind
> ...



You're right : it can be tethered to a phone. I should have said : no proper tethering ability to a computer, either via Wifi or USB. I can't control it from the computer, can't properly manage it through EOS Utility, third party softwares (for focus stacking for example) can't communicate with the camera, etc.

As a result, even a cheap Rebel from 2008 has better computer tethering abilities than Canon's "expert" mirrorless camera. 



rrcphoto said:


> PS I've also used auto-ISO on the M's for now what would be 100's of thousands of shots. I never felt crippled by it.
> 
> Again, I think some are way too focused on specs without actually using the products.
> 
> Again.. it's about actually using the products versus looking at specs.



That's just a completely dumb, idiotic and patronising comment. As if I had to use the M5 to know exactly how its rubbish auto ISO implementation would affect me on a daily basis. As if I didn't know exactly some of the workarounds that may, in some situations, but not all, be effective replacements. More importantly : as if a camera manufacturer had ever actually bothered to list in their specification documents the way auto ISO is implemented. "Using the products" ? Well, that's exactly what the details of auto ISO implementation are about !

As it turns out, some Powershots released in the last few years have a better auto ISO implementation than Canon's "expert" mirrorless camera.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 1, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Fair enough. That being said it's on par with the crappiest tethering implementation they sell today. Fixing the M tethering is mandatory if they want it to be taken seriously in the long term.



rrcphoto said:


> btw, my point about auto-ISO stands. btw, it has exposure compensation with auto-ISO in manual, something not even the 5D Mark III had.



Something every single digital camera should have had since, well... ever, because any competent designer would understand that in "manual mode with auto ISO" (a terminology that makes no sense, but never mind), there still is one automatically set variable, that logically begs for being compensated. That it took camera manufacturers more than a decade to get it doesn't show a lot of design acumen on their part and gross design incompetence. 



rrcphoto said:


> but not having a lower end to the auto-ISO adjustment as being necessary? really?



Nope, because ISO has no artistic bearing on a picture, i.e., you'll always want your ISO to be as low as possible given other exposure parameters. It's a design mistake from camera manufacturers to have a minimum ISO value in auto ISO, albeit an understandable one as it appeared to compensate for other design mistakes they've made over the years. 



rrcphoto said:


> or a bias? it's life or death? sorry, in the real world .. not seeing it. there's only one EF-M lens that would be affected by auto-ISO not taking into account focal - the 55-250, and parts of the 18-150mm. since 90% of my shots are with the 11-22mm, or with the 18-150 in the wide end, auto-ISO the way it is - is perfect. Thanks.



That, yes, and not just a bias, but also a fixed, manually selectable minimum shutter speed, with the option to combine both an auto bias and a manually selected minimum shutter speed - I'm expecting a brain freeze here from some people who struggle to understand how and why you might want to have the option to combine both. (BTW minimum and maximum exposure values should be more directly controlled but that's another, bigger design problem with current cameras). The fact that you think that you only need to have some degree of control over minimum shutter speed to compensate for a zoom's focal length shows a rather incomplete understanding of how these features can be exploited. 



rrcphoto said:


> do you also know that all canon's re-evaluate auto-ISO during AEB? something hardly any other brand actually does, and should? now THAT is far more useful IMO.



Good thing you edited your post to add the word "hardly", because, well, Canon "hardly" is the only brand to do so. -1 point for some of my older cameras in that regard . 

- 10 000 for Fuji's bracketing implementation in every way, if that makes you pleased. 

That being said, my 5DIII and 6D did lock the ISO when doing in camera HDR, but I believe that is due to a processing limitation as it concerns all in camera multiple exposures combinations. 

Conversely, should we talk about Canon's stubbornly idiotic auto ISO implementation with flash ? 

All camera manufacturers, anyway, have yet to get that they have put a digital sensor in their cameras and that exposure controls inspired from the 80s (or 70s) are quite limited compared to what can be done today, and as a result, all of them falter when it comes to auto ISO implementation in one way or another. One more reason to give your best in that regard and not play Canon's favourite game of "features Russian roulette".



rrcphoto said:


> and btw, who's to say this is an "expert" or prosumer camera? it's still by and large, steel and plastic chassis - which is for the most part, rebel quality. which btw, has the same Auto-ISO functionality.



It's more expensive than any Rebel, on par with a "steel and plastic" 80D, with a better auto ISO implementation, and certainly more expensive than Powershots with a better auto ISO implementation. As you rightly pointed out, its control scheme and dials implementation is more sophisticated than many other Canon cameras. Which makes its fisher-price auto ISO implementation all the more jarring, irrational, and incoherent.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 1, 2017)

I was actually NOT surprised when I heard the recent rumours from multiple sources about an upcoming large format sensor, since I personally know of 2000's era tests of Canon-made large format sensors used by space agencies.

It makes perfect business sense especially after the recent introductions of the C200 and C700 Cinema EOS cameras designed for Hollywood-style movie makers. Canon wants to go up the value chain selling less but making MORE PROFIT off of higher end gear. Selling 50,000 6D's at 2500 EUROS PALES in comparison to selling 5,000
C700's at 40,000 EUROS for the full kit (i.e. 125 Million Euros vs 200 million Euros in sales) It's a financial no-brainer to go higher up to value-added chain and serve the richer folks before bring the tech down to more affordable levels.

So I fully EXPECT that a 12 000 to 16 000 EUROS Medium Format flagship Canon stills camera will take a HUGE bite away from Hasselblad, Phase-One, Sony and Fuji.
WHY would I pay 40 000+ Euros for a Phase One when I can buy a 50 megapixel Canon Medium Format sensor system for only 16 000 Euros! AND I could still use
the system not just for my high end advertising clients, but also down at the local football pitch or F1 track for my sports magazine clients!

That type of investment for ME would also be a no-brainer! Being able to serve
my daily sports/action editors AND my advert clients with ONE mirrorless 25 fps large sensor camera is simply GOOD BUSINESS SMARTS! So when it comes out late next year, the company Visa card is eagerly awaiting for Canon's large sensor Medium Format pre-order system to go live ! AND after see the video I saw,
I am twenty-times sure this will happen by next summer or next fall 2018!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> True, they really did treat the M line as something you shouldn't be picking up for serious shooting.



Generally agree. But that doesn't mean it can't be used for serious shooting. Usually when I travel to international urban destinations (typically on business), I take my 1D X and a few lenses (24-70/2.8L II, 11-24L, TS-E 17L/24L), and the M2 + M11-22 for daytime walkabouts (and for documenting some of the scientific content at meetings). But when going just for an overnight, where I don't want to check and bag for a tripod, I will take only my M2 + M-11-22 and a Gorillapod, and it gets the job done.

"_London Eye_" - Taken from one of the Golden Jubilee Bridges over the Thames.



EOS M2, EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM @ 20mm, 2.5 s, f/7.1, ISO 400


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> I'm always interested it see people's opinion's of the M6 versus the M5. I'm debating on changing my kit "down" to dual M6's instead of M5's simply because of the articulating EVF and smaller camera bodies in general.



Personally, I'll be picking up an M6 before my trip to Italy next month. For me, the main advantage of the M series is the biggest sensor in the smallest body, and that's the M6. As stated above, it's useful for daytime walkabouts while traveling, but also for family outings (I'll be getting the 18-150mm kit), and as an failure backup for my 1D X (with the mount adapter along).


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 2, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> It's more expensive than any Rebel, on par with a "steel and plastic" 80D, with a better auto ISO implementation


and faster FPS, better video functions, headphone jack,etc.

it's more on par with the 77D, especially when you include the firmware feature-set. also the 80D at launch was more expensive. if anything it sits in between the 77D and 80D as far as price.

the 80D even is not an "expert" camera, but more a lower end prosumer model with the 7D being the professional / expert model.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 2, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm always interested it see people's opinion's of the M6 versus the M5. I'm debating on changing my kit "down" to dual M6's instead of M5's simply because of the articulating EVF and smaller camera bodies in general.
> ...



you'll certainly love the 18-150, even though it may feel a bit front heavy.

I'm actually waiting to see what the M20 will have, if they will put the M6 guts down into that, if so I may decide to get the M20.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 2, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.



I use Auto ISO in manual mode on my M5 all the time and it works great. The exposure compensation dial allows quick and effective EC, not sure what it lacks... I haven't used a Powershot in years, so can't compare.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 2, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.



Can you explain how the Auto ISO is so bad? As far as I can see it works the same as the 1DX MkII, you can control the range it will use and you can use EC with it, what is missing?

As for tethering, you know you can tether is effortlessly via WiFi to a multitude of devices, that might not give you the specific control you are looking for, but it is patently false to say _"no tethering ability of any kind"_, besides, the tethered abilities it does have are probably far more relevant to the target market than your interests.


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 2, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.
> ...



Not sure about auto ISO, but wifi tether is painfully slow on my 5dmk4 and even worst on my 1dxm2 with a ridiculously expensive dongle. Can't imagine it being any better or very usable on the m5.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 2, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.
> ...


you can only control the upper ISO value, you can't control the low end shutter speed or the bias on shutter speed.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 2, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> As for tethering, you know you can tether is effortlessly via WiFi to a multitude of devices, that might not give you the specific control you are looking for, but it is patently false to say _"no tethering ability of any kind"_, besides, the tethered abilities it does have are probably far more relevant to the *target market *than your interests.



A cheap Rebel has better both wireless and wired tethering capabilities to a computer than the M5. What's the Rebels target market BTW ?


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 2, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> That's just a completely dumb, idiotic and patronising comment to assume that only tethering from a computer is proper.



For tasks such as automated macro stacking, Wifi tethering doesn't work. You can only do this with USB tethering [edit: apparently wireless on the DSLRs seems to work, just not the wireless on the EOS M series - possibly due to the limitations of the powershot-derived firmware?]

The lack of wired tethering is, for me, the most serious drawback of the EOS M system. Which is a shame because a lighter, mirrorless camera should be ideal for macro work.


----------



## hne (Aug 2, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> Conversely, should we talk about Canon's stubbornly idiotic auto ISO implementation with flash ?



This. Why on earth is Canon interpreting "Auto ISO" as "Automatically switch to ISO400" whenever something sits in the hot shoe?

Why not use the ambient reading to figure out a reasonable ISO and then measure the preflash against that sensitivity?


----------



## Talys (Aug 2, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.
> ...



WiFi tethering is awesome. Ever since 80D, I've dropped the USB cable when tethering for liveview (on PC). That cable is an invitation to knocking over thousands of dollars worth of stuff.

I love that you can record RAW to camera, and send JPEG to PC. That way, I can review the image in a suitable quality - quickly - and keep the RAW for later.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 2, 2017)

Talys said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > MayaTlab said:
> ...



And that's exactly why there is a problem with the M line, because you can't use Eos Utility to do just that with them.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 2, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Not sure about auto ISO, but WiFi tether is painfully slow on my 5dmk4 and even worst on my 1dxm2 with a ridiculously expensive dongle. Can't imagine it being any better or very usable on the m5.



I've been checking out WiFi tethering on my MK IV. The speed is very dependent on how its done. When I use the camera as a access point, connect a phone or tablet to it, it works as well as could be expected. But, when connecting thru my very fast WiFi access point and gigabit home network, its painfully slow tether to my PC. I have not tried to tether my PC directly to the camera, but it will likely be similar to the phone connection.

I don't understand why its so slow to tether via my access point and wired network, I have a Eye-Fi card that downloads via my access points fast and efficiently, I'd use it for just plain wireless downloads if I needed it done wirelessly.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 2, 2017)

HarryFilm said:


> I was actually NOT surprised when I heard the recent rumours from multiple sources about an upcoming large format sensor, since I personally know of 2000's era tests of Canon-made large format sensors used by space agencies.



Perhaps I shouldn't bite, but... apart from yourself, who is saying this?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 3, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > That's just a completely dumb, idiotic and patronising comment to assume that only tethering from a computer is proper.
> ...



Magic Lantern folks looked at this with the original M. from my recollection the problem is not just the usual "nerfing" but EOS utility itself. the M's run liveview at different framerates (most likely to speed up AF) than the DSLR's. EOS utility is pretty basic and only allows one framerate. To stop this, canon just decided to block the entire thing on the M side to prevent problems.

whether or not this is true, or not. who knows. however liveview on at least the M5 goes all the way up to 120hz. certainly more than the traditional 30.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



That might explain the lack of wired tethering, a frame rate that fast might slow down a wired connection. However, they still manage to have wireless tethering at a slower frame rate, I think it was just one of those tradeoff's based on Canon's perception of the target users. They did not want to spend $$ on hardware or software to add wired tethering. I passed on the M and ordered a SL-2 three days ago because of the lack of wired tethering. I use it a lot, so in my case, its a big deal.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Aug 3, 2017)

It will be EF-M mount on a full frame. When current Ef-M lenses are used, it will crop to APS-C automatically. New EF-M mount full frame lens will be released, but those who want EF glass will use the adaptor. Canon wants to make it a small, lightweight option. By doing this, they keep the overall footprint of the camera small.


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 3, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure about auto ISO, but WiFi tether is painfully slow on my 5dmk4 and even worst on my 1dxm2 with a ridiculously expensive dongle. Can't imagine it being any better or very usable on the m5.
> ...



It's all about the code. I don't think Canon has the proper focus on software engineering, based on their DPP and how their AF algorithms lag behind Nikon and apparently now Sony with the A9.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 3, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> It's all about the code. I don't think Canon has the proper focus on software engineering, based on their DPP and how their AF algorithms lag behind Nikon and apparently now Sony with the A9.



Take a look at Sony's IDC. Same ugly crap but also crashes a lot on PC. The Mac version is more or less stable.
I was also wondering if Sony make such advanced cameras why they can't make decent software?


----------



## snoke (Aug 3, 2017)

If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.

EF & EF-S on mirrorless is not perfect. Like square peg in round hole.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 3, 2017)

Yes, that may be true, but I own about nine thousand dollars worth of square pegs, and will be severely unhappy if Canon tells me that I can't use any of them and have to buy a bunch of round pegs to replace them.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2017)

snoke said:


> If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.
> 
> EF & EF-S on mirrorless is not perfect. Like square peg in round hole.



Canon has already patented a ff mount for mirrorless. So, yes, it can be made. The real issue is that pro level users know that high end lenses do not get any smaller for mirrorless bodies, so any overall size reduction is minimal. I shudder at the thought of having Canon slowly bringing out new FF mirrorless lenses over the next 10 years before a reasonably complete set is available, when they can add a few mm to the body thickness and let us use our EF lenses natively.

I think that one reason for them doing it involves patents, the EF patent has expired, so a new patent for a mirrorless mount gives them a reboot of patent protection.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 3, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



I don't know. I seem to recall comments along the lines that to change EOS utility would be a big deal. I honestly don't know.

it's probably the most harped thing about the M's since the original really.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 3, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



DLO is amazing, you've obviously not used DPP in a while.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 3, 2017)

snoke said:


> If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.
> 
> EF & EF-S on mirrorless is not perfect. Like square peg in round hole.



sure it is. the grip depth is far more than whatever the registration distance depth would be, making the need for a different mount meaningless to the size or even really the weight of the camera.

you put canon's fit / feel and ergonomics on a mirrorless and it's going to be the same size regardless.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 3, 2017)

EF mount patent expired about 10-15 years ago??, yet BlackMagic is the only third party manufacturer so far that developed a camera with EF mount. Lens manufacturers seems to doing away reverse engineering EF mount protocols just fine. well, sort of.. 
My impressions though that if Canon photogs had to rebuild their lens arsenal from scratch in new mount, there is a very good chance in my humble opinion for them to start looking elsewhere ) Sony A9 II, III or whatever that may be by then. I certainly would if I had to. And my investment in EF mount is only under $20K so far. peanuts, nothing in comparison with how much some senior forum members investment in EF mount. I hate to think about all this drama. It gives me shivers 

I feel that if I was forced to


Mt Spokane Photography said:


> he EF patent has expired, so a new patent for a mirrorless mount gives them a reboot of patent protection.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Aug 3, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.
> ...


The thing I don't understand is why full frame lenses are so much larger now than they were 20 years ago. Has some law of physics changed which means you now need a much larger lens in order to project an image onto a full frame sensor?
I have attached a picture of my Olympus 100mm F2.8 zuiko lens standing alongside my Canon 100 F2.8L IS USM macro to illustrate how much a typical 100mm F2.8 lens has grown over the years.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 3, 2017)

I always assumed it was just the fact that more and more scrutiny on the quality of lenses and the sharpness they produce has driven lenses that have a lot more complicated and therefore larger optical designs than older lenses. Look at a Canon 50mm 1.4 vs something like a Sigma 50mm art.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that you now have to squeeze in all of the autofocus motors, circuit boards, electronic aperture controls, and then build a lens durable enough to protect all of those tiny and fragile parts.

And lastly, you're comparing a macro lens to a non-macro, so there's definitely some length built into the lens for it to achieve close focus.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, these are just my assumptions.


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 3, 2017)

*Canon High End Mirrorless Camera Wanted!*

With all the debate about mounts, let's think about only two things:
1. What photographers need
2. What is possible to build at similar price points

What photographers need:
I use Canon FF cameras. With a collection of L glass, some over 20 years old. Would I abandon these... hell no!
I also use a Leica Q: FF 24meg with outstanding IQ (designing lens & camera in one project eliminates error)
My perfect camera would be the 5D-IV with an EVF at least as good as Leica's ...
1. My investment in glass is protected for the next ten years or more!
2. My hand memory is retained so that I can shoot while concentrating on my subject, not buttons & menus.
3. My workflow would remain identical. Folks, these are important things in the real world.
Why EVF? When I first picked up the Q I was blown away by seeing everything just like OVF but better!

Canon could add to their viewfinder:
1. Focus peaking for MF.
2. Wall-to-wall focus points for AF via DPAF. 
3. Focus zoom on MF, tied to focus point on AF?
4. Instant feedback on exposure compensation changes!
5. Instant feedback on depth of field when running in Av or M (even Tv or P by the way)
6. Choices on composition tools like grids, pitch/roll, Maybe even guides if desiring APSc, 16x9, square, 4x3 etc.
7. Post exposure "Chimping" without taking camera from your eye could be an option.
8. Near-silent operation without mirror noise and vibration -- just the shutter moves.
9. Higher frame rates since there is no mirror actuation delay.

What is possible to build at similar price points:
EVF would probably cost no more, perhaps less, removing non-DPAF AF system and the mirror/pentaprism/screen etc.
The body need not change! The prism area could contain the wifi, GPS, bluetooth electronics. The mount/sensor are unchanged.
The lenses do not change.

So if you want smaller, get the SLx or Canon M series. Or all the other APS-c mirrorless cameras. Y'all know that a Sony system is no smaller with real glass attached. Only the body is smaller/cramped/confusing.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 3, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> EF mount patent expired about 10-15 years ago??, yet BlackMagic is the only third party manufacturer so far that developed a camera with EF mount. Lens manufacturers seems to doing away reverse engineering EF mount protocols just fine. well, sort of..
> My impressions though that if Canon photogs had to rebuild their lens arsenal from scratch in new mount, there is a very good chance in my humble opinion for them to start looking elsewhere ) Sony A9 II, III or whatever that may be by then. I certainly would if I had to. And my investment in EF mount is only under $20K so far. peanuts, nothing in comparison with how much some senior forum members investment in EF mount. I hate to think about all this drama. It gives me shivers
> 
> I feel that if I was forced to
> ...



You're not kidding there! Unless it's for new larger sensor, we ain't changing
our lenses. You may buy a camera every 4 years but you buy a lens for life!

After seeing what's in our alarmed safe-room, I would say as a company,
we probably have $750,000 worth of EF, B4 and PL mount lenses from multiple 
manufacturers! We ain't throwing away that sort of investment for a mirrorless
camera UNLESS the sensor that said new camera has is something MUCH MUCH
BETTER than what we have now!

So whatever camera gets pushed out the door, it better be able to take 
all the EF lenses we have OR the camera has to be so good that it would
make business sense for us to make additional investments into a new
series of lenses! The ONLY way that is going to happen is if Canon goes 
to a 65mm+ Medium Format sensor on a Stills and/or Cinema EOS camera!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> The thing I don't understand is why full frame lenses are so much larger now than they were 20 years ago. Has some law of physics changed which means you now need a much larger lens in order to project an image onto a full frame sensor?
> I have attached a picture of my Olympus 100mm F2.8 zuiko lens standing alongside my Canon 100 F2.8L IS USM macro to illustrate how much a typical 100mm F2.8 lens has grown over the years.



So you're saying Canon's 100mm Macro lens is a 'typical 100mm lens' of today? Did you miss the word 'macro' in the name of the Canon lens? Does the Oly 100/2.8 you show deliver 1:1 (life size) magnification? That makes a difference...

If you're going to make comparisons, comparing apples to trucks isn't going to effectively make your point.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 3, 2017)

Canon has every reason to produce a mirrorless camera with a FF EF-M mount rather than EF.

Firstly, with an adaptor you essentially have a standard EF mount on your camera anyway. If you only want EF lenses then leave the adaptor on your camera all the time. Maybe they need to ensure that their new adaptor is robust enough for this to work (and weathersealed!) and maybe they should include it in the box with the new camera.

And then Canon can release a range of lighter high-quality lenses specifically for the EF-M FF mount. L lenses.

They will be optimised in terms of size/weight and more importantly focus performance with the new mirrorless bodies, because we all know that some EF lenses will be fine, and others will be not so good, when used with a mirrorless camera.

But. You can have your old lenses too. Except Canon get to sell you brand new lenses and make even more money, because even if you buy it telling yourself you'll just use your old lenses, if these new lenses are good enough you know you're going to be tempted to get one or more....

There have already been several patents for Canon FF mirrorless lenses, so we know they've been working on it.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 3, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Canon has every reason to produce a mirrorless camera with a FF EF-M mount rather than EF.



And repeat Sony's mistake? No thank you. With that short of a flange distance you have problems for the new native lenses. Unless, like Sony realized, you need to make the lenses even larger to add distance in the back of the lens to make up for the too short flange distance. Check out reviews of their kit lenses if you aren't sure about the poor IQ away from the center. 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-24-70mm-f4-za-oss-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-sel2470z/review/

If you need an adapter to get good results with the increased flange distance (as Sony owners often do), then it makes more sense to use a larger flange distance without an adapter. Which brings us back to the EF mount.


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 4, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I use it every day, mostly for culling these days. It's painfully slow, buggy, has horrible memory management, is not optimized for current technology and super easy to make it crash, specially if you use multiple monitors. I actually subscribed to adobe CC just because I got tired of DPP crashing. I do miss DLO though and Adobe colors are often times not quite there.


----------



## snoke (Aug 4, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.
> ...



Both Canon EF 11-24 and Sony 12-24 pro level, yes?
What is size difference?

Size not make lens "high end." "High end" lens not need be big. F-number and focal length determine size. Leica have high end lens. Leica lens not big. Are Leica lens for pro?

See lens on front large format camera? This for pro? How big?

Lens size result of many things. Size not requirement for pro.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 4, 2017)

firstly, do not embarrass yourself making such an unwarranted statements as you have just made.
what Mt. Spokane Photography said is perfectly correct UNLESS we are talking UWA lenses. there you have it. The example you have made is about UWA lenses. yes, Sony 12-24 is a good example of short flange distance advantage in UWA range. but now let's see what happens in 85mm+ focal range. or even look at 24-70 GM and 70-200 GM, compare to Canon similar lenses and see for yourself.
this is what I was told many many years ago: listen, learn, gain knowledge and only then speak out.




snoke said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > snoke said:
> ...


----------



## snoke (Aug 4, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> firstly, do not embarrass yourself making such an unwarranted statements as you have just made.
> what Mt. Spokane Photography said is perfectly correct UNLESS we are talking UWA lenses. there you have it.



No! Assumption for pro lens = big lens. Next you say "oh, exception here".

How you define "pro" for lens?

Canon have no "pro" lens, only "Cinema", "EF" and "Broadcast"

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/groups/lenses

"pro" is the person, not lens/camera.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 4, 2017)

oh, I love definitions! 
Any Canon lens with "L" designation can be considered a "Pro" quality lens. 

Incorrect definition of Pro Lens can be found here :

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photography-gear/cameras/whats-in-a-pro-lens/

Correct definition:

The lens that was *designed to withstand regular operation in commercial environment, regular heavy use cycles, neglect and abuse, is highly serviceable and built to standards and requirements of professional photographers and videographers.*

Now, tell me this: looking at the definition what PRO lens or BODY is, do you believe any of SONY E-Mount MILC bodies are of PRO grade? If yes, then think again.
Can a pro photog shoot with non-pro body or lens? oh, absolutely so and with a little bit of luck that lens or body may survive for certain period of time. How long for thought? that depends on how lucky that photog is 





snoke said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > firstly, do not embarrass yourself making such an unwarranted statements as you have just made.
> ...


----------



## snoke (Aug 4, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> oh, I love definitions!
> ...
> Correct definition:
> 
> The lens that was *designed to withstand regular operation in commercial environment, regular heavy use cycles, neglect and abuse, is highly serviceable and built to standards and requirements of professional photographers and videographers.*



Where this from?

Look like you want define pro to match what in your head.



> Now, tell me this: looking at the definition what PRO lens or BODY is, do you believe any of SONY E-Mount MILC bodies are of PRO grade? If yes, then think again.



Talk was about lens now about camera? When change?

Maybe you use word "pro" as adjective for special meaning that not anything to do with professional photographer?


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 4, 2017)

the question was: How* you* define "pro" for lens?
so *I* have defined the way I understand PRO lens designation. 
to your knowledge the word PRO is short for Professional, it is an adjective and should be used accordingly.
Professional lens, Professional body, professional quality, professional photographer, you get the gist anyway.
The Pro designation has nothing to do with the shape, colour, weight, taste, age, race or gender of the subject.
But that is ok to disagree  




snoke said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > oh, I love definitions!
> ...


----------



## snoke (Aug 4, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> the question was: How* you* define "pro" for lens?
> so *I* have defined the way I understand PRO lens designation.
> to your knowledge the word PRO is short for Professional, it is an adjective and should be used accordingly.
> Professional lens, Professional body, professional quality, professional photographer, you get the gist anyway.
> ...



Ah! Clarity. Yes, you define "pro" your way  If you happy with your use, cannot argue. Everyone not think same.

BUT.

That your definition. Must remember it Not everyone have same definition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2017)

snoke said:


> No! Assumption for pro lens = big lens. Next you say "oh, exception here".
> 
> How you define "pro" for lens?
> 
> ...



How does Canon define it? L-series = professional.

[quote author=Canon in EF Lens Work III: The Eyes of EOS]
The *Canon EF lens L series* possesses a level of quality sufficiently high to be *called professional*,
designed to include groundbreaking image performance, outstanding operability, and resistance to weather and aging.
[/quote]

[quote author=Inside Canon’s 2010 L-series lenses]
In August 2010 Canon enhanced its *L-series range of professional lenses* with the announcement of four lenses – the EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, the EF400mm f/2.8L IS II USM, the EF8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM and the EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM – plus the EF1.4x III and EF2x III Extenders.
[/quote]


----------



## snoke (Aug 4, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> How does Canon define it? L-series = professional.



Ha!

Lens not need be big, just red ring.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 4, 2017)

dak723 said:


> And repeat Sony's mistake? No thank you. With that short of a flange distance you have problems for the new native lenses. Unless, like Sony realized, you need to make the lenses even larger to add distance in the back of the lens to make up for the too short flange distance. Check out reviews of their kit lenses if you aren't sure about the poor IQ away from the center.



Well, you only selected one lens, the less-than stellar FE 24-70 f/4 to back up your argument. How about comparing some of the primes?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-55mm-f1.8-za-carl-zeiss-sonnar-t-sel55f18z/review/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-35mm-f2.8-za-carl-zeiss-sonnar-t-sel35f28z/review/

These are the two lenses that I use practically all the time on my A7RII. In fact, I've been away overseas before travelling light with just the A7RII and the 35mm lens and was delighted with what I could do with such a light combination.

A FF mirrorless allows you to use different kit in a different way to a DSLR. Now, I'm the first to admit I use the 5DSR about five times more than I use the A7RII - but I am very glad that I have both (and yes, I know I'm lucky!)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2017)

snoke said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > How does Canon define it? L-series = professional.
> ...



Need not be big. But usually are. Also, generally bigger than their non-professional counterparts.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 4, 2017)

Plus, and I hate to have to say this every single time someone raises the flange distance thing. Having a shorter flange distance allows you to make lenses where the rear element is closer to the sensor, but it also allows you to have lenses with the rear elements further back. You have more flexibility in lens design which you don't have with the EF mount.

So, it's up to lens designers to decide whether you want something that has maximum quality regardless of size and weight, or something that is maybe a little more limited in aperture, but is more compact. Exactly as Sony has done (35mm f/1.4 vs 35mmm f/2.8 for example)

The Mirrorless mount gives you MORE flexibility, and does not put any limits on what the quality of such lenses will be. 

Just pointless fearmongering.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> The Mirrorless mount gives you MORE flexibility, and does not put any limits on what the quality of such lenses will be.
> 
> Just pointless fearmongering.



True...the limits are imposed by optical physics. If you prefer to think of that as 'pointless fearmongering', that's your choice.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 4, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> The Mirrorless mount gives you MORE flexibility, and does not put any limits on what the quality of such lenses will be.
> 
> Just pointless fearmongering.



That is correct only to an extent of wide angle lenses. For telephoto, you can't beat physics, if you want a fast lens. 70-200/2.8 will have to have an iris opening of approx 72 mm in diameter. How exactly are you going to shrink that will shorter flange distance is honestly beyond me.

And look at Otus lenses. They are not small, nor light to provide ultimate optical performance.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm mighty envious of Zeiss Loxia lenses that only Sony users have access to. And those two lenses you mentioned from Zeiss (55 and 35) are also very desirable. But as long as you reach for telephoto, you lose any mirrorless advantage. Look at 135 Batis. They had to go with f/2.8 (instead of f/2 as DSLR counterpart lens from Zeiss) to keep it manageable in size. There is no free lunch...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 4, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Plus, and I hate to have to say this every single time someone raises the flange distance thing. Having a shorter flange distance allows you to make lenses where the rear element is closer to the sensor, but it also allows you to have lenses with the rear elements further back. You have more flexibility in lens design which you don't have with the EF mount.
> 
> So, it's up to lens designers to decide whether you want something that has maximum quality regardless of size and weight, or something that is maybe a little more limited in aperture, but is more compact. Exactly as Sony has done (35mm f/1.4 vs 35mmm f/2.8 for example)
> 
> ...



There is this "minor" problem of chromatic aberration. This is caused by different frequencies of light refracting a different amount as they go through the interface from air to lens material, or from lens material to air. As a result, the prism effect happens and light of different frequencies changes from a point to a rainbow. Good lens design counters this problem, and in some cases, makes it almost disappear. This is the main reason why your prime lenses have 13 to 19 lens elements and not just two.

One of the characteristics of chromatic aberration is that the sharper you bend the light, the greater the problem. A sharper bend requires more curvature, which requires a thicker chunk of glass. The thicker the chunk of glass, the more distance there is for different frequencies to separate, and the greater the chromatic aberration becomes. This is why lenses like the 600F4 are so long. It is a trivial problem to make the lens shorter for a single frequency of light, but as we open the passband to allow light from red to violet, we end up with chromatic aberration, and as a result, to keep it to an acceptable level, we end up with a lens with 16 elements and almost a half meter long.

The same holds true for all lenses, zoom or prime, from any manufacturer. We end up with the problem of the shorter the flange distance, the sharper you have to bend the light, and the more complex (and worse behaving) the lens becomes.

This is physics.... and this is just one small factor in why modern lens design is done on computers and has become mind-blowingly complex.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 4, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> We end up with the problem of the shorter the flange distance, the sharper you have to bend the light



As I mentioned earlier, *the flange distance is irrelevant*. It has absolutely nothing to do with the optics of the lens.

All the flange distance does is put a minimum restriction on the distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor.

Now, I will say this again.

This is a minimum distance. It is not a maximum distance. You can build a lens with a 10cm gap between the sensor and the rear element should you wish. 

I have the Sony FE 28-70 3.5-5.6 cheap zoom here. When you look inside the rear element way inside the lens, far from the mount (probably means it was a recycled A mount design)


But the shorter flange distance does give designers the ability to produce lenses that are unique for this system. Will they have to be more complex because of the limitations of optics? of course. Does that mean that they are inevitably terrible lenses? NO. 


For all those saying that this isn't possible, go out and try the Sony FE 35mm 2.8 and 55mm 1.8 lenses - use them and then tell me that full frame lenses for an EF-M mount are pointless.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 5, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > We end up with the problem of the shorter the flange distance, the sharper you have to bend the light
> ...



Sorry, you can mention it all you want, but as others have pointed out, there are problems with short flange distances. Yes, it is not the flange distance itself that is the problem, but when camera makers have used the short flange distance, it is to create a smaller camera/lens package. So they will make lenses as small as possible and NOT always create more space in the back of the lens to offset the problems caused by the short flange distance. If Canon (or any other camera maker) guarantees that they will add distance to the back of the lens - and let us know the distance, well, then I guess there is no problem. Since I think that possibility is zero to none, there will be an issue if Canon elects to use the EF-M flange distance with a FF camera. It seems much easier for them to just use a larger flange distance and make lenses as small as possible.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 5, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > We end up with the problem of the shorter the flange distance, the sharper you have to bend the light
> ...



Quite sorry, but you are wrong. Flange distance is a parameter of lens design. All parameters affect each other. Some choices are best for long lenses, some are best for wide angle lenses, but there is no such thing as a flange distance which is the best choice for all lens types. Everyone has chosen the flange distance that (on average) fits their intended system best, 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ONE DESIGN OR ONE DISTANCE THAT IS THE BEST FOR ALL CASES!


----------



## snoke (Aug 5, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Size determine by focal length and aperture. Cannot make 300/2.8 small. If must be big, want customer to think they get value for money.

Leica is for pro and Leica lens small. Small can be pro too.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 5, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Sorry, you can mention it all you want, but as others have pointed out, there are problems with short flange distances. Yes, it is not the flange distance itself that is the problem, but when camera makers have used the short flange distance, it is to create a smaller camera/lens package.



And yet Sony/Zeiss seem to have achieved the impossible with their 35mm f/2.8 and 55mm f/1.8 lenses then.

Have you actually tried these lenses?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 5, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, you can mention it all you want, but as others have pointed out, there are problems with short flange distances. Yes, it is not the flange distance itself that is the problem, but when camera makers have used the short flange distance, it is to create a smaller camera/lens package.
> ...



Wide angle lenses benefit from a short flange distance, just as long lenses suffer..... it's back to that problem of design compromises.....


----------



## Khalai (Aug 5, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, you can mention it all you want, but as others have pointed out, there are problems with short flange distances. Yes, it is not the flange distance itself that is the problem, but when camera makers have used the short flange distance, it is to create a smaller camera/lens package.
> ...



And what about Sony GM series lenses? 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 GM? How exactly are they benefitting from shorter flange distance? Are they smaller than EF counterparts? Or lighter for that matter? Or are they somehow as big and as heavy as their DSLR counterparts? See, physics


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 5, 2017)

"...The Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM lens is *hollow on the camera attachment side*, the flange distance increased... That distance is basically an inbuilt lens adapter and totally increases the size of the lens itself. Take a look at all the GM lenses mounted on Sony A7 Bodies..."

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4067584


----------



## dak723 (Aug 5, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Granted, my experience with the Sony lenses as mentioned earlier is limited to two copies of their 28-70 kit lens. Away from the center, the performance was arguably the worst lens I have ever owned. - not counting wide angle lenses. Further research led me to the review of their higher-end kit lens, which had similar comments about it on the imaging resource review. Further research led me to the following articles, which touch on some of the same issues that others have mentioned regarding the need to make many of the lenses larger - essentially having a built-in adapter - as SecureGSM has pointed out.

http://ilovehatephoto.com/2015/02/23/3-detailed-reasons-not-to-switch-to-sony-full-frame-mirrorless-system/

https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

I have nothing against Sony or their products. When I bought the A7 II, it was to replace my 6D, but that didn't happen - not because of some sort of Canon loyalty, but simply because the Canon seemed better in virtually every category that was important to me. 

As Don Haines points out, the short flange distance is a plus for wide angle lenses, so there are always compromises and there is no perfect solution, but if some of the comments regarding the Sony flange distance are correct (don't know if they have ever been verified) the camera was originally going to be APS-C and then was changed mid-stream to FF. If this is true, then the 18mm flange distance is a mistake - and the fact that Sony has had to build larger lenses to compensate makes it seem like other camera makers considering FF mirrorless should not repeat that mistake.


----------



## Hakejo (Aug 6, 2017)

I really wish Canon would move a little bit faster with their fullframe mirrorless. I wonder why they are so reluctant to make a move?


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 7, 2017)

Khalai said:


> And what about Sony GM series lenses? 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 GM? How exactly are they benefitting from shorter flange distance? Are they smaller than EF counterparts? Or lighter for that matter? Or are they somehow as big and as heavy as their DSLR counterparts? See, physics



They're not benefiting at all, but they're no worse, are they?

So, you have benefits with some lenses (eg primes) being more compact, and other lenses (eg 2.8 zooms) are *just as good* as they are on a system with a longer flange distance.

So again, why is having a shorter flange distance such a huge problem? If you really don't like it stick an EF adaptor on, glue one on if you're really that stubborn.


----------



## BillB (Aug 7, 2017)

Hakejo said:


> I really wish Canon would move a little bit faster with their fullframe mirrorless. I wonder why they are so reluctant to make a move?



At this point, Canon is lagging mostly in the introduction of a full frame electronic viewfinder. Other pieces of a Canon mirrorless system are in place, largely based on dual pixel technology, such as sensor-based phase detect autofocus and touchscreen focussing. These features can be used in Liveview in both the 5DIV and the 6DII.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 7, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > And what about Sony GM series lenses? 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 GM? How exactly are they benefitting from shorter flange distance? Are they smaller than EF counterparts? Or lighter for that matter? Or are they somehow as big and as heavy as their DSLR counterparts? See, physics
> ...



canon has the perception of 120 million reasons not to. they are also the market leader.

both make for bad reasons.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 7, 2017)

BillB said:


> Hakejo said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish Canon would move a little bit faster with their fullframe mirrorless. I wonder why they are so reluctant to make a move?
> ...



there's no difference between a full frame viewfinder and an APS-C electronic viewfinder.


----------



## BillB (Aug 7, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Hakejo said:
> ...



True enough. My intended point was they had not introduced a full frame camera with an electronic viewfinder, not that there were any specific development issues associated with doing so.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 9, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> If you really don't like it stick an EF adaptor on, glue one on if you're really that stubborn.



I will never trust an adapter to be as durable and reliable as a native mount. If you get your way on this, I'll get a 5D4 and run it into the ground, then see where we are in a decade or two.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 9, 2017)

Pure gold...I am thinking of doing the same but only for next 3-4 years until Canon is onto the next 5D level body.



LonelyBoy said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > If you really don't like it stick an EF adaptor on, glue one on if you're really that stubborn.
> ...


----------



## BillB (Aug 9, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > If you really don't like it stick an EF adaptor on, glue one on if you're really that stubborn.
> ...



A full frame mirrorless may be smaller and lighter than a fullframe DSLR, but it will be heavier and larger than an APS-C mirrorless. My guess is that Canon's full frame mirrorless will stick with the EF mount. The technical and production issues associated with forcing the widespread use of adapters might be relatively minor, but the marketing people aren't going to want to go anywhere near a strategy based on widespread use of adapters. They have plenty of experience with the consumer reaction to EF-M adapters already. APS-C (or smaller) mirrorless cameras are the smaller and lighter solution.


----------



## Cory (Aug 10, 2017)

I think I'd be down for a Canon version of the RX1.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 10, 2017)

Mirrorless cameras that can take standard EF lenses are inevitable. As technology improves the drawbacks of a mirror system (eg vibration, complexity) will inevitably drive canon to abandon the mirror entirely - maybe not for another decade, but it will be gone eventually.

The real question is not whether Canon will do a compact (ef-m style) mirrorless full frame, or a larger mirrorless full-frame that only takes EF lenses, but whether they will do both.

Personally I'd love to abandon the Sony A7RII and move over to a compact Canon EF-M full-frame camera. I do hope that a FF EOS M style camera is on the way, but I also understand it's not for everyone.

That's why I'm sure there is room for both.


----------



## BillB (Aug 11, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Mirrorless cameras that can take standard EF lenses are inevitable. As technology improves the drawbacks of a mirror system (eg vibration, complexity) will inevitably drive canon to abandon the mirror entirely - maybe not for another decade, but it will be gone eventually.
> 
> The real question is not whether Canon will do a compact (ef-m style) mirrorless full frame, or a larger mirrorless full-frame that only takes EF lenses, but whether they will do both.
> 
> ...



Would it be possible to design lenses for the EF mount that sat deeper into a mirrorless camera? Could that be a way to make some size reductions?


----------



## Fleetie (Aug 11, 2017)

BillB said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless cameras that can take standard EF lenses are inevitable. As technology improves the drawbacks of a mirror system (eg vibration, complexity) will inevitably drive canon to abandon the mirror entirely - maybe not for another decade, but it will be gone eventually.
> ...


Like EF-S, but with a full-frame image circle? Sounds very tricky to me, and you'd get the issue with the vignetting at the corners, because of the far-from-normal angle of incidence of light onto the sensor.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 11, 2017)

Well, one possible solution is to build a new mount format based around a curved sensor (Canon already have patents for this).

This would allow compact lenses with none of the optical drawbacks of a standard short flange distance mount, and potentially simpler and cheaper high quality lens design.

But it would also pretty much rule out using existing EF lenses, even with an adaptor (except one that had extra glass in it). It would be FD -> EF all over again.

Now, if they could find a way to make a sensor that can be distorted from flat to curved depending on which lens is mounted that would be an ideal solution!


----------



## GlynH (Aug 11, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A more powerful processor to manage the dual pixel autofocus at pro level speeds only adds to battery woes. A hybrid design could retain the current fast enough for many uses level of AF in mirrorless mode and not require a more powerful processor.



Not necessarily. Look what Apple manage to achieve with every generation of the iPhone/iPad. A much more powerful processor but far more efficient resulting in less heat/power consumption.

-=Glyn=-


----------



## dak723 (Aug 11, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Now, if they could find a way to make a sensor that can be distorted from flat to curved depending on which lens is mounted that would be an ideal solution!



I believe a flexible sensor may be the way of the future. Not sure if I recall some patents for that idea.


----------



## sowlow (Aug 22, 2017)

I am just waiting for that release of a mirrorless EF.
I'd love to have it


----------



## ewg963 (Aug 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...


 +1000000000000000000000


----------



## Meatcurry (Aug 22, 2017)

I might be in the minority here, but I think Canon will keep the mirror for its high end pro cameras, but use Pellicle or variable transmittance mirrors in combination with hybrid EVF/OVF, lots of patents for both elements have appeared in the last few years.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 23, 2017)

Meatcurry said:


> I might be in the minority here, but I think Canon will keep the mirror for its high end pro cameras, but use Pellicle or variable transmittance mirrors in combination with hybrid EVF/OVF, lots of patents for both elements have appeared in the last few years.



Hope not another SLT like the Sony A mount cameras. I had the A99, don't want another one made by Canon


----------

