# Will it be the EOS M1? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 25, 2017)

```
We’re told that  early chatter about Canon’s “prosumer” mirrorless body has started to make its way beyond the engineers at Canon. No test bodies have made their way to anybody outside of Canon, but we’re told that various early prototypes have been passed around internally.</p>
<p>There is a certain “buzz” about the camera internally and we’re told that the marketing push for the camera will be one of the company’s biggest. The mirrorless market is still small, but it’s definitely growing and a lot of people think Canon will be the company to bring it “mainstream”, which may sound arrogant, but most camera buyers aren’t frequenting this web site, nor do they hear the negative chatter about the perceived lack of innovation from Canon. The brand still has clout and should for many more years, even with the missteps some enthusiasts feel have taken place.</p>

<p>A second source said there’s no way the camera will be APS-C, as the EOS M5 is selling well, and the company needs a halo mirrorless camera, and that is only possible with a full frame sensor.</p>
<p>Sony may be leading the way in full frame mirrorless cameras, but Nikon (likely ahead of Canon) and Canon appear to finally be coming to the table.</p>
<p>We wouldn’t be shocked to see a “development” announcement shortly after Nikon announces their full frame mirrorless camera.</p>
<p><em>More to come….</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 25, 2017)

Sounds like it's at least two years away. Canon is very late to the party.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 25, 2017)

This has been worked on for a while, remember - the longer you spend developing and fine-tuning a camera the more likely that your basic technology (eg sensor) is going to be out of date the day you launch. 

Things like the form factor, lens mount, etc, these are decisions that would have been made a long time ago. You design the stuff that doesn't age first, and then as you get closer to your launch date you build in the latest tech you have available. If there are prototypes going around Canon right now then that would indicate they're in that final stage of internal acceptance, which means they're unlikely to step back now.


----------



## C-A430 (Sep 25, 2017)

COOL people are last to the party, yet they ARE the party. ;D


----------



## tschouten (Sep 25, 2017)

I really hope that they will bring a system camera with EF mount. By doing so you will have way more ppl adapting to this camera.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 25, 2017)

I really hope they *DON'T* use EF mount. New mount please, as long as there are cheap and reliable adaptors to EF, and ideally one included in the box.

However there's not much chatter right now about new FF mirrorless lenses from Canon so I suspect that it may end up being a FF mirrorless with EF mount, which means it's going to be much bigger than the competition. Let's see how that pans out.


----------



## traveller (Sep 25, 2017)

tschouten said:


> I really hope that they will bring a system camera with EF mount. By doing so you will have way more ppl adapting to this camera.



Or you just but the EF-EOS M Mount Adapter, which is £88 here in the UK: not exactly break the bank time if you're willing to pony up for a full frame mirrorless camera.


----------



## MintChocs (Sep 25, 2017)

tschouten said:


> I really hope that they will bring a system camera with EF mount. By doing so you will have way more ppl adapting to this camera.


I have a horrible fear it will be a new mount, another good excuse to help Canon keep filling those treasure chests.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 25, 2017)

Canon want to make a profit, so yes, selling you brand new lenses for the brand new camera is high in their priorities 

On the plus side, these will be lenses tailored for this body.

Don't forget even if it has EF mount there will still be only a number of lenses that will focus accurately and fast with it depending on the focus technology in the lens. Older designs will generally not fair as well as modern ones. There's a reason that the EF-M mount has only STM lenses. 

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


----------



## mjg79 (Sep 25, 2017)

I still think Canon could find a middle ground by retaining the EF mount as it is - it's purely electronic and therefore able to change with the times very easily and also very large so can handle different designs - it was a fantastic decision in the 1980s - but allowing mirrorless lenses to be designed so the elements, one would assume with protection around them, can intrude into the space currently taken up with the mirror box. Look up a photo of the Leica 21mm 1.4 and you'll see how they do it, albeit on a smaller scale.

This would allow Canon to have their cake and eat it. Call it EF-X with a blue dot on all EF-X lenses and going forward all EF-X cameras that are mirrorless have the blue dot on the mount that way there is no confusion. (just like today when EF-S is physically the same as EF but EF lens can't be used on it). It would mean every EF lens can mount natively. It would mean Canon could slowly start releasing wide angle lenses without needing retrofocal designs as the elements could be nearer the sensor, thus they could be much smaller. We could get wide angle pancake lenses with elements hidden inside. It would mean the current 300 2.8 works perfectly, handles much nicer than it ever could on a tiny mirrorless mount but they could also release a small 18mm lens to exploit the mirrorless tech.

Currently the Sony approach works well for wide angle lenses but actually seems to make longer lenses get bigger. It also makes for an unbalanced experience with long lenses.


----------



## rlan214 (Sep 25, 2017)

relax guys its just an M5 body with 6D2 sensor, last time I check 6d2 sensor is just meh
maybe if canon give us ef mount it suddenly creates a 'buzz'

also maybe I'm just salty since I was hoping to upgrade my 6D with 6D2


----------



## VooDooZG (Sep 25, 2017)

rlan214 said:


> relax guys its just an M5 body with 6D2 sensor, last time I check 6d2 sensor is just meh
> maybe if canon give us ef mount it suddenly creates a 'buzz'
> 
> also maybe I'm just salty since I was hoping to upgrade my 6D with 6D2



Canon has buried 6d2 sensor somewhere deep enough to never see it again - so there is no chance to be that 6 year old sensor, probably 5d4 or something newer, even 1year old M5 have new sensor ( on old of sensor a/d crap like 6d2)


----------



## james75 (Sep 25, 2017)

VooDooZG said:


> rlan214 said:
> 
> 
> > relax guys its just an M5 body with 6D2 sensor, last time I check 6d2 sensor is just meh
> ...



God I hope it won't have the 6d2 sensor. I agree with what another posted said a few months back, that canon's first FF mirrorless body will probably fit in between the 6d2 and the 5d4, that's why they put in old sensor tech in the 6d2.
I really wish we had more info on what new cameras canon has coming so I can either keep waiting or upgrade to something else.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2017)

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

It offers best of both worlds. More compact camera body and lenses in the most used focal length range. And full back compatibility with all existing EF lenses by means of a simple "extension tube" adapter - just like the EF-/EF-M adapter. Hopefully Canon will sell it for max. 99 USD or €. All EF lenses with STM or Nano USM AF will behave exactly as on any current EOS DSLR and all other EF lenses will work exactly as in live view mode on any current EOS DSLR. 

Maybe there will also be a second, somewhat more complex and expensive adapter, complete with (fixed) mirror to enable 100% Phase-AF operation for all (older) EF-lenses. Just like the Sony LA3 adapter [currently USD / € 249].

All those who want the adapter permamently affixed to the camera body can glue it in and be done with it. No prob whatsoever.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 25, 2017)

I'm pretty much convinced that most of those who claim they wouldn't buy a Canon mirrorless camera unless it supported native EF mount are the sort of people who wouldn't buy any FF Canon mirrorless camera anyway.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2017)

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

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

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


----------



## dak723 (Sep 25, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm pretty much convinced that most of those who claim they wouldn't buy a Canon mirrorless camera unless it supported native EF mount are the sort of people who wouldn't buy any FF Canon mirrorless camera anyway.



I can only speak for myself, but I would strongly consider buying the Canon mirrorless FF if it is EF mount. I would be very hesitant to buy if it is a new mount.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 25, 2017)

I'm a complete rank amateur and not a technician so please excuse me if this contains glaring mistakes but I'm not too sure why there's such a debate about the mount : surely it'll either be EF or EF-M plus adaptor or something else with adaptor ... either way won't all our modern existing lenses are all going to work fantastically well ? Can we not all be absolutely 100% certain Canon will attend to autofocus and get it working just fine ?

For me, my main concern (apart from image quality) is going to be the quality and refresh rate of that little TV screen inside the viewfinder. I've got an M5 and my personal opinion is that compared to my 5D-iv its frankly complete rubbish. Panning, zooming, focussing all seem to take forever to catch up. The picture is small and grainy - oh and, whilst I'm having a whinge - the silly little slider dioptre control is completely impossible to set accurately - which means my wife and I can't pass the camera between each other and see properly with naked eye.

If Canon come up with a giant crystal-clear Viewfinder screen which refreshes near-instantly - which is essentially just as good as an optical viewfinder - and especially if they could come up with menu-driven dioptre control with a user-memory setting - then the only serious debate is image quality and shooting performance (fps etc) ... isn't it ?


----------



## Bekippe (Sep 25, 2017)

Here is a wild idea. Canon showed with the 5DIV the ability to manipulate focus after the fact (to a small degree) using dual pixel raw files. This shows them working to break down the image at a pixel level, and then recombine it with a specific changes. So, here is the idea. Split pixel based flange distance reduction.

Assuming enough processing power, you could possible apply a correction for lenses with an incorrect flange distance. Also, assuming lens repeatability, it could be similar to automatic distortion correction profiles.

Mount any EF lens and the camera adjusts for the focus correction factor. You could then have the mount capability similar to EF-S; allowing all existing EF lenses on the new system but having a variant that only mounts to the mirrorless which is designed around the small flange distance.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 25, 2017)

Is there room for another price point in APS-C mirrorless? Maybe. A beefy-gripped/sealed/tough high fps 7D2-like beast in mirrorless is certainly possible. But if none of the EF-M lenses are weathersealed or pack USM focusing, you'd be forcing the prosumer class to use bigger/heavier EF glass to get the most out of it. That 'works' for longer glass, but no high end standard zoom or UWA zoom exists for those guys. Surely better/faster EF-M lenses need to materialize if such a rig is to be offered.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 25, 2017)

rjbray01 said:


> I'm a complete rank amateur and not a technician so please excuse me if this contains glaring mistakes but I'm not too sure why there's such a debate about the mount : surely it'll either be EF or EF-M plus adaptor or something else with adaptor ... either way won't all our modern existing lenses are all going to work fantastically well ? Can we not all be absolutely 100% certain Canon will attend to autofocus and get it working just fine ?



Yes. Be it with a full EF mount or thinner new mount + adaptor, EF lenses will work on this new FF mirrorless system from day one. The #1 market for this rig is existing Canon owners, and Canon is not nearly foolish enough to turn them off with a thin mount + no EF adaptor for it.

- A


----------



## jjesp (Sep 25, 2017)

Forget it. Canon won't do it. They only wan't to make steams of new beginner DSLR's, and some pro models. They somehow forgot the layer in between. All the entusiasts... A full frame mirrorless from Canon? It won't happen for the next 3-4 years! So don't dream to much! Mirrorless system? Go for Fuji, Leica or Sony.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2017)

AvTvM said:


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



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


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



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


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 25, 2017)

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

Those that insist mirrorless is all about being small need to remind themselves about the brutal physics of sensor size vs. aperture and acknowledge -- a least with a flat sensor -- a (say) 70-200 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4 lens is still a whopper of a lens in the mirrorless world, and that whopper needs to be gripped and well-balanced. Full EF + big chunky grip makes a lot of sense for those folks.

And those that insist that mirrorless is *not* about being small do need to review their recent history, because other than the recent Sigma Quattro ILC platform, I believe every single mirrorless ILC platform to date that removed its mirror took _ended up taking the thin route_. As much as f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms are going to be big, if you can pump the brakes on reach and aperture (enthusiasts, I'm looking at you), you can create some nice and compact setups.

That's why I see this as a 50-50. Keeping up with the Joneses sense says that Canon will follow the market and go thin, but converting the pros of the world to use mirrorless makes sense to give a zero pain crossover with a full EF mount.

Or, of course, Canon could end up offering both. Thin for the enthusiasts that will invest in 'new and slick', full EF for pros who want seamless use, similar ergonomics, no fear of leaving an adaptor at home, etc.

- A


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 25, 2017)

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

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

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

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


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 25, 2017)

hendrik-sg said:


> Canon just released long living value lenses like the new T/S lenses and the 85mm these would not be developped shortly before there mount gets obsolete.
> 
> If customers would have a concern that the mount will be obsolete soon, just this would make it obsolete, nobody would buy anything expensive for it anymore



EF will be around for decades -- it won't be obsoleted anytime soon as the EF portfolio is (IMHO) Canon's #1 entrenched competitive advantage. We're really just debating if we get a new 4th mount or possibly just a new line of larger image circle lenses for EF-M (some argue EF-M can support a FF sensor just fine) at this point. 

But Canon's FF mirrorless will be full EF or it will something thinner with an adaptor. I hate to say "never" or act like I know what will happen, but I simply cannot fathom why it would _not_ be one of those two things.

- A


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


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



I'll just amend that graph by saying that a short flange doesn't preclude a properly designed grip of any particular size. 

The only reason a lot of mirrorless cameras have a poor grip isn't because they're small, it's because camera manufacturers just aren't particularly good at designing cameras and don't approach ergonomics in a methodical way. 
And in fact a lot of DSLRs have poorly designed grips as well anyway (the D800 comes to mind for example). 

Funnily enough, the body of a 6D already is quite thin except where the mount is. Canon could very well, if they wanted to, keep the 6D's design as it is, without the EF mount protrusion, for example - not that this is what I'd recommend.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 25, 2017)

hendrik-sg said:


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



Sure, but:


No mirror slap
EVF --> amplifying light in dark rooms
EVF --> Focus peaking / manual focus assistance
EVF --> LiveView level control through the viewfinder while handholding the camera in your preferred ergonomic setup (i.e. to your eye, off-tripod)
No mirror = less mechanical elements that can fail
No mirror = one less bottleneck for high fps shooting
No mirror = vastly expanded AF point coverage across the frame

...makes sense _regardless of size savings_. Mirrorless isn't just about saving space. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 25, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


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



+1. I've been saying this for some time. See pic below. Unless you are only shooting a pancake, there is zero justification for how tiny grips have been in mirrorless to date. Larger grip is only a good thing in that it gets you more stable shooting, more controls/buttons like our SLRs and more battery. Other than the total camera width, unless you only pack your mirrorless rig with lens unattached, tiny grips don't save you any space in your bag.

- A


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



That's a neat graph and I share the overall thinking. 

When I put a camera in my bags, what matters most is the overall box dimensions of the camera (few exceptions to that principle exist of course). Any space within that box that isn't filled with camera bits could be wasted opportunities.

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

The EM1II is a good example of a camera that despite reducing the pentaprism height over its predecessor, has actually improved the grip, partly by raising the grip height. 

I still think that it's very important to have a few really small cameras in a lineup, but it shouldn't be an irrational, systemic modus operandi. And even small grips can be much improved over the mostly woeful things we've seen lately.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 25, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> This has been worked on for a while, remember - the longer you spend developing and fine-tuning a camera the more likely that your basic technology (eg sensor) is going to be out of date the day you launch.
> 
> Things like the form factor, lens mount, etc, these are decisions that would have been made a long time ago. You design the stuff that doesn't age first, and then as you get closer to your launch date you build in the latest tech you have available. If there are prototypes going around Canon right now then that would indicate they're in that final stage of internal acceptance, which means they're unlikely to step back now.



More likely they were waiting until they had a processor that could compete (at least on paper) with those that Sony and Panasonic have.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2017)

I think the new mount vs. old mount debate may largely hinge on where Canon sees the development of the 1D line headed over the next decade.

If you believe that eventually, once all the technical details get worked out, the mirrorless design will have sufficient advantages to obsolete the SLR design, then you have to ask how Canon and Nikon will treat their flagship cameras.

Would a mirrorless 1DX or Nikon D? have essentially the same ergonomics as the SLR versions? Probably. The flagship market is very conservative and they don't take kindly to people moving their cheese about. Nor, would professionals much like the idea of adding an adapter that can be lost, malfunction, compromise quality or simply be viewed as an unneeded inconvenience. And, since SLRs and Mirrorless are likely to live side-by-side for many years, Canon and Nikon need to accommodate the professional who carries two bodies.

Alternatively, in a decade or so, would Canon and Nikon have two different mirrorless series – an enthusiast series with a new native mount and a professional series with EF mount? Given that the enthusiast and professional markets need one another to make the economies of scale work, I expect that a single full frame mirrorless series would be much more likely.

Given the minimal advantages that a new mount offers, I just don't see it working out that way.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> (from the image)
> 
> No need to buy new lenses.
> Big mount = chunky grip = more battery.
> ...



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 25, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


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



Just like Olympus did with the E-M1ii, Sony made room for the new battery by making the grip larger.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > (from the image)
> ...



I think you are confusing points and counterpoints. 

Ahsanford simply listed what he considered to be some pros in favor of each option. Obviously, one can argue counterpoints, but that doesn't make the points "wrong," it simply offers up counter arguments. Which of course, can go on back and forth forever (and probably will, given the nature of this forum).


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 25, 2017)

I was just (helpfully  ) pointing out that nothing in the 'con' column really was a genuine disadvantage.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


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



there's alot to be said for your chart.

but.

a few things. canon EF mount already can adapt quite a bit of old glass. about the only old glass that can't is the FD mount, and minolta mount glass, and leica/other rangefinder mount glass.

Contax / Yashica / OM1/2 / Pentax M42/K mount ,etc can all be adapted now.

not to mention that canon wouldn't even give a rats behind behind old glass compatibility. 

on the con list, you missed the elephant in the room - there's 120 million reasons why canon wouldn't switch wholesale to a new mount, and it really has to the increase of buyer uncertainty. that just KILLED the A mount marketshare that Sony had slowly brought up. Sony right now if they didn't kill the A mount off, would be over Nikon in total marketshare. Now they are play even second fiddle to Nikon.

Sony had adapters and everything - they even had smart adapters that canon wouldn't do probably. It still just killed the A mount off as a viable supported mount with a healthy mount marketshare.

Don't think that Canon is stupid enough to try the same thing that Sony did.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 25, 2017)

I have maybe $10k in EF glass. Not an obscene amount, but not trivial either. 

I want a Canon FF mirrorless to be whatever mount will perform the best, even if it's not EF. All I ask is a mount converter that's not obscenely priced. I'll probably get one or two native lenses that make sense (~35/50mm prime, and wide-ish zoom come to mind), and for everything else I'll use converted.


----------



## midluk (Sep 25, 2017)

A smaller flange distance for size reasons does not make any sense in a FF mirrorless. If you use fast lenses, it won't be small or light, and if you don't use fast lenses, you better use APS-C.

I think that being able to adapt glass is more a con than a pro for Canon. You are supposed to buy their lenses, not adapt anything else.

The only advantages of a small flange distance I can see are easier to design wide angle lenses and a bigger possible tilt for T/S-lenses.


----------



## Yasko (Sep 25, 2017)

hendrik-sg said:


> Mirrorless makes sense as long as the lenses are small, with a 24-70 2.8 lens, the size advantage is gone.
> 
> So if they bring a FF mirrorless camera, it would need some smaller lenses, which use the mirrorless advantage, bigger ones can remain EF lenses with adapter.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 25, 2017)

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

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

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

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 25, 2017)

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

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

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


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 25, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> People get hung up with the sizes of zoom lenses on mirrorless.
> 
> Honestly, the only lenses I ever use on my A7RII are the 35mm f/2.8 and the absolutely wonderful 55mm f/1.8
> 
> If I want a 2.8 zoom it's going to be heavy whatever mount I use. And with 40 megapixels using a prime and cropping is good enough for me - I don't need a 24-70.



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

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

- A


----------



## MayaTlab (Sep 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 25, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


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



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

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

Sports: Same, plus longer big whites.

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

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

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

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

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 25, 2017)

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

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


----------



## neonlight (Sep 25, 2017)

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

Probably.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 26, 2017)

neonlight said:


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



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

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

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

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

- A


----------



## Woody (Sep 26, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


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



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


----------



## gmrza (Sep 26, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Once again, this discussion illustrates why a full-frame mirrorless may never come to market.
> 
> No matter what you do, half the people who claim to want a full-frame mirrorless will immediately reject whatever Canon puts out because it doesn't match exactly what they imagined.
> 
> I'm one who seriously doubts they will add a fourth mount. I don't really care, but I see all sorts of practical problems down the road if they do. Sticking with the EF Mount is the safest bet and risks the least, so I'm guessing that's what will happen. Time will tell.



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

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

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


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 26, 2017)

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

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


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

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

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


New mount and a less than perfect adapter or super tiny grip = angry customers who wanted a seamless EF experience, an identically handling second body to their primary FF SLR, etc.


Keep the full EF mount and you horribly p--- off the 'keep it small' crowd, the folks who wanted to dabble with Nikon lenses, build small street/travel rigs, be more likely to carry a smaller rig around with them more of the time, etc.

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

- A


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



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



ahsanford said:


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



Simply this.



ahsanford said:


> No mirror = less mechanical elements that can fail



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


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > (from the image)
> ...



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



jolyonralph said:


> People get hung up with the sizes of zoom lenses on mirrorless.
> 
> Honestly, the only lenses I ever use on my A7RII are the 35mm f/2.8 and the absolutely wonderful 55mm f/1.8
> 
> If I want a 2.8 zoom it's going to be heavy whatever mount I use. And with 40 megapixels using a prime and cropping is good enough for me - I don't need a 24-70.



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


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


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



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


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2017)

gmrza said:


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



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


----------



## sanj (Sep 26, 2017)

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


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 26, 2017)

another point for the "con" list...

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

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


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 26, 2017)

gmrza said:


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



not true at all.

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

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


----------



## BillB (Sep 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I see this as two large market segments -- 'keep it small' and 'keep it seamless' that have relatively contradictory asks of Canon that speak to fundamentally different form factor camera lines w.r.t. the mount and lens ecosystem.
> 
> After that, sure -- we'll get wrapped around the axle about how they did / didn't...
> 
> ...



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


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2017)

sanj said:


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



How do you propose mirrorless bodies will shrink lenses of 200mm and greater? Until and unless new optics are devised, the ergonomics of many types of photography will be governed by the lens size.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 26, 2017)

neonlight said:


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



Hopefully, it is a new FF lens format with compact adapter in the box. I predict this will at least be in the $2500-$3000 range, body only. It won't be the 6DII sensor, which would make it DOA for many people. It should be a flagship mirrorless or 5DIV sensor. And if it doesn't have 4K, everyone here knows it will be DOA for me


----------



## Jopa (Sep 26, 2017)

Very cool. If next gen DPAF works as good or better as PDAF - it's about time.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 26, 2017)

LOL. People keep talking about how lenses will be shorter on MILCs. How much shorter? Probably not enough to make any real difference. Half an inch? Quarter inch? Not as big around? Well, to get a fast lens, doesn't it have to have a certain design diameter to let enough light in to make it fast?

Also, many people assume the FF MILCs will have to be like those thin and ergonomically challenged cameras of Sony (Maybe other brands too).

I think the camera will be both comfortable to hold and also have an EF mount.

Doesn't a FF MILC require the same sized image circle on the sensor as, say, a 6D II, 5D mark IV, and 1DX mark II? Yup.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 26, 2017)

There are lots of folks who like the ergonomics of the larger FF cameras. Do you think Canon will alienate those folks when they go mirrorless? I don't. I think the mirrorless landscape isn't that complicated. You want small? You have the APS-C M system. You want larger? You will have the EF FF mirrorless system. I don't think there is enough of a FF market for more than one FF mount - at least for now. Maybe 5-10 years down the road.


----------



## -1 (Sep 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> The FF mount mirrorless decision (EF vs. thinner than EF) remains a 50-50 call at best.
> 
> Those that insist mirrorless is all about being small need to remind themselves about the brutal physics of sensor size vs. aperture and acknowledge -- a least with a flat sensor -- a (say) 70-200 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4 lens is still a whopper of a lens in the mirrorless world, and that whopper needs to be gripped and well-balanced. Full EF + big chunky grip makes a lot of sense for those folks.
> 
> ...



The EF-M mount is about identical as they come to the Sony FE one. Will work fine for FF. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount#List_of_lens_mounts

Get one of these, hotglue it to your favorite "M" and you have your EF MILC...







Got a Meike meself and it is as solid as the Canon OEM:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=canon+mount+adapter+ef-eos+m+meike&_sop=15&LH_BIN=1&_osacat=78997&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmount+adapter+ef+ef-m+meike.TRS0&_nkw=mount+adapter+ef+ef-m+meike&_sacat=78997


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 26, 2017)

scyrene said:


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



99.9% of all image captures are made with lenses far shorter than 200mm focal length. most smartphones use around 24mm eq. FOV. even in professional context, tele lenses are a rare exception, limited to very few specialized fields of photography.

there is a huge size andyweight advantage to be had for the vast majority of FF gear use, once mirrorbox and viewfinder prism are eliminated from the equation AND IF the new FF lens parameters (flange distance and throat diameter) are optimally chosen (unlike Sony E-mount which was designed for APS-C image circle and pressed into FF usage only as an afterthought). 

only a new native mount with short(er) Flange distance offers the best if both worlds: smaller / lighter gear for most photographic purposes - especially "general photography" AND use of existing EF glass of any size - depending on purpose/capture situation/photographer's intent abd preferences (sports, wildlife, low light, small DOF, macro, micro .. whatever - combined still less than 1% of all use scenarios). 

gradually and over many years to come Canon Users will switch over their existing EF lens parks (used on mirrorless FF cams via simple and cheap adapter) to newly designed, native "EF-X lenses" with further improved specs and image quality (eg that blue gunk coating stuff etc.). instead of an EF 24-70/4 L IS mk. II or Mk. III, more and more people will buy a new, somewhat smaller, lighter, and optically better native mount EF-X 24-70/4 IS ... L and non L versions abailable at different size and price points. a lot more lenses to be sold for Canon over many years to come ... for that reason alone the future is obvious.


----------



## Quackator (Sep 26, 2017)

Just weighing in: I am waiting for a full frame that in an ideal world (for me) 
is similar to a 5D MkIV - in a 5D MkIV body!

I have held and tried most of todays mirrorless offerings, and settled for EOS M
(M, M3,M5) as add-on to 5D MkII, 5D MkIII, 5D MkIV and 1D-X. 

Not because I want a small camera (that is actually my biggest grievance with them)
but because I wanted mirrorless.

Yes, I have lenses that I use exclusively with the M-series (e.g. 55-250 STM)
with their own mount converter permanently attached - and it bug me to death.

Strange that so many people have the thought hardwired in their brains that 
mirrorless=small is a law of nature.

That said: The minute Canon offers a mirrorless 5D MkIV in a 5D MkIV body,
two of these are heading my way. I'd even be content if being mirrorless was
the only difference between them and the current 5D MkIV.

But of course I'd drop from my chair wildly masturbating if it came with a global 
shutter, eliminating the x-sync barrier forever. I'd even trade a global shutter 
for the dynamic range of the 5D MkIII.

And I would love the possibility to use a layout overlay with onboard tools
inside the viewfinder. Load any image from the card that is then displayed
superimposed over the viewfinder picture. It would be a massive improvement
for editorial photography.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 26, 2017)

Quackator said:


> Just weighing in: I am waiting for a full frame that in an ideal world (for me)
> is similar to a 5D MkIV - in a 5D MkIV body!
> 
> I have held and tried most of todays mirrorless offerings, and settled for EOS M
> ...


For those of use who are not particularly familiar with mirrorless cameras, what are the other advantages apart from size and weight? The people I know who have switched from a DSLR to a mirrorless camera have all said, without exception that the reason why they did so was because the DLSR was too big and heavy and they were tired of carrying it around all day. One other slight variation is that a large DSLR is too conspicuous for things like street photography. The people you are trying to photograph become aware that a large camera is pointing at them and they alter their behaviour. Some pose for the camera, some wave, some try and hide - probably not what the photographer wanted.
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to shoot with a Fuji XT-2 for a day. There were many things I liked about the camera. It felt comfortable in my hands and the controls reminded me of my old film camera. There was a wide selection of lenses and every lens that I tried produced some excellent images.
However the one thing that I did not like was the electronic viewfinder. The optical viewfinder on my 5D mark 4 is much clearer and the electronic viewfinder on the XT2 always seemed to be just slightly behind the action.
I pointed this out to the Fuji representative and he said that you get used to it after a while. He said that you learn to anticipate what is going to happen when you are composing your shot. Well I don't understand why that is an improvement on my 5D mark 4 where I can see exactly what is happening and compose my shot in real time.
I can see that the mirror is a mechanical component that will eventually wear out, they are still quite noisy, and the movement of the mirror must limit the maximum number of shots per second. However it allows you to see through the lens without the intervention of any electronics and to me this is a huge benefit.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 26, 2017)

I can slip the A7RII and 35mm f/2.8 into a pocket. The 5DSR with 40mm 2.8 isn't bad, but it's certainly not pocketable.

Yes, both cameras are bulky when you add a 24-70 2.8 onto them, but the A7RII is *no worse* than the 5DSR in this case. 

So you get benefits with some lenses, and with other lenses you are no worse off. So how in any reasonable view is this a disadvantage?


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I see this as two large market segments -- 'keep it small' and 'keep it seamless' that have relatively contradictory asks of Canon that speak to fundamentally different form factor camera lines w.r.t. the mount and lens ecosystem.
> 
> After that, sure -- we'll get wrapped around the axle about how they did / didn't...
> 
> ...



Couldn't canon do the following ...

1. To keep the people who want a seamless experience with EF lenses - just bring out a new Full Frame mirrorless with an EF mount.

2. To satisfy the people who want a smaller form factor - continue to develop the existing Mirrorless range (M5, M6) and introduce better lenses. 

This gets very close to keeping most of the people happy most of the time.

Its your list of features which I'm more concerned about ... technology and innovation now permits a truly awesome camera ... I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting it "all, now"


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 26, 2017)

I'd expect a company like Canon - i.e. Successful, Investing and Profit Focused to have a series of developments in process, including perhaps the following;
- Fixed fast prime lens FF 
- Fixed zoom lens FF
- APS-H in a EF-M mount
- FF in a EF mount
- APS-C in a even higher end EF-M mount

Then roll out the one that's most likely to make them most cash once Nikon show there cards


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 26, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> For those of us who are not particularly familiar with mirrorless cameras, what are the other advantages apart from size and weight?



For me weight is a key advantage, but the main advantage is the electronic viewfinder. 

Yes, the electronic viewfinder is slower than optical so inappropriate (at least in the consumer level devices I've used so far) for things such as fast action, but it offers three key advantages - the ability to boost low light situations - so you see what you're going to get in your image, the ability to zoom in when using manual focus so you know you're absolutely nailing the focus correctly, and the most important thing for me, the ability to use the viewfinder to review your images, including with zoom to check focus and sharpness.

Yes, you can do this on the rear display, but outdoors on a sunny day that's almost impossible even if you have perfect eyesight. Using the viewfinder makes this job so much easier.

Finally, mirrorless allows for much faster framerates. Although I haven't used the Sony A9 yet, this looks an outstanding camera and a good indication of what Mirrorless can offer beyond reduced weight.

Now, I wonder if the rumours running around that Canon are doing new DO lenses may be connected with this new mirrorless?

Imagine a compact 24-70/f2.8 IS DO STM for the new mount. You may all be upset about the idea of shifting to a new format, but if Canon actually come out with something revolutionary for it you'll all be changing your tune soon enough


----------



## David Littleboy (Sep 26, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> I can see that the mirror is a mechanical component that will eventually wear out, they are still quite noisy, and the movement of the mirror must limit the maximum number of shots per second. However it allows you to see through the lens without the intervention of any electronics and to me this is a huge benefit.



The thing is, the optical viewfinder requires a mirror, a separate AF system, a separate exposure system, and more radically retrofocus lenses. This stuff all costs. And in real life, the M5's viewfinder is fine.

Let me modify this: A/B comparing the M5 and the 5D II, the M5 viewfinder wins hands down. I have to painfully scrunch my face and nose against the back of the 5D II and still can barely see the corners. And inside in a well-lit office, the M5 viewfinder is noticeably brighter. (And that's with an f/2.8 lens on the 5D, and f/4.0 lens on the M5.)

(OK, truth in advertising: you have to turn off image review, or else using the EVF is seriously obnoxious. This requires hitting the playback button when you want to chimp, which is no problem whatsoever.)

And you can put the AF point anywhere in the frame, not just in the points the AF system happens to give you. This is really kewl for folks who shoot one shot at a time and like to get the DoF band where they want it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I can slip the A7RII and 35mm f/2.8 into a pocket. The 5DSR with 40mm 2.8 isn't bad, but it's certainly not pocketable.
> 
> Yes, both cameras are bulky when you add a 24-70 2.8 onto them, but the A7RII is *no worse* than the 5DSR in this case.
> 
> So you get benefits with some lenses, and with other lenses you are no worse off. So how in any reasonable view is this a disadvantage?



I use a 24-70/2.8 far more frequently than any prime lens, especially a relatively slow one. Holding and using a small body with a large lens is an ergonomic shitfest, which is a pretty big disadvantage in any reasonable view.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I can slip the A7RII and 35mm f/2.8 into a pocket. The 5DSR with 40mm 2.8 isn't bad, but it's certainly not pocketable.
> ...



Hmm when I tried an A7R I found it was pretty much an ergonomic disaster no matter what lense was on the front. But the point remains, that if someone wants a pocketable ff camera, mirrorless and a slow prime is pretty much the only way right now.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 26, 2017)

Note this slow prime is the same speed as your fast zoom


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 26, 2017)

A FF mirrorless is only interesting for me if it allows to uses FD lenses. So I am only interested in some low flange distance mount. If it has native EF mount I will use another brands FF mirrorless option whatever brand it is.
I have no need for it at the moment so I can wait.

My idea would be a camera with maybe EF-X mount (short flange distance) and removable adaptor + a variant where an adaptor is fixed by 6 screws to make it a native EF mount camera. Maybe equip the removable adaptor with some flange where the six screws can be fixed by users who never want to loose the adaptor.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 26, 2017)

exactly, that is why Neuro used a zoom lens for convenience sake instead.



jolyonralph said:


> Note this slow prime is the same speed as your fast zoom


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 26, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> exactly, that is why Neuro used a zoom lens for convenience sake instead.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To me having the lighter prime is far more convenient than the zoom in many (but not all) cases. After all, with 40mpx I can crop in almost as well as I could zoom with the 24-70 on my old 5D Mark III. 

The combination allows me to take the camera places I wouldn't previously have wanted to (or been allowed to) take it. 

I still use the 5DSR with the 24-70 more often than the A7RII, but I like the different style of working that I get with the A7RII which is very useful in many cases. 

I have been on trips before where I took only the A7RII and the 35mm lens. There were times, sure, where I wished I'd carried something longer, but overall I enjoyed the freedom of not having to worry about lens changes, and not carrying a ton of kit with me everywhere.


----------



## sanj (Sep 26, 2017)

scyrene said:


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



Just the same way lenses of 200mm and lesser will shrink. Of course it will be all relative and take it's own time. IMHO


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 26, 2017)

sanj said:


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


Well there will be at least one - mine!


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 26, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > For those of us who are not particularly familiar with mirrorless cameras, what are the other advantages apart from size and weight?
> ...


Thank you for summarising of the advantages of an EVF. On the one mirrorless camera that I have tried (the Fuji XT2) the EVF was by far its biggest weakness. Are other manufacturer's products any better in this area? I want to keep an open mind about this but so far my experiences have convinced me that I should stay with an OVF.
In low light, I don't really understand how an EVF can be better than an OVF. If I can see what I am photographing with my eyes then I should be able to see it through the OVF as well and it is certainly not something I have ever had a problem with. Don't EVFs begin to struggle in low light in the way my camera's sensor does? I assume that they must amplify the signal in some way and so introduce noise, or the image takes longer to form in the viewfinder making it slow to refresh.
However on your final point I think you are right and that the move to professional grade mirrorless cameras will be driven by the availability of small, high quality lenses. Sticking a canon 70-200 F2.8 on a Sony A7 looks ridiculous and in my opinion using such a large lens eliminates many of the benefits of using a small camera.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 26, 2017)

I think that any professional canon mirrorless body will be comparable to the A9 in size rather than the A7 series.


----------



## amorse (Sep 26, 2017)

No doubt there appears to be a spit between those who feel EF is critical and those who feel size reduction at all costs is critical. I can't help but wonder if Canon has a plan to address both..

There has been news on their development of electronically curved sensors, which to my limited understanding would let the sensor change shape moderately, allowing simpler lens constructions with greater light transmission potential. Between this and development of new DO lenses, I can't help but wonder if it is possible to shrink lenses while maintaining light transmission capabilities.

If they were to build a camera with an electronically curved sensor, would they not be able to build a mount which would take EF lenses and lenses built for only curved sensor bodies (kind of like how APS-C bodies take EF and EF-S, while FF bodies take only EF)? It would just mean they wouldn't save the flange distance in construction of the body wouldn't it (unless they go with an adapter to create the flange distance for EF lenses)? 

I can't claim to know a lot about the technical side of this, but looking at recent developments and patents it seems reasonable that there could be other solutions to some of these problems...


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 26, 2017)

amorse said:


> If they were to build a camera with an electronically curved sensor, would they not be able to build a mount which would take EF lenses and lenses built for only curved sensor bodies (kind of like how APS-C bodies take EF and EF-S, while FF bodies take only EF)?



A curved sensor would certainly make a lot of sense for a mirrorless full frame system, but I very much doubt that such a camera would be compatible with EF lenses without either a sensor that can flex between curved and flat (is that even possible?) or some extra glass in the EF->new adaptor.

So it's more likely such a system would appear in a FF fixed lens camera I think.


----------



## Karlbug (Sep 26, 2017)

http://thenewcamera.com/canon-patent-bsi-cmos-sensor/

Canon's FF mirrorless with BSI sensor... now _that_ would lure many skeptics into mirrorless waters no matter the mount


----------



## amorse (Sep 26, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> amorse said:
> 
> 
> > If they were to build a camera with an electronically curved sensor, would they not be able to build a mount which would take EF lenses and lenses built for only curved sensor bodies (kind of like how APS-C bodies take EF and EF-S, while FF bodies take only EF)?
> ...



According to images from the patent it does appear possible to flex the sensor from completely flat to curved - see the below article from CR and figure a) vs b). That does *seem* to indicate the sensor could flex that much, but again I haven't read or tried to interpret the actual patent. Also, I did see a report in July that Nikon patented a 35mm f2 lens for a curved sensor camera, so it does appear that a lot of companies are moving in that direction somewhat rapidly.

http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-electronic-curved-sensor/


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 26, 2017)

amorse said:


> According to images from the patent it does appear possible to flex the sensor from completely flat to curved - see the below article from CR and figure a) vs b). That does *seem* to indicate the sensor could flex that much, but again I haven't read or tried to interpret the actual patent. Also, I did see a report in July that Nikon patented a 35mm f2 lens for a curved sensor camera, so it does appear that a lot of companies are moving in that direction somewhat rapidly.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-electronic-curved-sensor/



Ah! Very interesting.

This could work very well if they can actually commercialise the technology. This is something far more important than flange distance that would justify a new lens mount.


----------



## bf (Sep 26, 2017)

I think EF mount with optimized new lenses for mirrorless would be the way to go. Long time ago, there was also comnents that even ef-m mount can cover FF sensor. If it's a new mount there is a potential chance of immigration to new ecosystems and losing current customer base. Moroever, Canon has to invest more in development.

About OVF, I think the best you can get is what you have on a DSLR, why even bother a mirrirless?


----------



## RGF (Sep 26, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm pretty much convinced that most of those who claim they wouldn't buy a Canon mirrorless camera unless it supported native EF mount are the sort of people who wouldn't buy any FF Canon mirrorless camera anyway.



I am in the camp of only considering a FF Canon mirrorless camera if I can use my current Canon lenses. And yes if one comes out and is "good" I will buy it. I am not using good as an escape clause but rather an objective evaluation. I would like to have a much lighter camera on which I can use my current set of lenses. In the ideal world I would like to see 2 FF ML cameras. 24 MP, high FPS and a higher MP camera (perhaps 40ish MP) for landscape.


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 26, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> amorse said:
> 
> 
> > According to images from the patent it does appear possible to flex the sensor from completely flat to curved - see the below article from CR and figure a) vs b). That does *seem* to indicate the sensor could flex that much, but again I haven't read or tried to interpret the actual patent. Also, I did see a report in July that Nikon patented a 35mm f2 lens for a curved sensor camera, so it does appear that a lot of companies are moving in that direction somewhat rapidly.
> ...



The other possibility with this is to actually use a curved lens sensor that uses microlenses to adapt itself automatically. This way a mirrorless optimized lens that is designed for a curved sensor using a new generation of smaller DO lenses could perform well on the same physical mount that you use for the current EF lenses, and the sensor could adapt itself for "legacy" lenses. The microlenses would adjust themselves automatically when an ef lens is mounted to correct the focal point. 

So then the questions is how would a mirrorless mount be smaller if it's using an ef mount? There's no reason why the rear elements of a lens could not protrude into the body when mounted. You could easily make a smaller rear final element of a lens that projects onto a curved sensor - this lens could essentially sit inside the circumference of the mount much close to the sensor, recovering the room given up by having the larger flange distance. 

Canon has filed more patents in the last few years than just about anyone in the tech sector. There's even been talks on this site for microlenses that can do just this. http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-variable-shape-microlenses/. If they can electronically change the angle of these microlenses (or just shift/bend the entire sensor) they are good. Looking at the patents as a whole this might be something that they are looking at.


----------



## Jopa (Sep 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I can slip the A7RII and 35mm f/2.8 into a pocket. The 5DSR with 40mm 2.8 isn't bad, but it's certainly not pocketable.
> ...



The A7r2 with a large lens is a pain indeed, but the vertical grip makes life much easier.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 26, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



+ 10. If canon comes up with FF mirrorless, it should start from ground up and should not carry any previous baggage from EF or EF-M mount. EF mount forces shorter focal length (50mm and under) to have retro telephoto design and hence bigger than an traditionally designed lens. Example: Leica summicron is only 1 1/4 inch long and the front element only 3 inches from the sensor. There is no EF mount lens can beat it. As for EF-M mount, its frange distance is even not ideal for APS-C. Just look at the EF-M 22/2 lens. It stick out more than it should be and the rear element is a lot bigger than the front element and the light fall out is still bad. That is all due to the light incident angle is far from being vertical to the sensor. The existing sensor like to see the light incident angle close to be vertical to the sensor.
If Canon wants to make a good FF mirrorless, It need to work on the sensor such that it is not sensitive to the light incident angle. Offset micro lens at the corner is a good solution,.Unfortunately, Leica still has the pattern right. May be Canon should pay Leica the loyalty to get the FF mirrorless going.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I can slip the A7RII and 35mm f/2.8 into a pocket. The 5DSR with 40mm 2.8 isn't bad, but it's certainly not pocketable.
> ...



Making a camera BIGGER = no problem. Grips, Rigs, cages ... GALORE.
Making a given camera SMALLER = impossible. 

Besides: there is no reason whay Canon should (and would) not ALSO produce some larger / beefier models ... a new, short FFD mount does not preclude that in any way. 

As long as there is one "fully competent, yet as small as possible" model in the lineup .. I'm gonna buy. Sony RX1R Mk. II form factor ... only with a Canon [EF-X] lens mount up front. 8)


----------



## Tugela (Sep 26, 2017)

scyrene said:


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



Moving elements closer to the sensor (possible without a mirror in the way) allows more compact and efficient designs.

That is why you can put a DSLR lens on a MILC with an adapter, but not the other way around.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 26, 2017)

Tugela said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



that's not true for anything over 60-80mm. because then your length of the lens is the determining factor which is around the same as the focal length.

I'd even go as far as saying you won't see any benefit over 42mm (the EF mount registration distance) as by then both lenses are retrofocal.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 26, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



wrong.

there's nothing stopping canon from coming out with an A7II clone with the same cramped horrid ergonomics with the EF mount.

the SL2 is the same size as the A7II and has similar ergonomics. Since it's an EF mount, changing it to mirrorless will make it smaller by nature of switching the pentaprism for EVF and removing the mirrorbox assembly and AF sensor.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 26, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Quackator said:
> 
> 
> > Just weighing in: I am waiting for a full frame that in an ideal world (for me)
> ...



The main advantage is the ability to have all of your information, exposure tools and focusing aids directly available in your viewfinder. Personally I find DMF to be an extremely powerful tool for getting critical focus on fussy scenes, and you simply cannot do that at all with a DSLR. With a DSLR you just have to hope that the camera gets the right critical focus, you are removed from the equation. As a creative artist, that is a bad thing. DMF was a game changer for me, and I will never go back to a DSLR as a result. They are simply inadequate.

DSLRs had an advantage with focusing speed, especially in low light, but the most recent iterations of AF in higher end MILC models have caught up to that. DSLRs are about as good as they can get in terms of focusing and tracking, but MILCs have no ceiling in that respect.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 26, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> there's nothing stopping canon from coming out with an A7II clone with the same cramped horrid ergonomics with the EF mount.



Agree, Sony's ergonomic decisions have been horrible. Disagree with AvTvM that manufacturers should aim small and let us build up the housing/grip with add-ons. Optimize a purpose-built larger rig and it just sings. Throwing out sensor size / AF points / VF size, etc., compare the _basic shooting experience_ of a 5D-level camera versus an SL1/SL2 and tell me which you prefer to actually handle, aim, adjust settings and shoot.

I still believe (regardless of flange distance / body thickness) this rig needs a proper 5D-like grip to it. More room for a larger battery, proper spacing from the lens mount for larger lenses (see pic), room for a top LCD and added controls, far more comfortable grip to wield whatever lens you want, etc.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > there's nothing stopping canon from coming out with an A7II clone with the same cramped horrid ergonomics with the EF mount.
> ...



an EF mount camera with the same cramped ergonomics would be better because of the flange distance would be sticking out of the camera body more. providing a constant distance in between lens mount and grip.

whereas with the shorter registration distance, actually works against having a smaller body with bigger diameter lenses.






the SL2 with an EF mount is barely bigger than the A7II not to mention it has a built in flash which takes up more depth on the camera body. in both cases, the grip dominates the depth of the camera, not the mount.

you get rid of the flash, and move to an EVF, shorten the height because of no AF sensor at the bottom by 1-2mm and you have a camera full frame that is actually smaller and lighter than the A7II.

and it's an EF mount.

so the theory that you *must* go to a new mount to make a small camera is fictitious.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I can slip the A7RII and 35mm f/2.8 into a pocket. The 5DSR with 40mm 2.8 isn't bad, but it's certainly not pocketable.
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 26, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> an EF mount camera with the same cramped ergonomics would be better because of the flange distance would be sticking out of the camera body more. providing a constant distance in between lens mount and grip.
> 
> whereas with the shorter registration distance, actually works against having a smaller body with bigger diameter lenses.



Both of those pictures make my fingers hurt just looking at them.

If it was full EF, I'd go more with the Sigma Quattro ILC setup, which uses that ugly but functional mount tube pushout -- at least that leaves room for the fingers!

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> As long as there is one "fully competent, yet as small as possible" model in the lineup .. I'm gonna buy.



That might matter if Canon cared whether you buy or not...but, they don't.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> If it was full EF, I'd go more with the Sigma Quattro ILC setup, which uses that ugly but functional mount tube pushout -- at least that leaves room for the fingers!
> 
> - A



the SL2 has far more room than the A7II. that's the top view.





however this is just an example that yes, you can make a small full frame mirrorless camera with an EF mount.

Consider with 24-70's.






and you can see how having the EF mount on a small camera is actually a benefit. you have a constant finger width between the grip and the mount. not so with the E mount.


----------



## Talys (Sep 26, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > there's nothing stopping canon from coming out with an A7II clone with the same cramped horrid ergonomics with the EF mount.
> ...



I absolutely hate Sony's ergonomics. It's so terrible that I would give up photography as a hobby and play video games and use a cell phone camera if all cameras were made like that. Poor ergonomics just sucks the joy out of using the device.

There is a build quality issue, too. I've never used an A9, but the A7 series cameras feel delicate and toy-like in comparison to Canon's similarly priced DSLRs. They have more handycam DNA in them than DSLR.

Since I don't think that DSLRs are too big or too heavy as professional or enthusiast tools, I wholeheartedly agree that a professional-grade mirrorless from Canon should be ergonomically pleasing in size and grip, and have battery life suitable for someone who wants to shoot for many hours without seeing low battery warnings and without having to resort to ridiculously constrained power saving modes that might be ok for snapping pictures while hiking, but just blacks out the screen at inconvenient times when you're engaged in photography.



rrcphoto said:


> and you can see how having the EF mount on a small camera is actually a benefit. you have a constant finger width between the grip and the mount. not so with the E mount.



+1


----------



## Tugela (Sep 26, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> amorse said:
> 
> 
> > According to images from the patent it does appear possible to flex the sensor from completely flat to curved - see the below article from CR and figure a) vs b). That does *seem* to indicate the sensor could flex that much, but again I haven't read or tried to interpret the actual patent. Also, I did see a report in July that Nikon patented a 35mm f2 lens for a curved sensor camera, so it does appear that a lot of companies are moving in that direction somewhat rapidly.
> ...



Having a patent does NOT mean that you will actually be able to use it in a product, since there will probably be a lot of similar patents out there with overlapping claims. Even a bit of overlap can be enough for another company to block you from using the technology at all.

A lot of patents are filed by tech companies purely to block competitors, with no intention of ever being used in a product. Such is the nature of the tech business, especially when you are dealing with complex products that incorporate hundreds or thousands of pieces of IP. As consumers whatever you buy, no matter where it comes from, you are not getting the best thing the company can make due to this. Ever. There are a lot of improvements that a manufacturer would LIKE to add to a product, but can't because this or that piece of IP is owned by someone else.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 26, 2017)

Talys said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Canon 1/5/7D cameras are designed for large alpha males. For people with small to mid sized hands they are not the ideal size. Something with the approximate dimensions of a Rebel is more comfortable for those folk.

For me the higher end Canon cameras always feel like they are about to fall out of my hand because they are simply too big to hold properly. The buttons are not accessible, you have to move your hand physically while holding the camera by the lens with the other hand to reach them. It is just awkward, the cameras are incredibly poorly designed for most of the population (who are not large alpha males). You just don't get the confidence holding them that you do with the smaller bodies, and IMO creativity suffers as a result of that.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 26, 2017)

Tugela said:


> Canon 1/5/7D cameras are designed for large alpha males. For people with small to mid sized hands they are not the ideal size. Something with the approximate dimensions of a Rebel is more comfortable for those folk.



I have smaller hands and I can operate a 1/5/7 series camera without even taking my hands off the grip and they are distinctly comfortable to hold.


----------



## itsab1989 (Sep 26, 2017)

I hope that Canons first MILC will be a high MP one like the 5DSR.
That could give users the possibilities to use EF-M lenses natively in some kind of crop mode with a compact overall size while maintaining a decent resolution and all the other EF lenses via an adaptor in FF-mode.
But I guess I am just dreaming


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 26, 2017)

Tugela said:


> Canon 1/5/7D cameras are designed for large alpha males. For people with small to mid sized hands they are not the ideal size. Something with the approximate dimensions of a Rebel is more comfortable for those folk.



I'm 5'9" with a rather diminutive build, and slightly smaller than average hands. I generally don't like big beefy car steering wheels as they tend to tire my hands out, so I hear you.

When I jumped from a T1i to a 5D3, I admit I was concerned about the grip size at first. I felt like I jumped from a Honda sedan to a Cadillac SUV. It felt a bit too much. But over time, I realized my 'neurological mindset' / proprioceptive habits were _trying to hold it like a Rebel_. I had to somewhat de-program how that tinier T1i grip had informed how to hold a camera.

Closest analogy is realizing you've been unwittingly bowling with a ball that has too tight a hole spacing or playing hockey with too short a stick all this time. Once I just relaxed with the grip, I realized I didn't need to have my fingers clutching it in such a way and it just... got perfect. Hard to put to words. Other than maybe some extra 'landing' down by the battery cover that I could add for a more comfortable spread of my ring and pinky finger (which would ruin vertical grip compatibility), I would not change a single thing about the 5D grip. It's that good to me.

(I am not dismissing your concerns at all. You may have used a bigger grip rig for sometime and this never happened. Just sharing my experience, that's all.)

- A


----------



## Woody (Sep 27, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> so the theory that you *must* go to a new mount to make a small camera is fictitious.



I like what you said! ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 27, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Disagree with AvTvM that manufacturers should aim small and let us build up the housing/grip with add-ons.
> ... room for a top LCD and added controls,



hell NO! mono-functional Tv dials, exposure compensation EV +/- dials and top-lcds were useful in the analogue FILM days. no need for them on any digital camera. 1 mode selection dial, 1 back focus button, 1 asterix button, 1 shutter button, 1 multifunction front wheel (and/or lens base ring!), 1 rear wheel, about 4 user assignable top deck and buttons (as Canon supplies in their EOS UI) and a fantastic, fully articulated, extremely responsive touch screen (like Canon has in some cams) are all the control points needed on a digital electronic camera. 

all that freakin' 19th century steam-punk stuff - including aperture levers, dedicated "stop down preview" buttons and the like - needs to go. it should be relegated to totally stupid Nikon Df mirrorslappers and Leica red dot overpriced LeiLei land! but please! not on a finally upcoming Canon mirrorless FF EOS M1X ... !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> hell NO! mono-functional Tv dials, exposure compensation EV +/- dials and top-lcds were useful in the analogue FILM days. no need for them on any digital camera. 1 mode selection dial



Well, we all know that _Canon_ doesn't give a crap about your opinion. But did Sony, perhaps, consult with you on ergonomics for their MILCs?


----------



## dak723 (Sep 27, 2017)

All of these "what is comfortable" comments are kind of funny. Within a reasonable range, what is comfortable is purely what you are used to. After a few months, most likely, someone who thinks the M series body is ideal, would easily adapt to a rebel sized body. Use that body for a couple years and a 5 series body would seem totally awkward if you changed back - until you got used to it, of course. Ergonomics is far more than size. The extent and shape of the grip are far more important than the overall size of the camera - something Sony can't seem to understand as the shape is all wrong and does not fit the hand. At least that is my experience after owning an Olympus OM-1, Film Rebel, Digital Rebel, 6D, SL1, and now an M5 and Olympus OM-D E-M1.

If you have a comfortable grip such as the SL2, this would seem to be an ideal size (or even a tad larger) for those that want smaller and still keep the EF mount. The idea that Canon needs to make a new mount to go smaller just doesn't carry any weight as so well demonstrated by rrcphoto's great examples..


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I always wonder where people get their statistics for percentages. Also wonder why smartphones would even be included in this particular discussion. ???


----------



## dak723 (Sep 27, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



They make them up, of course, and this particular one is ridiculous.

The idea that folks are using small primes is very odd, since the majority of DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras are sold with kit lenses that are approximately 28-80 FF equivalent. Many folks like myself have been getting the newer "all-in-one" lenses. My main lenses on my two mirrorless rigs are 18-150mm on my M5 and 12-100 (equiv 24-200) on my M4/3 Olympus. These lenses are not getting shorter with any new mount.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Sep 27, 2017)

itsab1989 said:


> I hope that Canons first MILC will be a high MP one like the 5DSR.
> That could give users the possibilities to use EF-M lenses natively in some kind of crop mode with a compact overall size while maintaining a decent resolution and all the other EF lenses via an adaptor in FF-mode.
> But I guess I am just dreaming



I think this is the most likely scenario I feel. Keeps it small for those who want something small. EF-M mount should technically be able to support FF like SOny e mount with same flange distance. So FF EF-M lenses should be able to be released. I personally like my EF-M lenses. They seem to outperform most EF-S lenses. For those who want to use a big lens on it, you can with the adaptor. I could see a weatherproof grade adaptor for FF mode, it wouldn't be called pro, but just designated with a II like how they upgraded their teleconverters to be weatherproof.


----------



## Woody (Sep 27, 2017)

eosuser1234 said:


> I personally like my EF-M lenses. They seem to outperform most EF-S lenses.



I have both the EF-M 15-45 mm kit lens for my M5 as well as the EF-S 18-55 mm kit lens for my 77D. Both offer equally superlative performances. ;D


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 27, 2017)

Not only Sony consult with AvTvM, but he is on the engineering panel for Sony Digital Imaging Global 








neuroanatomist said:


> Well, we all know that _Canon_ doesn't give a crap about your opinion. But did Sony, perhaps, consult with you on ergonomics for their MILCs?


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 27, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Not only Sony consult with AvTvM, but he is on the engineering panel for Sony Digital Imaging Global



regrettably not. ;D

Otherwise ... 
* *Sony E-mount *would have been designed "really right" from start - no-compromise, fully FF capable. Much wider diameter, slightly longer FFD. 

* Sony E-mount APS-C lenses would have been as small, dirt cheap and optically good as Canon EF-M lenses 

* Sony E-mount lenses ["FE" series] would be a lot smaller, optically as good and half price of what they are currently selling for ... thanks to wisely chosen lens mount parameters and associated benefits for lens construction

* Sony RX1R II would be as small as it is, but equipped with a lens mount up front instead of a fixed 35mm lens. It would have sold like hotcakes for €/USD 1899,- [body plus "non-Zeiss" 24-70/4.0 kit zoom] ... instead of sitting unsold on shop shelves at a totally ludicrous MSRP of USD/€ 4000

* all Sony cameras would have global electronic shutter by now 8)

* all Sony cameras would have a user interface [front wheel, thumb wheel, all control points on right side for 1-handed operation] and a menu system as good as Canon EOS 8)

Should Sony read this, I am open for an interesting job offer.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 27, 2017)

Shoot Vivek a message and see what transpires 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/vivek-handoo-b6958a1/





AvTvM said:


> Should Sony read this, I am open for a interesting job offers.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 27, 2017)

Tugela said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > Quackator said:
> ...


Thank you.
Please would you explain what DMF is and why it is so much better than the selectable AF points I have on my DSLR? If I position the AF point correctly then the results are always acceptable - so what does DMF offer in addition to this?


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 27, 2017)

Woody said:


> eosuser1234 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally like my EF-M lenses. They seem to outperform most EF-S lenses.
> ...



The 15-45 is the poorest-quality EF-M lens, even the old discontinued 18-55 was better (and better than the EF-S 18-55 in my experience) 

The EF-M 22mm, 28mm macro and the 11-22mm are superb lenses. The 18-150 is very good considering what it is, but mostly I use the 22 and the 11-22 on my M3 (full spectrum converted), M5 and M6.


----------



## traveller (Sep 27, 2017)

Lots of debate here of EF versus EF-M vs. _new_ mount. As this is such a controversial subject, I will stick my neck out: if there is a full-frame mirrorless camera launched as a new line, *it will be EF-M mount*. It will _not_ be EF mount and there will be _no new dedicated FF mirrorless mount_ to fulfil all the technical performance requirements of the CR-Forum-axe-grinders. It's all about the marketing message, not technical ivory towers. 

Canon does not create cameras for the handful of people that frequent the CR Forums (great as you guys and gals are! ), they create them for the mainstream. Canon will want to send the message to this EOS-M mainstream that _"there is an upgrade path to full-frame"_ in the same way as this exists for EOS DSLR users and Sony E-mount users. If Canon produces its first FF mirrorless camera in EF-mount or creates a new dedicated FF-mirrorless mount, they are effectively telling the market that the EF-M mount is 'low-end' only. Nikon tried this approach, creating a mirrorless sub-category below DSLRs, with their 1-series and look at the disaster that ensued. Canon will be wary of sending the same signals to the market with EOS-M and killing a successful line. 

This is not to say that Canon never will produce a mirrorless camera with an EF mount -probably _all_ the EF mount range _will eventually_ go mirrorless, with perhaps the exception of the top tier models (1D, 5D, 7D ~maybe~ series).


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 27, 2017)

* Canon EF-S and EF-M ARE a limited lineup of "low end/consumer to middle class" lenses. Nothing wrong with that. Maximum bang for the buck and the size/weight actually.
* Nikon DX ... worse [fewer attractive DX lenses, no mirrorless APS-C].
* Sony E-mount [for APS-C] ... worse [lower IQ lenses at higher prices than Canon EF-M] 
* Fujifilm does have higher end APS-C lenses. But no FF system. 

*There is no meaningful "upgrade path" from APS-C systems to FF systems. Not for any brand. *
"upgrade" from APS-C system to FF means: throw away all your "old" camera/s and lenses and buy expensive new stuff. 

A Canon mirrorless FF system with new native mount ["EF-X?"] will however offer *an excellent upgrade path* for Canon EF lens users: a simple and cheap adapter is all that's needed. You can even keep and use your "old" mirrorslapper as long as you want. 

I do believe, even "stupid Canon" is smart enough to not use EF-M for FF = NOT to repeat Sony E-mount mistake.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> *There is no meaningful "upgrade path" from APS-C systems to FF systems. Not for any brand. *



Wrong 

Sony APS-C E lenses work perfectly well on the full-frame cameras. In fact, some of them provide enough of an image circle that they can produce a full-frame image at certain zooms if you turn off the automatic 'switch to crop mode'.

See: http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-10-18-e-mount-lens/


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 27, 2017)

Actually, even the EF-S 18-55 II IS lens I tried with the metabones adaptor on the A7RII gave almost a full-frame image at the mid points of its zoom. 

Not that I'd advocate buying an A7RII and metabones adaptor just to use the EF-S 18-55, but it does show that once you take the mirror out of the equation then yes, sometimes these lenses are more flexible than you think.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 27, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > *There is no meaningful "upgrade path" from APS-C systems to FF systems. Not for any brand. *
> ...



Thanks but no thanks. This is a perverted idiocy, not anything I'd call an "upgrade path". 

To start with, Sony APS-C E-mount lenses [not the FE lenses] are relative pieces of cr*p ... even on an APS-C sensor. Using said crop lenses on a full frame sensor is just "beyond ridiculous". Why on earth would anybody in their right mind buy an expensive FF camera and then stick such pieces of junk onto them? :


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 27, 2017)

I'm not sure technically reading through the thread whether Canon can retain the EF mount or have to create a new mount.
For Canon if they want alot of users to move to mirrorless it would be best to keep the EF mount.
The next best thing would be a cheap but excellent adapter that would be future proofed.

I do alot of sports photography and high frame rate is a big advantage in fast moving sports (it does have a downside with the volume of photographs to trawl through).
If Canon made a mirrorless that would do 16-20 FPS and record images to a buffer with the button half pressed (like the Olympus Pro mode) I'd be very interested.
It may also be possible to be alot quieter.
(The 5D IV is very loud in silent mode in a church).

A smaller size would be an advantage on smaller lens but once you get into 300-600 F2.8 a small camera isn't any particular advantage.

I think Canon could make a great mirrorless full frame M1 with the best of other mirrorless cameras included like focus peaking, electronic zoom , pre recording photos, very high frame rate, good focusing system etc.
I'd hate to see a mediocre first attempt


----------



## traveller (Sep 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



We all know the reality of the "upgrade path", but marketing isn't about reality, it's about creating the impression in people's minds that something is possible. Besides, if you are careful with your lens selection, maintaining the same mount whilst "going full frame" can save you money. I still have my (now repurposed) 50mm f/1.4 and my 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, though I had to trade in my UWA zoom for something more appropriate. Not taking a hit on the 70-200 trade-in helped tip the balance in favour of the 5D3 over the D800, which would have been my choice if I had needed to start again from scratch. I wonder how many other customers Canon has retained in this way? 

The issue with the Sony A7&9 series is that you can get EF-FE mount adapters. Whilst these aren't great, it means that if you don't have top-level autofocus requirements, you can make do whilst you spread the transition costs. It also allows Canon users to sample the Sony bodies without needing a full lens set straight away. This is quite a big threat to Canon and I think that this is another reason why they'll try to have a "smaller & lighter hi-res' mirrorless FF option soon.


----------



## traveller (Sep 27, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm not sure technically reading through the thread whether Canon can retain the EF mount or have to create a new mount.
> For Canon if they want alot of users to move to mirrorless it would be best to keep the EF mount.
> The next best thing would be a cheap but excellent adapter that would be future proofed.
> 
> ...



Technically, there's nothing stopping Canon just removing the mirror from any of their full frame cameras and marketing it as their mirrorless option (hopefully whilst replacing the viewfinder with an EVF ), all the technology is already in place - it would be the same as using your 5D4 in live view mode. The question is whether this is the best strategy, or whether a mount with a shorter flange back distance would offer more design freedom for lenses and the possibility of a more compact body. Personally, I think that we'll eventually see both approaches from Canon, it's just a case of which one first.


----------



## BillB (Sep 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> * Canon EF-S and EF-M ARE a limited lineup of "low end/consumer to middle class" lenses. Nothing wrong with that. Maximum bang for the buck and the size/weight actually.
> * Nikon DX ... worse [fewer attractive DX lenses, no mirrorless APS-C].
> * Sony E-mount [for APS-C] ... worse [lower IQ lenses at higher prices than Canon EF-M]
> * Fujifilm does have higher end APS-C lenses. But no FF system.
> ...



As you point out, along with many others, the selection of EF-S and EF-M is quite limited. On the other hand, all EF lenses work perfectly well on Canon APS-C cameras, with or without an adaptor. Get the EF lenses first and then get the fullframe camera later. Seems like a transition strategy to me.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 27, 2017)

BillB said:


> As you point out, along with many others, the selection of EF-S and EF-M is quite limited. On the other hand, all EF lenses work perfectly well on Canon APS-C cameras, with or without an adaptor. Get the EF lenses first and then get the fullframe camera later. Seems like a transition strategy to me.



technically yes. In practice entry and "upgrade path" does not work this way. Many Canon users start/ed with an affordable APS-C "Rebel" series DSLR plus EF-S kit zoom. By the time they are ready for their second lens most will rather buy another affordable EF-S lens, e.g. a tele-zoom [EF-S 55-250 etc.] or a longer convenience zoom [EF-S 18-200 etc.] or possibly a faster/better standard zoom [EF-S 17-55] or a UWA [EF-S 10-18, 10-22]. Buying big, heavy and expensive EF full-frame lenses is typically not a consideration until people are well advanced and quite sure photography is one of their main hobbies/occupations. 

In between are one or multiple upgrades to newer/better APS-C DSLRs ... from Rebel xxD and 7D/2 lineup. Until the time these "progressing enthusiasts" are ready to "upgrade" to FF they may have also own an EF 50/1.8 or 1.4 and or an EF 70-300 lens, but mostly it will be EF-S lenses ... all of which have to go in order to go "full frame". The same holds true for Nikon, Sony, Pentax, ... 

Again, in practice there is NO upgrade path from APS-C to FF systems. Yes, Canon speedlites can still be used. And the initial tripod - if a sturdy enough model was purchased.  

"Upgrade path" does not hold up as an argument for Canon to NOT bring their FF mirrorless system with a brand spanking new mount, optimally chosen for mirrorless FF cameras and a great new "EF-X?" lens lineup ... to be sold over the next 30 years. Short-term there will be 4 mounts - 2 for APS-C [EF-S, EF-M] and 2 for FF [EF, EF-X?]. At the end of the day new lenses will only come in EF-X? mount for FF and EF-M mount for APS-C. EF-X? lenses will be fully compatible with EF-M mount of course, same way EF lenses can be used on EF-S camera bodies.


----------



## BillB (Sep 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Not only Sony consult with AvTvM, but he is on the engineering panel for Sony Digital Imaging Global
> ...



So the path to success would be an RX1R II with interchangeable lenses that sells for $1899. Wonder how Sony missed that one.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 27, 2017)

The thing that's most amusing about this debate is that it will make not one tiny bit of difference to the actual decision about which mount will be used - a decision Canon probably settled on a year or more ago. 

We just have to wait and see what Canon decide to bring us.


----------



## BillB (Sep 27, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> The thing that's most amusing about this debate is that it will make not one tiny bit of difference to the actual decision about which mount will be used - a decision Canon probably settled on a year or more ago.
> 
> We just have to wait and see what Canon decide to bring us.



Where is the fun in that?


----------



## slclick (Sep 27, 2017)

We really need this body to be released with an EF mount and the 50L 1.X at the same time to close the door on these threads, wild hopes and dreams and to take more photographs.


----------



## PRINZMETAL (Sep 27, 2017)

*lens size sony 70-200 f2.8 vs canon*

Those who think that mirrorless len size will be much smaller and lighter than current zoom lens at say f2.8 they are probably wrong. I just checked Sony's full frame mirrorless 70-200 f2.8 vs canon's. Canon's is shorter, the diameter and weight are about the same.

If one was to make a lens smaller one gives up the f2.8.

So why mirrorless? To me the advantages will be in the long run cheaper for the manufacturer to make with perhaps corresponding less consumer costs. Two, no need for lens af adjustments (to me that is a big deal). And, the ability to make smaller/lighter bodies.

To me from a consumer's standpoint, these are not really significant. From a manufacturer's perspective, driving down manufacturing costs with a simpler body is paramount if they don't give up sales in the process.

Bp


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Not only Sony consult with AvTvM, but he is on the engineering panel for Sony Digital Imaging Global
> ...



The offer and the check are in the mail. We at Sony really, really, really need you on our engineering panel and want to pick you up before Canon does.


----------



## Bekippe (Sep 27, 2017)

Another thing to note: look at the marking position on an A7 or A9 for the focal plane vs the marking on the 5DIV. Yes, Sony has a much shorter flange distance, but their sensor is also set further forward by a good amount. 


Sony seemingly has more going on behind the sensor than Canon does. If the sensor could be about as far back as it was in the Film days (ex: turn an AE-1 into a mirrorless camera), having the longer flange distance wouldn't change the overall body size very much.


For special wide-angle lenses where the shorter flange length could reduce lens size, have the sensor on a slide that moves it forward to the "short" flange position inside the body. If you can move lens elements back and forth with precision, you can move the sensor as well.


----------



## jedy (Sep 27, 2017)

My ideal would be a fullframe mirrorless, reasonably sized (maybe sized like a Rebel?), new lens mount, with some decent manual prime lenses, f1.4-f2. Lenses with aperture rings and proper distance markings for good old zone focusing. Considering this is a very niche set of asks for my preferred photography, I think I'll just have to get to the back of the queue and wait a very long time (and possibly even longer). Canon will be catering for the mass market well before even considering a few niche interests, if at all. Perhaps manual lenses will get built by third party lens companies like Zeiss or Voigtlander, eventually.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 27, 2017)

For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight. Ergonomics don't have to be compromised, you can make the camera slightly larger than the A7RII and still benefit from a weight reduction.


One reason the sensor is so far forward in the A7RII is to allow for the in body stabilization (another trick Canon haven't got a working solution for yet, except for video)


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 27, 2017)

the quickest and less risk path for canon to take is basically add an EVF onto a 6D Mark II camera body and call things good.

you get with this:

- a slightly smaller camera than the 6D Mark II but with the ergonomics of the EOS series cameras.
- a camera that weighs less (no pentaprism, simpler shutter assembly) (a A7II weighs 625g, a 6D Mark II weighs 765g)

if canon wants to compete head on size by size against a Sony A7 series body, then they can do so with an SL2 sized camera without much problem.

the tougher thing for canon is to port from the powershot code all the EVF, focus tools, performance optimization and get that working with the DSLR firmware.

the second hurdle is Canon's EOS utility and the fact that it doesn't support liveview fps "overdrive" capable cameras such as mirrorless ( the M5 for instance, refreshes liveview up to 120hz).

while people in their mom's basement think that is easy, it's a chore - there's a reason why many of the features on the M5 for instance, hasn't made it into the DSLR firmware yet.

If canon goes with a short mount, they are adding to that series of problems significantly and most in here are waving it off as nothing.. good god... 

for instance - if they use the EF-M mount, they are working with a 18mm registration distance. that's new technologies that are absolutely necessary to produce the sensor (BSI,etc). Canon has never done a BSI sensor, not even in R&D.

if they work with another registration distance that is not EF-M and not EF, then they are adding yet-another-mount-and-lens series to their portfolio. Canon has a finite limit to the amount of lenses that they can create in a year - just like sony does as well (how many really new A mount lenses have come out in the last 4+ years).

Then we have perception. This will be a very difficult problem - especially after they have already done that historically in the past with the FD mount - how many will think this is just another wholesale mount switch. this really plays havoc with the largest and most successful mount in the history of photography.

the ONLY downsides to not working with a smaller mount hardly affects Canon Inc:

- you can't adapt nearly as many lenses.
- you can't make smaller primes with focals under < 40mm.


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> the quickest and less risk path for canon to take is basically add an EVF onto a 6D Mark II camera body and call things good.



They could also swap an EVF into a 5D IV 

Then they'd have 2 models of FF mirrorless!


----------



## BillB (Sep 27, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight. Ergonomics don't have to be compromised, you can make the camera slightly larger than the A7RII and still benefit from a weight reduction.
> 
> 
> One reason the sensor is so far forward in the A7RII is to allow for the in body stabilization (another trick Canon haven't got a working solution for yet, except for video)



The only time I really notice the weight of the DSLR is when I have a zoom on it. (Don't have any heavy primes.)


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 27, 2017)

Talys said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > the quickest and less risk path for canon to take is basically add an EVF onto a 6D Mark II camera body and call things good.
> ...



pretty much. i can see over time, canon will simply flip the pentaprism assembly with an EVF throughout the lineup and keep it the same as it is now. each camera will be slightly smaller, weigh less but still have the EOS ergonomics. the EF-M lineup is there if you want to get to travel small.

the big ticket items is firmware and EOS utility. those simply need to be improved for Mirrorless. Canon has all the other technologies in place already.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 27, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight.



a 6D mark II weighs 765g the A7RII weighs 625g.

the 6D Mark II is vastly better ergonomically from grip, fully articulating screen, battery size, haptics,etc.

there's a good chance that a mirrorless form of the 6D Mark II would actually weigh less than the A7RII.


----------



## traveller (Sep 27, 2017)

Bekippe said:


> Another thing to note: look at the marking position on an A7 or A9 for the focal plane vs the marking on the 5DIV. Yes, Sony has a much shorter flange distance, but their sensor is also set further forward by a good amount.
> 
> 
> Sony seemingly has more going on behind the sensor than Canon does. If the sensor could be about as far back as it was in the Film days (ex: turn an AE-1 into a mirrorless camera), having the longer flange distance wouldn't change the overall body size very much.
> ...



Wouldn't it be lovely if Canon could mount the sensor as far back as the film plane on a traditional SLR.... sadly, no one yet can, as digital camera sensors and their associated electronics are thicker than film, plus most people would insist that LCD displays are also pretty indispensable. This is one reason why I think, so many people were disappointed with the bulkiness of the Nikon Df. 

I'm not convinced that the 'more going on' behind a Sony sensor is visible without a microscope and moving a sensor back and forth might be possible (and is patented by Canon, I think), but that doesn't mean it is entirely practicable. Surely it's easier just to use a tube like this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008O0IE2Y/ref=asc_df_B008O0IE2Y14855106?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&tag=cpbcouk-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B008O0IE2Y?


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 27, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> the ONLY downsides to not working with a smaller mount hardly affects Canon Inc:
> - you can't adapt nearly as many lenses.
> - you can't make smaller primes with focals under < 40mm.



wrong. Even when looking at EF-M 18-150 vs. EF-S 18-135 ... http://j.mp/2xyGhAl

we clearly see what the shorter Flange distance allows in size savings for tele / zoom lenses. Same would be true for mirrorless FF lenses - IF new lens mount parameters are optimally chosen. 

btw: comparison shows SL2 - Canon's smallest DSLR ... vs. EOS M5 - largest Canon MILC to date. Same would apply for FF mirrorless cams. 

Probably any lens up to 200mm focal length [barring TS-E and other special purpose lenses] would be smaller with a new mirrorless mount compared to an equivalent EF lens. Primes and zooms.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 27, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight. Ergonomics don't have to be compromised, you can make the camera slightly larger than the A7RII and still benefit from a weight reduction.
> 
> 
> One reason the sensor is so far forward in the A7RII is to allow for the in body stabilization (another trick Canon haven't got a working solution for yet, except for video)



Umm .... is there really actually any such thing as In Body Stabilization for still shots ? How on earth does it work ? Video is obvious - just use a CPU to line up the frames - but when you only have one frame what do you do ? put Gyroscopes into the camera body ? I'd love to know ...


----------



## dak723 (Sep 28, 2017)

rjbray01 said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight. Ergonomics don't have to be compromised, you can make the camera slightly larger than the A7RII and still benefit from a weight reduction.
> ...



Yes, the Olympus M4/3rds cameras have had it since the introduction of the OM-D E-M5 a number of years ago and Sony has it in their FF cameras since the A7 II, I believe. If you do an internet search, you can learn all about it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 28, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > the ONLY downsides to not working with a smaller mount hardly affects Canon Inc:
> ...


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


----------



## gmrza (Sep 28, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


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



The point I was making is that if you use an EF lens, you need to maintain the same focal plane distance. Thus, even though you don't have a mirror, you still have to keep the lens at the same distance from the sensor. Only by changing the optical formula of the lens can you bring it closer to the focal plane.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Please, don't bother AvTvM with facts. He's never liked them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

*Re: lens size sony 70-200 f2.8 vs canon*



PRINZMETAL said:


> So why mirrorless? To me the advantages will be in the long run cheaper for the manufacturer to make with perhaps corresponding less consumer costs. Two, no need for lens af adjustments (to me that is a big deal). And, the ability to make smaller/lighter bodies.
> 
> To me from a consumer's standpoint, these are not really significant. From a manufacturer's perspective, driving down manufacturing costs with a simpler body is paramount if they don't give up sales in the process.



Or...cheaper to manufacture without the correspondingly lower consumer cost, which means increased profit. I can certainly see that as a likely driver for a Canon FF MILC.


----------



## weixing (Sep 28, 2017)

Hi,
Canon just release a few L lens with EF mount, so just wonder why Canon would come out a new mount for their FF MILC?? IMHO, if Canon go full MILC, I think it'll use EF-M mount and lens for entry level camera and those who want a small camera setup, EF mount for the rest and EF-S mount will slowly disappear.

Have a nice day.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 28, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > EF-M 18-150 vs. EF-S 18-135 ...
> ...



partially correct. From 24mm upwards the EF-M 18-150 is a bit slower. On the other hand it has 15mm more focal length [150mm vs. 135]. For the purpose of my comparison I considered those 2 factors about even. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1045&LensComp=1134&Units=E

mirrorless lenses designed for an optimally chosen lens mount do have size/weight advantages. Not only for wide-angle primes <40mm but also for zooms and certainly for lenses in the most commonly used focal length range [24-85mm FF equivalent FOV]. 

Yes, a 70-200/2.8 or 400/4.0 would not get smaller or lighter with a new mirrorless FF mount - we know that. But most users do not use such lenses frequently or at all. And if they are needed, size/weight of a little adapter will not matter. Many (moderately fast = f/1.8 and up) primes, common "consumer zooms" and even constant f/4 zooms could however be noticeably smaller and/or lighter. 

My "wishlist" for a Canon FF MILC system starting line-up would be roughly:

PRIMES (all with blue gunk)
* EF-X 16/3.5 STM IS - very small & light 
* EF-X 24/2.8 STM IS - smaller/lighter than EF 24/2.8 IS
* EF-X 35/2.8 STM IS - definitely a tiny pancake! 
* EF-X 50/1.8 STM IS - slightly smaller than EF 50/1.8 and with further improved IQ
* EF-X 85/2.0 STM IS - somewhat smaller, noticeably lighter than EF 85/1.8, plus significantly improved IQ [less lateral CAs]
* EF-X 135/2.8 STM IS - significantly smaller & lighter than EF 135/2.0 L

f/4.0 ZOOMS - optically all at least as good as the EF versions
* EF-X 16-35/4.0 STM IS - somewhat smaller & lighter than EF version 
* EF-X 24-70/4.0 STM IS - somewhat smaller & lighter than EF version
* EF-X 24-105/4.0 STM IS - somewhat smaller & lighter than EF 24-105 L II 

I would buy many of these lenses - for a small, lite and fully competent Canon mirrorless FF camera. And ... I would also keep my f/2.8 EF L zooms and use them with adapter ... when really needed = on planned shootings, not for city trips, travel, alpine backcountry, general walk around. 8)


----------



## traveller (Sep 28, 2017)

gmrza said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > gmrza said:
> ...



100% is not a size issue, a viewfinder can be tiny and still offer a 100% view. Magnification is the issue, remembering that this is usually stated using a 50mm lens, regardless of whether the camera is full frame 35mm or APS-C, thus overstating the size of the the APS-C viewfinder by 1.5 or 1.6 times. Thus, in Canon-land the 1D X2 is the current "king" with a 0.76x finder, followed by the 5D series at 0.71x. The 7D series is quoted as having a 1x finder, which equates to 0.625x equivalent on full frame (if you prefer, it is 0.625x when using a 31.25mm lens, which is equivalent to the field of view of a 50mm lens on full frame). 

That having been clarified (and I'm sure that I'm teaching most CR readers how to suck ovoid lens elements ), I don't buy the argument that a full frame DSLR the size of the SL2 cannot be given a large viewfinder. Compare the following: 
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/ZCOMPOM1FR.JPG

And: 

http://camerasize.com/compact/#715,289,ha,f

Can we agree that the Olympus OM-1 is similar in size to the E-M5 and that the E-M5 is similar in size to the SL2? In that tiny SLR body from the 1970s, Olympus managed to squeeze a 97% *0.92x* magnification viewfinder (they could have traded a few points magnification for 100%, but it was a different market back then). That's correct, the tiny OM-1 has a larger viewfinder than the current 1-series (the largest of any current DSLR). 

This is an imaged that has been stolen so many times over the years that I don't know its original provenance (apologies if it's yours): 







Okay, so you can't actually make an autofocus viewfinder this big, because of the light losses from the af system (or it would be extremely dim, or not have enough 'bite' to allow you to see the depth of field at large apertures), but there's certainly no reason why a 1D X2 sized viewfinder wouldn't fit in an SL2 body. The 1D X2 metering and autofocus systems are a different story!


----------



## okaro (Sep 28, 2017)

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

okaro said:


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



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


----------



## traveller (Sep 28, 2017)

okaro said:


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



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


----------



## preppyak (Sep 28, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


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


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

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

preppyak said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 28, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



wrong again.

focal length will affect length of the lens.

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 28, 2017)

traveller said:


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



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


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 28, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



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

Now it's next to nothing.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 28, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


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



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## dak723 (Sep 28, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

dak723 said:


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



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


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 28, 2017)

AvTvM said:


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



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

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


----------



## eosuser1234 (Sep 28, 2017)

AvTvM said:


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



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


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 28, 2017)

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

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


----------



## Talys (Sep 28, 2017)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 28, 2017)

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

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

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

eosuser1234 said:


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



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

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


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 28, 2017)

slim adapters exist for many mounts. no real issue. 

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> slim adapters exist for many mounts. no real issue.



Which OEMs offer slim mount adapters <8 mm thick?


----------



## Jopa (Sep 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



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


----------



## dsut4392 (Sep 29, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


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



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


----------



## Proscribo (Sep 29, 2017)

dsut4392 said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > --
> ...


You look through the VF with your left eye? Interesting (considering there really aren't left-handed cameras).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2017)

Maybe Canon is missing a market.


----------



## dsut4392 (Sep 29, 2017)

Proscribo said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > MayaTlab said:
> ...



Yes, always have been left-eye dominant, even though I'm right handed - it's not that uncommon. But I actually interpreted MayaTlab's comment that there was no reason for the pentaprism housing to extend above the top surface of the camera more generically, i.e. that the whole top of the body should be level. Guess I assumed that anyone who shot with both eyes open would recognise that not everyone looks through the viewfinder with the same eye!


----------



## dsut4392 (Sep 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe Canon is missing a market.



Maybe

A friend of mine at uni had an old rangefinder that her grandfather had had converted for left-handed operation of the shutter and film advance lever (the fingers of his right hand didn't make it home from WWII).


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > slim adapters exist for many mounts. no real issue.
> ...



cannot find exact measurements for the Novoflex lens adapters but some of them look rather slim. Like the one for Leica M lenses to Canon EF-M mount. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/914381-REG/novoflex_eosm_lem_adapter_for_leica_m.html

But anyways, possible or not - adaptability of EF-X FF lenses for use on APS-C sensored EF-M mount cameras is a marginal topic for me and most Canon users. 

Let's face it: APS-C and FF sensor systems ARE 2 different worlds. Cross use will always be limited and compromised at best. So what. 

Car manufacturers make small cars with small 4 cylinder engines and larger cars with large(r) 6, 8, 12 cylinder engines. Nobody would expect being able to put a V8 engine into a Mini Cooper [although it could be fun] and not many people would want to put a small 4-cylinder engine into a Corvette ... which would be the equivalent to using crop lenses on full-frame sensored cameras. 

And while we are at much-loved car-camera analogies: 
* DSLR mirrorslappers = like combustion engines cars = no future
* SLT/Pellicle mirror cameras = hybrid cars = no future
* mirrorless cameras = electric cars = future 
;D


----------



## BillB (Sep 29, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



So the lack of upwards compatibility from APS-C lenses to FF is a big deal, while the lack of backwards compatibility from EF-X to EF-M is no concern. EF-X lenses are going to be smaller and ever so much better than EF lenses so why wouldn't people want to use them on their EF-M bodies? People use EF lenses on their APC bodies all the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



So...you don't know of any. Or don't you understand what OEM means? An example would be the Fuji M mount adapter, made by Fuji to mount M-mount lenses on Fuji's X-mount bodies. That adapter is 14.7mm thick. 




AvTvM said:


> But anyways, possible or not - adaptability of EF-X FF lenses for use on APS-C sensored EF-M mount cameras is a marginal topic for me and most Canon users.
> 
> Let's face it: APS-C and FF sensor systems ARE 2 different worlds. Cross use will always be limited and compromised at best. So what.



Marginal topic? You're the one who keeps hammering on about how EF-X/EF-M would be just like EF/EF-S. The whole point of that is upgrade path. Canon sells far more APS-C dSLRs than FF dSLRs, and assuming they release FF MILCs, they're going to sell far more APS-C MILCs. You also hammer on about the lens size benefits – smaller lenses – being applicable up to a 200mm focal length. FF lens compatibility with APS-C bodies allows users to buy lenses for the future. I believe that Canon sells lots of 70-200mm and 70-300mm lenses to people with APS-C bodies, people who could buy the cheaper EF-S 55-250mm instead (and while for me it's merely a belief, you can be certain that Canon has actual data). So what you describe as 'marginal' and 'so what' is likely a significant driver for Canon...you know, those people who are going to design and build this stuff.

Oh, and your car analogy is asinine. Lenses are user-swappable in seconds, nothing like an automobile engine. No, I would not expect to be able to put the V6 from a Honda Pilot into a tiny Honda Fit...but I'd damn well expect that my Bluetooth phone would pair with either car.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 29, 2017)

ok, lets look at relative importance of lens compatibility - assuming Canon would/will go new EF-X? mount with mirrorless FF:

EF lenses -> EF-X mount: FF lens on FF sensor: very important, because huge installed base of EF glass whose owners do not want to buy new native glass for mirrorless on day 1. Technically & economically no problem at all. Simple adapter, 99 USD/€ unless Canon is ultra-greedy. 
In addition maybe a somewhat more complx adapter (with mirror) to get full Phase-AF AF performance from Non-STM lenses - for users who want who want better than "Live View" AF performance. Technically no issue, Sony is doing the same, adapter costs around 250. 

EF-X lenses on EF-M: not really important, but possible - depending on exact choice of EF-X lens mount specs. Simple, slim adapter. 

EF-M lenses on EF-X mount: irrelevant in reality. APS-C lenses on FF sensors in "crop mode" is a cripppled compromise at best ["VW Polo engine and gear box in a Dodge Viper"] 

Transition to absolutely uncompromised and backwards compatible mirrorless is quite simple in Canon land. As demonstrated for APS-C with EF-M mount. FF will follow the same path: smaller gear [not precluding larger cameras and lenses], lower production cost, higher sales prices, more profit for Canon, new mount, adapter for existing EF glass, and all is well. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ok, lets look at relative importance of lens compatibility - assuming Canon would/will go new EF-X? mount with mirrorless FF:
> 
> EF lenses -> EF-X mount: FF lens on FF sensor: very important, because huge installed base of EF glass whose owners do not want to buy new native glass for mirrorless on day 1. Technically & economically no problem at all. Simple adapter, 99 USD/€ unless Canon is ultra-greedy.
> In addition maybe a somewhat more complx adapter (with mirror) to get full Phase-AF AF performance from Non-STM lenses - for users who want who want better than "Live View" AF performance. Technically no issue, Sony is doing the same, adapter costs around 250.
> ...



Where do you think Canon would be, today, if they had released APS-C dSLRs that were not compatible with EF lenses? Your suggestion that the ability to mount your hypothetical EF-X lens on a current EOS M body is unimportant is just plain silly. It might not be critically important _today_, but it will become critically important as the MILC market grows at the expense of dSLRs (assuming that does happen, it's not a given). 

Your solution, a 'simple, slim adapter' is one for which there's no precedent, and while it's certainly possible, it's not a very practical solution (vs. a simple, 15mm thick adapter, which would be trivial...but is precluded by your 'optimal' design).


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 29, 2017)

why should an adapter for EX-X to EF-M be difficult? Basically a stainless steel dual flange/bayonet ring to "bridge da gap" between 18mm FFD [EF-M] and hypothetical EF-X? FFD of 22-24mm and to lightseal any "excess" EF-X mount diameter. 

If Novoflex can make "ultra-slim" adapters like the ones for Nikon F [46.5mm FFD] to Canon EF [44mm FFD] http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/adapter-finder/+/camera_id/1/lense_id/5/

certainly Canon will also be capable to make "slim" EF-X to EF-M adapters - including wire-thru electrical contacts for full AF/IS/mount protocol functionality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> why should an adapter for EX-X to EF-M be difficult? Basically a stainless steel dual flange/bayonet ring to "bridge da gap" between 18mm FFD [EF-M] and hypothetical EF-X? FFD of 22-24mm and to lightseal any "excess" EF-X mount diameter.
> 
> If Novoflex can make "ultra-slim" adapters like the ones for Nikon F [46.5mm FFD] to Canon EF [44mm FFD] http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/adapter-finder/+/camera_id/1/lense_id/5/
> 
> certainly Canon will also be capable to make "slim" EF-X to EF-M adapters - including wire-thru electrical contacts for full AF/IS/mount protocol functionality.



Yes, that sure looks practical and ergonomic.

Regardless, it will all be moot when Canon releases a FF MILC with the standard EF mount.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, that sure looks practical and ergonomic.



all those who just "don't like freakin' adaptors" can glue it into the lens mount. That way it will look and act exactly like a mirrorless cam with an EF mount pig's snout. 8) ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that sure looks practical and ergonomic.
> ...



The issue isn't the adaptor, per se. It's the _thin_ adapter that's problematic. Obviously, EF-X mounting on M bodies is not something about which you care. But, it is almost certainly something that Canon cares about…very deeply. I'm not surprised by your viewpoint, evidently at the fork in the road, you chose the path that reality decided not to travel.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 29, 2017)

what exactly do you find "problematic" with a thin adaptor? Novoflex and other makers have long proven that it is no problem. If Novoflex can do it, surely INNOVATIVE Canon can as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> what exactly do you find "problematic" with a thin adaptor? Novoflex and other makers have long proven that it is no problem. If Novoflex can do it, surely INNOVATIVE Canon can as well.



It's not that Canon can't...but it would likely involve unpalatable eergonomic compromises. No room for a 'proper' lens release, for example.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > what exactly do you find "problematic" with a thin adaptor? Novoflex and other makers have long proven that it is no problem. If Novoflex can do it, surely INNOVATIVE Canon can as well.
> ...



OMG :  

Even if there was no room for a "proper" lens release on an ultra-slim adapter [<2mm thickness] itself ... there is a "proper lens release button" on every camera body including upcoming Canon FF MILCs. 

"At worst" adapter would stay on lens and be "screwed off" the lens bayonet with 1 flick of the hand. Yes, one additional little step, about as "difficult" as opening/closing a toothpaste tube ... and less involved than opening/closing a single leg nut on a tripod. ;D 

Also, typically adapted lenses are not swapped out every other shot "in the field". When I occasionally use my EF 40/2.8 or EF 50/1.8 STM or EF-S 60 Macro on my EOS M using the Canon OEM EF/EF-M adapter, the adapter will typically stay on the lens for an entireshooting - even when I swap with EF-M lenses in between. YMMV of course, but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ...but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.



LOL. : You're perpetually convinced that your views and usage patterns represent the majority. You need to get over that handicap and accept reality.


----------



## BillB (Sep 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



So there would be no lock between the ES-X lens and the adapter?


----------



## Rocky (Sep 30, 2017)

Leica have an OEM adapter for Leica screw mount to Leica M mount that is about 1 mm thick. However, this mount has no lens release and no electronics connection. 8 mm adapter with electronics connection and lense Release? Good luck!!


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ...but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.
> ...



with all due respect, but I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here. 80% of forum members here seem to be shooting wildlife and birds in flight with 1Dxes and 600mm lenses. 99% of Canon users don't.


----------



## BillB (Sep 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



And so once again, we enter the realm of imaginary numbers.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 30, 2017)

BillB said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > with all due respect, but I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here. 80% of forum members here seem to be shooting wildlife and birds in flight with 1Dxes and 600mm lenses. 99% of Canon users don't.
> ...



I would rather call them highly realistic common sense observations and estimates. But you are right, maybe I am wrong, and it is not 99% but only 98% of all Canon users who never in their entire life use a 600/4 lens and/or a 1D series body.  :


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here.



Even if it's true, it's irrelevant: it doesn't matter how you compare to forum members/posters, it matters how you compare to the buying public at-large. I think it's fair to say that anyone who cares enough about gear and chitchat to participate in a forum is an outlier. Most pros likely don't even join discussions with any regularity.

In short, you have no reason to believe you are representative of the buying public. There is some small reason to believe you are not because Canon continues to lead in sales despite not following your recommendations.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 30, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here.
> ...



Pro's are almost irrelevant, since they are such a small part of the buying public. 1% or 2% of Canon sales revenue with stills imaging products? Or is it even a whopping 5% ? They are only important to Canon because of (assumed or real) opinion leadership ... for marketing purposes ... white lenses at sports events etc. 

From all I observe my shopping behaviour has been fairly typical for Canon amateur/enthusiast customers. And a small, affordable, yet fully capable Canon FF MILC and some decent, affordable and compact lenses to go with it - e.g. f/4 zooms and a few moderately fast primes - may not be desirable for 99% of the buying public and obviously not to an estimated 80% of forum members here ... but definitely for a large enough group of potential buyers to make it worthwhile making and offering it.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> From all I observe


Here is the problem with your reasoning: one thing that you fail to observe is that you cannot observe the entire market. What you observe, or what I observe is irrelevant. Any single person will be unable to see any significant fraction of the market well enough to extrapolate.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 30, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > From all I observe
> ...



well, as soon as canon builds and sells the above mentionrd FF MILC system we will see, whether i am "representative enough" or not. 

it is much more likely to be fairly representative than to be a true "outlier".


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 2, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



how on earth do you squeeze through normal doorways with a head that swollen?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 2, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



i can assure you, and know from personal observation, that my head is fairly representative in size ... not only for a Canon user but for the entire human race. ;-)


----------



## unfocused (Oct 2, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ...a small, affordable, yet fully capable Canon FF MILC and some decent, affordable and compact lenses to go with it - e.g. f/4 zooms and a few moderately fast primes... but definitely for a large enough group of potential buyers to make it worthwhile making and offering it.



Aside form debating head size and market share, I question whether the magical unicorn camera that you are convinced Canon must make, is even realistic.

The requirements for "small, affordable, yet full capable" coupled with lenses that are "decent, affordable and compact" may be more difficult to achieve than you believe. 

I am reminded of a friend of mine who used to tell clients that they could pick any two of the following three choices: fast, cheap and good. But, that they could not get all three. I've found that to be true in almost everything in life.


----------



## BillB (Oct 2, 2017)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ...a small, affordable, yet fully capable Canon FF MILC and some decent, affordable and compact lenses to go with it - e.g. f/4 zooms and a few moderately fast primes... but definitely for a large enough group of potential buyers to make it worthwhile making and offering it.
> ...



Well, at this point, it doesn't look like we are going to get it fast, and I have my doubts about cheap. Hopefully it will be good.


----------



## BillB (Oct 2, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



So, does this camera boil down to a fullframe M5?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 2, 2017)

BillB said:


> Well, at this point, it doesn't look like we are going to get it fast, and I have my doubts about cheap. Hopefully it will be good.



;D ;D ;D

exactly! with Canon we get to pick only 1 out of 3, not 2. 


to make my earlier statement more specific:
Canon EoS M1 ... 
* GOOD: FF sensor as GOOD as next Sony A7R III, 
* SMALL: not BIGGER than A7R III (ideally smaller, like A7 Mk. I)
* AFFORDABLE: not more EXPENSIVE than A7R III ... meaning, LESS than 5D IV, since a MILC is way cheaper to robo-produce than any mirrorslapper.


----------



## BillB (Oct 2, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Well, at this point, it doesn't look like we are going to get it fast, and I have my doubts about cheap. Hopefully it will be good.
> ...



Well, Canon's going to do what Canon's going to do, and some people are going to go on complaining about it.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 2, 2017)

BillB said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...


not only complain. I dont buy anything from 'em fuckers. For 32 years now. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Canon doesn't care.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ...not only complain. I don't buy anything from 'em... For 32 years now. 8)



Wait...what? You haven't bought anything from Canon since 1985 and you expect them to make a camera for you? 

It's pretty basic business sense that no one stays in business by going after every possible customer. Some customers are just too costly and troublesome to chase, so businesses put their efforts into those that actually buy their products. I expect you should plan on waiting another 32 years.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 3, 2017)

sorry typo. meant 2-3 years. not 32 years. ;D


----------



## kanehi (Oct 3, 2017)

I wonder if Canon will use the Sony sensors. Canon sensors are fine but they are weak at low light and low contrast images. When they do release a FF mirrorless i also hope it has an EVF and articulating screen, not the up and down screen. Canon should've learned by now how to built a better FF mirrorless by dissecting Sony and other FF cameras.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 3, 2017)

kanehi said:


> I wonder if Canon will use the Sony sensors. Canon sensors are fine but they are weak at low light and low contrast images. When they do release a FF mirrorless i also hope it has an EVF and articulating screen, not the up and down screen. Canon should've learned by now how to built a better FF mirrorless by dissecting Sony and other FF cameras.



I have to wonder if you have ever used a Sony FF camera. The main difference in the sensors is at base ISO, in low light there is very little difference. Since Sony's FF camera is by almost all accounts terrible in ergonomics and well below Canon in every metric but the sensor, it is really the other way around - Sony can learn to build a better camera by dissecting Canon FF cameras. I think you can be sure that Sony would never sell their sensors to Canon unless they go out of the camera business as that is their only selling point.


----------

