# Full Frame Mirrorless: Sideline or Replacement of dSLR?



## YuengLinger (Jul 27, 2018)

From what I've read in this forum and elsewhere online, and heard from camera-club friends, the major drawback to mirrorless at this point is the electronic viewfinder. Either it lags a bit or it just doesn't feel right compared to an optical viewfinder.

Another point against has been ergonomics, the comfort of holding and using the body when various lenses are attached. Some feel Sony's FF mirrorless bodies are too small. (As to this, there was a time when smaller smartphones were being marketed, but as more functions were crammed in, overall size, driven by screens and user demand, began to grow again.)

With consumer feedback, marketing savvy, and clever engineering, the negative aspects of mirrorless will be greatly reduced. Technically, perhaps, an EVF that truly satisfies and wins over longtime dSLR users will be the toughest challenge, but it will be overcome.

Which leads to the question: Do Nikon, Canon, and Sony plan to phase out dSLR's, or are the big three approaching mirrorless with uncertainty? If Canon and Nikon create FF mirrorless that win over the vast majority of professionals and dedicated enthusiasts, what incentive do they have to keep producing dSLRs?

With one or two generations of FF mirrorless winners, dSLR's could be entering the sunset phase of production. This could be as soon as seven years.

Personally, I predict dSLR's might then be going the way of vinyl turntables. Available, but only as a tiny niche product that can't be supported by the big three. (I foresee a time when Canon licenses some dSLR lines to Chinese and Indian manufacturers who can make a small profit off a dwindling volume of sales, dependent in part on used and cheap third-party lenses.) 

Perhaps a small quantity of professional bodies, priced very high to be worth producing, would still be sold to a handful of sports photographers, but I think the EVF will soon reach the point where it is superior at tracking action. The market for rugged dSLRs in the hands of journalists is evaporating, as print publications are disappearing, and many news organizations have already dropped staff photographers altogether.

The SLR has been one of the most successful masterpieces of design in any industry, with the first 35mm version appearing back in 1936 in Germany. It has made the amazing leap, with few mechanical changes, from analog to digital. The age of a technology doesn't predict its end, as can be seen with the internal combustion engine, but it does allow time for competing technologies to develop, outperform, and out-sell.

Once the EVF and ergonomics of FF mirrorless are as good or better than what a dSLR offers, why would the big companies keep producing dSLR's? Beyond a tiny subset of photographers who cling emotionally and/or habitually to the familiar, older tech, what would be the market?


----------



## amorse (Jul 27, 2018)

Tough questions that may not have answers at this point, really. 

I don't think Nikon or Canon are really sure what's going to happen or plan to phase out anything at this point. Both companies are heavily invested in their DSLR systems and will not likely want to release that market share to wade into unfamiliar territory. With that said, Canon has done very well with their APS-C mirrorless lineup already, so their barrier to entry may be lower really. Nikon has openly stated that both systems will remain available so far, and I would suspect Canon thinks the same - at least for now. Sure, if demand dries up for DSLRs, most companies will shift their production to respond to the market just as they did with film cameras.

With respect to what benefits DSLRs still have, assuming improved performance of EVFs and improved ergonomics, DSLRs can still be somewhat functional with the camera off. I often do a lot of hiking for days at a time, and if my batteries start to get low, I tend to compose all my images on tripod with the camera off: only turning on the camera to finish focusing and take the photo. Obviously with no battery power a mirrorless camera won't show you anything, so this wouldn't be possible. Certainly a very niche use to be fair, but I wonder if there could be a niche for ultra low power consumption cameras? 

Also, just because a technology is better doesn't mean it will take hold or become standard - lots of things will impact success. For instance, I'd be hesitant to buy into a mirrorless system on day one if it meant that all my current equipment was no longer useful, even if it was the better decision in the long run - I'd want to see where the platform goes before I invest. If too many people think that way and early uptake is disappointing, investors could get concerned and push manufactures in a different direction. Marketing will certainly play into this as well - if the general public continues to see small cameras as inferior to bigger clunky cameras then professionals turning up for a job with a small yet high-quality mirrorless body could give the client the impression that they are less than a professional. It wouldn't be an accurate perception, but it doesn't need to be accurate to cause problems for the photographer.

Of course these are not insurmountable hurdles, but the real question is whether or not the approach the manufactures take to surpassing these hurdles will be successful. I think mirrorless has the opportunity to change the photography landscape, but predicting the death of the DSLR at this point could be premature without knowing how manufactures will approach the issue, and whether or not those approaches will be successful.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 27, 2018)

Most folks buying camera probably don't care - and many probably don't even think about - whether there is a mirror or not in the camera. What they may notice is if the viewfinder is OVF or EVF and whether they care either way. They may also be interested in battery life, as that is especially a big issue with birders who often need to look thru the viewfinder for hours at a time. 

Ergonomics is not a mirrorless vs. DSLR issue, it is a big vs. small issue. 

Ultimately it will depend on what sells. My guess it will take a lot longer than 7 years to determine the long term trend.

If EVF and battery life of mirrorless continue to improve, then very few will notice or care if their camera is a DSLR or Mirrorless. They are for the most part the same type of camera.


----------



## BillB (Jul 27, 2018)

Right now, there are 2 companies selling FF DSLRs and 1 company is selling FF mirrorless. It looks like pretty soon, there will be 3 companies selling FF mirrorless and 2 companies selling DSLRs. What is going to happen? Everybody has a plan, but some of these plans may not work out. Canon's plan may be to keep producing DSLRs, or maybe not. Same thing for Nikon.

Depending on how things go, Canon, Nikon or Sony corporate management may decide it is time seriously rethink their camera business strategy. My guess is that five years from now there will not be 3 companies selling FF mirrorless and 2 companies selling DSLRs.


----------



## slclick (Jul 27, 2018)

I had serious issues with the lag in my Olympus Pen F but none in my M5.Very small almost imperceivable lag, the colors the contrast, much better. So when Canon comes out with something even better I cannot imagine it being anything other than close to perfect. But for me it won't be anything but a compliment unless it has a 6D ergonomics size and a 5D joystick. I don't care how good any features are if it's tiny.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 28, 2018)

Sorry for being late to the party, was taking pictures of the moon (live view for such a dark moon sucks, did anyone have it better with EVF?).

Anyway, photography as we know it now will soon cease to exist, thanks to drones and AI image processing. Mirror-slappers and big whites will probably die the last.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 28, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Sorry for being late to the party, was taking pictures of the moon (live view for such a dark moon sucks, did anyone have it better with EVF?).
> 
> Anyway, photography as we know it now will soon cease to exist, thanks to drones and AI image processing. Mirror-slappers and big whites will probably die the last.



You might be being sarcastic, but your prediction is probably pretty close. If cell phone cameras continue to improve at even half the pace of recent years, the market for both Mirrorless and DSLRs will continue to shrink. Add to that the impact of technologies like light field computing plus the ever improving magic of post processing and there may be very few people under 60 who own a traditional camera. Put in the larger perspective, the worries over Mirrorless vs. mirrored cameras may essentially be like deciding if you want your buggy whip in brown or black.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 28, 2018)

Camera companies do not make the determination, they make whatever sells, even if it does not make sense. So, if buyers want Mirrorless, they will be made, if they want DSLR's, they will be made, if they prefer smart phone cameras, they will be made.

So, unless DSLR's do not sell well, they will continue to be made. It really depends on the buyers. To complicate things, some parts of the world place a high value on compact form factors while others like large form factors.


----------



## degos (Jul 28, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Camera companies do not make the determination, they make whatever sells, even if it does not make sense. So, if buyers want Mirrorless, they will be made, if they want DSLR's, they will be made, if they prefer smart phone cameras, they will be made.



That is a very charitable view of the industry. It also seems to be incorrect. The manufacturers determine what to offer buyers based on marketability, yes, but most importantly on potential margin. The buyers then get to choose from that selection. 

How many people have been crying-out for a 400mm 5.6 IS or a 50mm 1.4 IS for years? Per your theory they should be available to buy right now.

DLSRs have been made for the past two decades because mirrorless technology wasn't quite good enough. Now it is nearly there, why would any company want to retain the flappy mechanical mechanism which results in so much compromise of the design, servicing and warranty? They could sell the 'same' camera without those complex bits and make even more margin!


----------



## Kit. (Jul 28, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, photography as we know it now will soon cease to exist, thanks to drones and AI image processing. Mirror-slappers and big whites will probably die the last.
> ...


I am not sarcastic: I work with machine vision for autonomous driving.

The camera sensor manufacturers in the coming years will thrive, but for the actual photographic cameras... the farther their areas of application are from smartphone cameras, drone cameras, and image enhancement technologies, the higher chances they will survive the next 20 years.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jul 28, 2018)

Having used both mirrorless and dSLR systems in parallel for several years, I can simply say I don't have a favorite. Sure their are differences and times when one is better than the other; however, both are excellent and a competent user should get the job done with either. My run-down:
EVF - latest generation ML EVF shows no perceptible lag IMO. Battery life - only an issue if one needs stare thru viewfinder for hours on end (e.g. wildlife, I do have battery grips for 3 of my ML bodies). Overall System Size/Weight - a false selling point for ML. Sensor size affects this far more than ML v. dSLR. Long FL lenses for big sensors are large and heavy. Want smaller lenses? Get a m43 sensor body.

Since Canon is now #1 in ML sales in Japan in front of #2 Olympus (BCN rankings), the transition is well underway. My guess is that new dSLR's will still be made for 10 years - although in limited numbers.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2018)

It is just a matter of time before DSLR are goodbye. Sooner than most oldies in this forum expect. Bye bye DSLR nice knowing you!!!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 28, 2018)

degos said:


> How many people have been crying-out for a 400mm 5.6 IS or a 50mm 1.4 IS for years?



At least 6.


----------



## Bambel (Jul 28, 2018)

Hi,

i think that MILCs like EOS M close the gap between highend fixed lense compacts and entry level DSLRs. So at least for now it's a supplemental market position. Canons strategy for its EOS M line is clearly focused on small size and light weight. Most of that comes from the EF M lenses with their slow appertures and rather short focal length. While you can adapt EF glas, it's no fun at all with fast zooms and long FL on such small bodies. Sony has much faster FE lenses, but they offer no size and weight advantage. But Sony also does'nt have to protect it's own DSLR environment. 

I expect Canon to follow the same principles on a FF MILC line like they did on the M, protecting it's EF mount cameras and lenses. So while we are at it, here is my bet:

Canon will release two "EOS MX" cameras, similar to the M50/M100. They have to be a little larger, especially wider, will have no popup flash but a hotshoe and hopefully a wheel dial around the four way switch on the back. Mount will be EF-M(!) and there will be "EF-MX" lenses with FF image circle. They can be used on EOS M as well as EF-M on the FF. Maybe the "sexy" part is several crop options like fixed 1.6, flex (using as much as possible depending on lense and zoom), square, full (crop in post). Kit lense is a 24-70/3.5-6.3 and there will be a 32/1.4 alongside ;D (kidding.. more like 28/2.0 or so) sensor will be an improved 6DII (26MP) with good high iso for the slow lenses. In essence: an EOS M on steroids, gathering 2.56 times the amount of light in only a little more bulky setup.

B.

PS: that does'nt rule out any EF MILC at some point, but i think technology is't quite there yet.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 29, 2018)

I suspect in the short term you might well see Canon and Nikon looking for rather more targeted lens lineups in with their FF mirrorless lines rather than trying to directly replace typical DSLR use as Sony has done with its FE releases.

I mean personally I would say a lot of the reason the EOS-M line has done so well at APSC is because its successfully offered targeted lenses with excellent performance to price. Sony might have a larger range of lenses but Canon has the lenses more users actually want at a price they are prepared to pay.

The nature of mirrorless as a potential size saver does I would say naturally tend to shift things towards a smaller group of lenses as the most commonly used. I think if you put out good UWA and normal F/4 zooms plus 3-4 fast primes in the wide/normal range you probably cater to a pretty high percentage of the market.

Nikon of course could also view mirrorless as a way to fill in their weakness relative to Canon when it comes to ultra fast primes with the larger mount.


----------



## neonlight (Jul 29, 2018)

I agree DSLR's will become history.
MIrrorless is very nearly there, but needs:
fast EVF
global shutter sensor
then no mechanical bits will be needed at all.
Canon's rumored FF MILC will no doubt have one or both of these features, but in the longer term eliminating all mechanical stuff (apart from the aperture perhaps) might disappear.
I expect Canon's FFMILC will have a mechanical shutter and conventional sensor at first outing. 
Mechanical shutter may even, just possibly, be kept as a protection for the sensor.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 29, 2018)

degos said:


> How many people have been crying-out for a 400mm 5.6 IS or a 50mm 1.4 IS for years? Per your theory they should be available to buy right now.


Canon actually has sales figures, and its virtually certain that the cost of developing a replacement would not be easily recovered without raising the price excessively. Canon is successful because they produce what sells best.

This is a good example, IMHO, the customer has determined that they prefer the 100-400mm L by purchasing many more of them.
Sure, there are those who want a updated 400mm f/5.6. I've had one, and do not. The issue is the length and the poor MFD, I could not get it to fit in my carry around bag while the 100-400 fits nicely, and to get a closer MFD, it would get longer yet. Physics determines the length of a lens, not wishful thinking, so its not going to ever get shorter unless Canon uses DO, and then, the price will put it out of the market.

There are always those with conspiracy theories, but running a small business myself, I pay close attention to what is selling, if I have a supplier produce my own design and its wrong, I lose a ton of money.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 29, 2018)

degos said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > So, if buyers want Mirrorless, they will be made, if they want DSLR's, they will be made
> ...


We have a pretty clear example not long ago with Sony. A few years ago Sony was using a lossy compression algorithm for their raw files. The uninformed forum hordes demanded uncompressed raw, while what they should have asked for was losslessly compressed raw files. Sony gave them what they asked for: huge, uncompressed raw files.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/sony-a7r/3
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection

Of course, that's just one example, but it's a good example of a company making the error of listening to the forum dwellers, rather than doing high-quality market research. What is worse than not making a product that some people want, is making a product that sorta looks like the product they want, but doesn't actually meet the need. Not only is it expensive in financial cost, but it also costs the goodwill of your customers.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 29, 2018)

I agree with the above: Mirrorless will likely sit alongside DSLR for quite a few years yet and only replace it when sales tell Canon (or Nikon) that DSLRs are no longer needed. 
One big hurdle is EVF - a lot of pros seem to prefer OVF which is the first hurdle, but for new camera buyers there is something aesthetic about seeing 'life as it really is' rather than an electronic video of it and I think that is a big psychological thing to overcome. Yes, I know people will likely be coming from cameraphones and P&S where you use the LCD for framing but once you put that VF to your eye you have a different psychological take on what to expect. Experienced users see the benefits and part of their reason for switching is based on understanding the value of it, an understanding that a newbie does not have. 

One huge interim for DSLR would be a hybrid VF to show highlight/shadow peaking which would at a stroke challenge one of the nice things for EVF.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 29, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I agree with the above: Mirrorless will likely sit alongside DSLR for quite a few years yet and only replace it when sales tell Canon (or Nikon) that DSLRs are no longer needed.
> One big hurdle is EVF - a lot of pros seem to prefer OVF which is the first hurdle, but for new camera buyers there is something aesthetic about seeing 'life as it really is' rather than an electronic video of it and I think that is a big psychological thing to overcome. Yes, I know people will likely be coming from cameraphones and P&S where you use the LCD for framing but once you put that VF to your eye you have a different psychological take on what to expect. Experienced users see the benefits and part of their reason for switching is based on understanding the value of it, an understanding that a newbie does not have.
> 
> One huge interim for DSLR would be a hybrid VF to show highlight/shadow peaking which would at a stroke challenge one of the nice things for EVF.



I’m neither a pro nor a complete novice, but I wouldn’t happily gove up an OVF. 

Are there any kinds of readouts like peaking things or zebras or similar animals that can be displayed in an EVF but cannot be shown in live view? (And I mean “cannot” rather than just “currently” or “usually not.”)


----------



## BillB (Jul 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I agree with the above: Mirrorless will likely sit alongside DSLR for quite a few years yet and only replace it when sales tell Canon (or Nikon) that DSLRs are no longer needed.
> One big hurdle is EVF - a lot of pros seem to prefer OVF which is the first hurdle, but for new camera buyers there is something aesthetic about seeing 'life as it really is' rather than an electronic video of it and I think that is a big psychological thing to overcome. Yes, I know people will likely be coming from cameraphones and P&S where you use the LCD for framing but once you put that VF to your eye you have a different psychological take on what to expect. Experienced users see the benefits and part of their reason for switching is based on understanding the value of it, an understanding that a newbie does not have.
> 
> One huge interim for DSLR would be a hybrid VF to show highlight/shadow peaking which would at a stroke challenge one of the nice things for EVF.



It seems unlikely that Nikon and Canon would decide to end DSLR production at the same time. More likely, we could at some point have 3 FF mirrorless manufacturers and one DSLR producer. At that point, I doubt there would be much new DSLR camera or lens development, but production might continue for quite a while (especially if lenses were easily usable by either DSLR or mirrorless cameras).


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> degos said:
> 
> 
> > How many people have been crying-out for a 400mm 5.6 IS or a 50mm 1.4 IS for years? Per your theory they should be available to buy right now.
> ...



I am one of those people. I would LOVE to get a 400F5.6 IS lens, but I think the chances of that happening are similar to that of my cat having a litter of puppies...

Now a 500F5.6... I can actually imagine a remote chance that one is coming.... I am not holding my breath waiting,,,,

And a 50F1.4 IS.... That one surprises me I really don't understand why it does not exist....


As for mirrorless cameras, Obviously there is a market for mirrorless crop cameras, and at the same time there is also a thriving market for mirrored crop cameras. I expect the same to hold true with FF cameras, but remember, the numbers of FF cameras is/will be smaller than crop.


----------



## BillB (Jul 30, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I am one of those people. I would LOVE to get a 400F5.6 IS lens, but I think the chances of that happening are similar to that of my cat having a litter of puppies...
> 
> Now a 500F5.6... I can actually imagine a remote chance that one is coming.... I am not holding my breath waiting,,,,
> 
> And a 50F1.4 IS.... That one surprises me I really don't understand why it does not exist....



My guess is that there are several things at work that have held back the appearance of a 50mm f1.4 IS. One is the availability of some pretty good normal zooms that cover 50mm. Another is that a new 50mm was apparently behind the 35mm f1.4 and the 85mm in the lens development backlog. (Speaking for myself, I find a 50 less interesting than either a 35 or an 85.). Then there the old 50mm f1.4 which has its good points, is quite inexpensive, and still sells well (not to mention the 50 f1.8 or the 40mm). Clearly a new 50 f1.4 hasn't been a high Canon priority, but it seems likely one will eventually show up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2018)

BillB said:


> My guess is that there are several things at work that have held back the appearance of a 50mm f1.4 IS. One is the availability of some pretty good normal zooms that cover 50mm. Another is that a new 50mm was apparently behind the 35mm f1.4 and the 85mm in the lens development backlog. (Speaking for myself, I find a 50 less interesting than either a 35 or an 85.). Then there the old 50mm f1.4 which has its good points, is quite inexpensive, and still sells well (not to mention the 50 f1.8 or the 40mm). Clearly a new 50 f1.4 hasn't been a high Canon priority, but it seems likely one will eventually show up.


You forgot the biggest reason for the delay – ahsanford wants one, and Canon likes to see him perpetually frustrated.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> You forgot the biggest reason for the delay – ahsanford wants one, and Canon likes to see him perpetually frustrated.



I'm honestly getting to the point that Canon might just refresh the lens with the same 1993 optical design and just call it good. After all, who am I to demand a new optical design for a 25 year old instrument if we don't even need new optical designs on flasgship 70-200 f/2.8 lenses these days? 

_Annnnnnnnd_ we're OT already. #stayontarget

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I’m neither a pro nor a complete novice, but I wouldn’t happily gove up an OVF.
> 
> Are there any kinds of readouts like peaking things or zebras or similar animals that can be displayed in an EVF but cannot be shown in live view? (And I mean “cannot” rather than just “currently” or “usually not.”)



In principal, no. LiveView functionality could be made to work just like mirrorless does through the EVF. It's effectively the same tech.

...except for that bit about holding the camera up to your eye and controlling it stably/intuitively/efficiently as intended. Because without that, as much as LiveView is the core of the mirrorless conversation, holding and shooting a $3-5k rig+lens _like it's an iPad_ just screams 'unmet user need' to me.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Jul 30, 2018)

I think the original list is solid, but would also throw out CA as a potential issue of mirrorless if it has the shorter flange distance. I hadn't connected the dots between the CA I can see in TDP's ISO charts on Sony's lenses and the short flange distance, but it is really prevalent.

As for the "end of DSLR" forecasts, I think we are premature. A lot will depend on how well EF lenses work with Canon's FF mirrorless camera as a lens transition would cause more to hold onto their DSLRs for longer, but, I am still in the group that just doesn't see mirrorless as a revolution. There is not driving feature that makes photography easier/better in many situations compared to a DSLR. Perhaps my favorite feature is seeing the dialed in exposure right in the EVF. That is nice, but limited to specific situations. Zebras---specific situations, etc. I also would love more control over FPS. More than just 3 modes (single, middle, and high).

This isn't film (costly, inconvenient, slow, etc) to digital (per picture less expensive, convenient, and instantaneous output). I just do not see the driving force that would motivate a rapid change to the masses. For a few individuals or regions that have a strong preference for a specific feature or desire for "new", sure, they'll jump. And I think we've seen that in some instances already. But I expect the masses to take awhile.

As I write this, I also wondering if part of my perspective is geographic. I am in North America where the numbers indicate the masses are holding onto their DSLRs. But in Asia, it seems that there is a higher rate of adoption of mirrorless. So, my thoughts could be more relevant to NA.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 30, 2018)

Transition to entirely mirrorfree cameras will happen pretty fast. There are no disadvantages and lots of advantages if implemented "really right". And mirrorfree cameras are cheaper to produce, even if non of us can provide evidence of "how much", since we don't have access to camera makers internal cost accounting numbers.

Mirrorfree cameras will be the last (short) phase in the overall transition from mechanical, analogue, chemical-film cameras with sizeable stacks of ground optical glass in front (18th(19th/20th century) to "truly digital", computational imaging, with minimal physical gear (a sensor, a CPU, a touchscreen, a few plastic or fluid filled lenses, rest is software) ... 21st century.

Looking forward to it. I reyll love completely de-materialized conversion of photons into electrons and de-materialized storage of them. It is the most elegant, efficient and effective solution, until direct neuronal interface to human brains will take over. Which is 2 steps away.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Transition to entirely mirrorfree cameras will happen pretty fast.



I believe it will happen -- but not quickly at all.

Just curious: can someone name me an instance of a crop or FF DSLR/DSLT getting obsoleted / shutdown in recent memory? Bonus points if mirrorless was a clear reason or driver for it. Just scratching my head:

Canon keeps making them all, in fact _increasing_ the number of SLR lines the past few years (unless we want to get pedantic about 760D vs. 77D) 
Nikon keeps making them all to my knowledge (though the D6XX line is nearing 5 years old...)
Sony keeps making them all, but appears to have deprioritized the energy they are pumping into their SLT lines.
- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I believe it will happen -- but not quickly at all.
> 
> Just curious: can someone name me an instance of a crop or FF DSLR/DSLT getting obsoleted / shutdown in recent memory? Bonus points if mirrorless was a clear reason or driver for it. Just scratching my head:
> 
> ...



You're presenting facts. Just curious: can someone name me an instance of facts having an impact on AvTvM's opinion in recent memory?


----------



## BillB (Jul 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I believe it will happen -- but not quickly at all.
> 
> Just curious: can someone name me an instance of a crop or FF DSLR/DSLT getting obsoleted / shutdown in recent memory? Bonus points if mirrorless was a clear reason or driver for it. Just scratching my head:
> 
> ...



Sony did pull out of DSLR production, iirc.

Shutting down lines could happen if one (or more) manufacturers end up in a serious cash crunch which might or might not be related to the inability of their DSLR line to compete with mirrorless models. My guess is that the dynamics are likely to be more complex than everybody buying mirrorless instead of DSLR's. Either there is going to be enough money coming in to keep all three making FF mirrorless and Canon and Nikon making DSLR's or there is not. Cost management could become a big factor. So could something like a healthy line of aps-c cameras.

From Canon's point of view, it doesn't make that much difference whether I buy a Sony or whether I just keep using the Canon cameras and lenses I already have. Canon is not making money off me either way.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2018)

BillB said:


> Sony did pull out of DSLR production, iirc.



Not so sure they abandoned DSLRs to pitch the mirror, though. It was my understanding that they flipped their entire line from DSLR to DSLT as a technology/strategy direction around 2010 or so, and they still make those DSLTs today.

- A


----------



## BillB (Jul 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Not so sure they abandoned DSLRs to pitch the mirror, though. It was my understanding that they flipped their entire line from DSLR to DSLT as a technology/strategy direction around 2010 or so, and they still make those DSLTs today.
> 
> - A



Which much proves your point.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2018)

BillB said:


> Which much proves your point.



I still think mirrors will (largely) go away. I just can't for the life of me gather _when_ that will happen other than _when Canon and Nikon decide it's time to_. One generation we'll get a Rebel 850D and EOS M50 Mk II, the next generation we'll get a Rebel 950D and EOS M50 Mk III and then... poof: the next rev we'll get an EOS M50 Mk IV (or some new symbolic name) and we won't get another Rebel in that segment any more.

Lower trimline DSLRs (crop, and cheaper crop to be specific) will surely go first and then they'll climb up the line until only the high end DSLRs remain. That's always been my guess, but I've never been able to forecast when that would happen.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I believe it will happen -- but not quickly at all.
> 
> Just curious: can someone name me an instance of a crop or FF DSLR/DSLT getting obsoleted / shutdown in recent memory? Bonus points if mirrorless was a clear reason or driver for it. Just scratching my head:
> 
> ...



Words like quick and fast are subjective and relative. I believe most cameras produced will eventually have no mirrors in the optical path, and that it will happen quickly when compared to how long it took digital to mostly replace film.


----------



## BillB (Jul 30, 2018)

What will happen is a often a lot easier call than when it will happen. Mirrorless market share is going to rise, but what is the curve going to look like? So far as we can guess, mirrorless has production cost advantages, especially at the low end, but are those advantages big enough to makes it worthwhile to spend money on new lines? Will video be a factor? Maybe some of the low end market just prefers DSLR.

Then there is the corporate piece of it. In Canon, Nikon and Sony, the photography guys have to keep the big guys happy, and that is largely about cash flow and return on investment. Things could change in a hurry if the numbers aren't working out.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Words like quick and fast are subjective and relative. I believe most cameras produced will eventually have no mirrors in the optical path, and that it will happen quickly when compared to how long it took digital to mostly replace film.



If you mean time from *digital sensors first being made in a lab* to mostly replacing film in photography, you might be right. That took quite a while.

But if you mean time from the *first consumer and professional digital cameras showing up* to mostly replacing film, that only took about... what, 10 years, give or take? _Mirrorless ILCs are already that age now_, and as I said above, we have yet to see a DSLR/DSLT line to get mothballed since mirrorless arrived.

So I still think there will be nothing quick about this as mirrorless is evolutionary and not revolutionary. As countless people have said here, pitching the mirror is hardly the gamechanger that getting away from film was.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2018)

I meant from when the first digital camera was patented (1978, I believe). And of course I wasn’t making a prediction, just commenting on the use of words like “soon” in the realm of predictions.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jul 31, 2018)

I wouldn't hold you breath waiting for dslrs to die..
I have used mirrorless cameras but there is still nothing that can compare to using a dslr.
Mirrorless cameras, including Sonys are just too slow for fast paced action at receptions and my fingers keep getting stuck between the lens and the body on Sonys. I reckon my M5 is much nicer to use.
Another thing is that no EVF will be as good or as satisfying to use as an OVF.

If mirrorless cameras are cheaper than dslrs, then why are crop dslrs cheaper than mirrorless cameras?


----------



## Kit. (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> But if you mean time from the *first consumer and professional digital cameras showing up* to mostly replacing film, that only took about... what, 10 years, give or take?


I'd say the main part of the obsolescence of the film-based SLRs was the failure of the industry to produce a 135 format film compatible "digital film" cartridge. Imagine the ability to switch digital sensors in the field - that could keep film-based SLRs selling till at least these days.

For DSLRs, the analogy would be with the hybrid viewfinder. Which, honestly, requires much less scientific and technological "optimism" to expect compared to "digital film", which needed almost AvTvM grade.


----------



## BillB (Jul 31, 2018)

One way to think about it might be to ask when mirrorless sales will reach a 75 percent (to pick a number) share of various camera types, such as aps-c, entry level FF, mid level, FF, and high end FF. Of course, coming up with numbers that could be used to keep score might be a challenge.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 31, 2018)

I remember similar debates (to those over the EVF now) about the quality of flat-panel TV's replacing CRT's. Some claimed the LCD could never be fast enough for action movies or live sports, so plasma was a stopgap that is now a mere memory.

And then, way at the low-tech end of the spectrum, "no-flip" mattresses quickly and quietly took over the industry--and not because consumers preferred them; they were simply cheaper to produce and needed replacement more often.

These are just two examples of how things can change quickly. The camera companies are going to do what makes sense to survive and profit. Throwing out numbers such as 75% mirrorless sales as a threshold is wild guessing, as, admittedly, are my speculations. But dSLR sales are down dramatically the past five years, and to imagine Canon or others could sustain production of dSLR's even losing ANOTHER 75% of sales is beyond even my wild imagination.

I am fully confident that Canon has worked out a glidepath for dSLR's and EF lenses, but they likely have some "if-then" branching built in too. Predicting how long dSLR's will continue to be produced for the masses is not possible for me, though I could see the very highest-end pro market surviving five years beyond the 5D-xx class.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> But dSLR sales are down dramatically the past five years, and to imagine Canon or others could maintain production of dSLR's even losing ANOTHER 75% of sales is beyond even my wild imagination.



You are conflating two things, and two things that are completely independent at that.
DSLR sales are down dramatically but this is not due to the creation of mirrorless, if my mirrorless you do not include mobile phones. Mirrorless have not significantly increased their share in the last 3-4 years which suggests they are neither cause of, nor the cure for the problem. 
Cameras such as we are interested in are fighting against a range of imaging devices from smart phones, to tablets to GoPro. None of these are markets that cameras from Sony, Canon and Nikon can even hope to touch - all of them rely on someone with an smartphone wanting to take better quality images and upgrading to something with a bigger sensor and more controls. And every step in sophistication of cameraphone design makes it that little bit harder for camera manufacturers. Sony is in a strong position if only based on their presence in the phone market as manufacturer and supplier of sensors.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2018)

Bennymiata said:


> If mirrorless cameras are cheaper than dslrs, then why are crop dslrs cheaper than mirrorless cameras?



Thats a good point. The answer is twofold. 

1. Companies want to recover their development cost, so they set high prices.
2. Lack of competition allows companies to set prices higher and boost profits, prices will not drop until there is serious competition.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Thats a good point. The answer is twofold.
> 
> 1. Companies want to recover their development cost, so they set high prices.
> 2. Lack of competition allows companies to set prices higher and boost profits, prices will not drop until there is serious competition.



...and that whole thing about producing an order of magnitude* more SLRs than mirrorless, which allows SLRs to be made at a lower cost. 

*total Fermi swag here, I lack hard data

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ...and that whole thing about producing an order of magnitude* more SLRs than mirrorless, which allows SLRs to be made at a lower cost.
> 
> *total Fermi swag here, I lack hard data
> 
> - A



...and no one really knows what the actual costs are. There is an assumption that electronic viewfinders are cheaper to produce than mirrored viewfinders, but what evidence is there of that? It's based on the unproven assumption that electronics are *always* cheaper to produce than mechanical devices. But, given that Canon has had about 100 years to perfect the manufacturing process, who really knows? And, are the cost differences significant?

In the end, I really don't believe cost of production will have any impact on the longevity of mirrored vs. mirrorless cameras. Consumer preferences will weigh much more heavily.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2018)

... and Cost does not equal Price. They may correlate, but market dynamics significantly affect the latter (if people will pay 1500, why charge 1400?).


----------



## unfocused (Jul 31, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> You are conflating two things, and two things that are completely independent at that.



He also conflates two other completely independent things: mirrorless technology and lens mounts.

Like too many others, he assumes that If and when Canon moves to mirrorless technology for some future 5D XX or 1Dx XX model that they *must* change the mount of these bodies. There is no reason why, if all the problems associated with electronic viewfinders are ultimately resolved, that means that all future bodies must take some new mount designed for small form factor mirrorless bodies.

Far more likely, in my opinion, is that future 5D, 1Dx, 7D and possibly 80D mirrorless bodies will look a whole lot like today's DSLR bodies and continue to take EF lenses as the native lens mount. Should Canon go that route, they would actually be able to reduce their production costs because they would no longer have to offer both mirrored and mirrorless bodies, and instead simply offer a choice in lens mounts.


----------



## hmatthes (Jul 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> From what I've read in this forum and elsewhere online, and heard from camera-club friends, the major drawback to mirrorless at this point is the electronic viewfinder. Either it lags a bit or it just doesn't feel right compared to an optical viewfinder.



The real world examples of EVF run the range of lousy to brilliant. I borrowed a M43 mirrorless that was horrid to use compared to OVF.
My Leica Q (Mirrorless FF, fixed 28mm f1.7 lens) has an amazing EVF that has very little (imperceptible) delay. The Leica SL is even faster (to my eyes) plus it offers a vast array of lenses and adapters.

EVF offers what is missing from OVF in my opinion: 
*Real Time viewing of the image seen by the sensor AFTER adjustments.* -- Color Balance! Exposure! Depth of Field without having to stopdown!
(I miss the EVF when shooting my FF Canon DSLRs. And I can never fund their tiny stopdown buttons!)

If I make serious adjustments, ½ press of shutter causes a very short delay while re-displaying the sensor in it's final state for imaging. Perhaps not great for sports but vital for landscapes and portraits.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 31, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> You are conflating two things, and two things that are completely independent at that.
> DSLR sales are down dramatically but this is not due to the creation of mirrorless, if my mirrorless you do not include mobile phones. Mirrorless have not significantly increased their share in the last 3-4 years which suggests they are neither cause of, nor the cure for the problem.
> Cameras such as we are interested in are fighting against a range of imaging devices from smart phones, to tablets to GoPro. None of these are markets that cameras from Sony, Canon and Nikon can even hope to touch - all of them rely on someone with an smartphone wanting to take better quality images and upgrading to something with a bigger sensor and more controls. And every step in sophistication of cameraphone design makes it that little bit harder for camera manufacturers. Sony is in a strong position if only based on their presence in the phone market as manufacturer and supplier of sensors.



I never said the drop in sales over the past 5 years is related to mirrorless, so I am not conflating here.

But since you bring it up, don't smartphones qualify as mirrorless? 

Unfocused, obviously I'm predicting Canon will be using a new mount for FF mirrorless. That's conjecture based on Canon APS-C mirrorless, Nikon's use of a new mount, and the opportunity Canon has to bring in a new native mount for FF mirrorless now. Plus many tech column predictions. If I'm wrong, I fall off the limb I'm out on. No conflation here either.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I never said the drop in sales over the past 5 years is related to mirrorless, so I am not conflating here.



Well that was the conclusion when you said "dSLR sales are down dramatically the past five years, and to imagine Canon or others could sustain production of dSLR's even losing ANOTHER 75% of sales is beyond even my wild imagination. " Sales of all cameras has dropped dramatically as evidenced by mirrroless not making real gains in % marketshare. Why would sustaining DSLRs production be difficult but not mirrorless? On past performance a 75% drop in DSLR would be mirrored by (see what I did there...?) a 75% drop in mirrorless as well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 31, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Well that was the conclusion when you said "dSLR sales are down dramatically the past five years, and to imagine Canon or others could sustain production of dSLR's even losing ANOTHER 75% of sales is beyond even my wild imagination. " Sales of all cameras has dropped dramatically as evidenced by mirrroless not making real gains in % marketshare. Why would sustaining DSLRs production be difficult but not mirrorless? On past performance a 75% drop in DSLR would be mirrored by (see what I did there...?) a 75% drop in mirrorless as well.



In that scenario, Canon is *******.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ...Unfocused, obviously I'm predicting Canon will be using a new mount for FF mirrorless. That's conjecture based on Canon APS-C mirrorless, Nikon's use of a new mount, and the opportunity Canon has to bring in a new native mount for FF mirrorless now. Plus many tech column predictions. If I'm wrong, I fall off the limb I'm out on. No conflation here either.



Your misunderstand my point. When I said you were conflating two separate things, I referred to your belief that *all* future Canon mirrorless bodies *must* use any new mount that is designed for the first generation FF bodies.

Yes, predictions are that Canon will use a new mount for it's *first* entry into FF mirrorless. But, there is nothing to say that they will use that new mount for *all* future mirrorless body styles. Their first FF mirrorless cameras may place a premium on size and in order to keep the camera compact, they may introduce a handful of compact lenses. As Fullstop/AvTvM argues, they can keep the lens selection small and keep the lenses compact by limiting the apertures available. If they include in-body stabilization, they can keep the lenses even smaller.

But, my point is that when it comes time (if it ever comes time) to replace the mirror box in the 5D, 1D, 7D and possibly 80D series, those cameras can look essentially identical to today's DSLRs -- retain the ergonomics that long, heavy, fast and ultrawide lens users prefer and for most users function essentially the same as today's DLSRs. When they are ready to make that leap, they can (and I believe will) simply retain the EF lens mount as the native mount on those cameras. 

Alternatively, it could be a simple and cost effective approach to offer these higher-end cameras in two different Canon mounts, allowing consumers to choose. Those who have invested heavily in EF mounts would choose the bodies with EF as the native mount. Those who bought into the Canon system with their mirrorless full frame cameras and have purchased several of the new mount lenses, might choose a body that keeps that new mount as the native mount. Far cheaper and less controversial for Canon to go that route than to completely replace their extensive EF mount lineup.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 31, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Your misunderstand my point. When I said you were conflating two separate things, I referred to your belief that *all* future Canon mirrorless bodies *must* use any new mount that is designed for the first generation FF bodies.
> 
> Yes, predictions are that Canon will use a new mount for it's *first* entry into FF mirrorless. But, there is nothing to say that they will use that new mount for *all* future mirrorless body styles. Their first FF mirrorless cameras may place a premium on size and in order to keep the camera compact, they may introduce a handful of compact lenses. As Fullstop/AvTvM argues, they can keep the lens selection small and keep the lenses compact by limiting the apertures available. If they include in-body stabilization, they can keep the lenses even smaller.
> 
> ...



Interesting theories! (But please note I have not used absolutes such as "all" or "must.")


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Your misunderstand my point. When I said you were conflating two separate things, I referred to your belief that *all* future Canon mirrorless bodies *must* use any new mount that is designed for the first generation FF bodies.
> 
> Yes, predictions are that Canon will use a new mount for it's *first* entry into FF mirrorless. But, there is nothing to say that they will use that new mount for *all* future mirrorless body styles.





YuengLinger said:


> Interesting theories!



Yep. There's a fair amount of wisdom in Canon following the market with thin mount mirrorless for meeting the 'mirrorless is all about being small' market expectation (whether you personally agree with that statement or not) and _*also*_ offering a full EF mount mirrorless to keep things as comfortable/familiar/seamless as possible for folks who live in 'big glass all the time' territory.

Canon is big enough to offer both -- easily so -- provided they show some discipline and limit how much of EF they intend to re-design/offer new for a thin mount.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Canon is big enough to offer both -- easily so -- provided they show some discipline and limit how much of EF they intend to re-design/offer new for a thin mount.



And Unfocused and I are not alone here:

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ff-mirrorless-poll-what-mount-will-we-see.35293/

Just about half of us are not expecting just one mount from Canon on FF mirrorless. (I'm just saying that we are not completely out of left field with this.)

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> And Unfocused and I are not alone here:
> 
> https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ff-mirrorless-poll-what-mount-will-we-see.35293/
> 
> ...




I'm expecting a new FF mirrorless mount + an adapter for the vast forests of EF lenses in the hands of dSLR owners. Call it a mount and a half.
But if the FF mirrorless is successful as first released, I can't see marketing or production strategies that would make splintering the line along different mounts worthwhile.

But who knows? Camera companies are desperate to remain relevant; they might try anything. Even spinoffs!

All conjecture aside, I hope EF remains the standard on FF mirrorless. Then I can buy more EF lenses in peace and at my leisure!


----------



## mirage (Jul 31, 2018)

Nikon will maintain F-mount for some time, then consolidate on Z-mount. 1 mount, 2 sets of lenses (FF, APS-C). 
Sony has consolidated on E-mount. 1 mount, 2 sets of lenses (FE and E/APS-C)
Canon not likely to go with 4 mount/lens set versions. Expect transition from DSLR-era EF plus EF-S to mirrorfree era EF-X plus EF-M. No point to bring some mirrorfree FF cameras with EF mount, when EF-X can do anything EF can plus a lot more, like more compact lenses in mostly used focal length range.


----------



## BillB (Jul 31, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Your misunderstand my point. When I said you were conflating two separate things, I referred to your belief that *all* future Canon mirrorless bodies *must* use any new mount that is designed for the first generation FF bodies.
> 
> Yes, predictions are that Canon will use a new mount for it's *first* entry into FF mirrorless. But, there is nothing to say that they will use that new mount for *all* future mirrorless body styles. Their first FF mirrorless cameras may place a premium on size and in order to keep the camera compact, they may introduce a handful of compact lenses. As Fullstop/AvTvM argues, they can keep the lens selection small and keep the lenses compact by limiting the apertures available. If they include in-body stabilization, they can keep the lenses even smaller.
> 
> ...




An unanswered question is how small an FF camera Canon could build based on the EF mount. Canon may not feel the need to bring out a new mount to go as small as it wants to with FF. The SLR2 is aps-c, but it uses the EF mount, and how much bigger would a FF mirrorless with an EF mount have to be?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm expecting a new FF mirrorless mount + an adapter for the vast forests of EF lenses in the hands of dSLR owners. Call it a mount and a half.
> But if the FF mirrorless is successful as first released, I can't see marketing or production strategies that would make splintering the line along different mounts worthwhile.



Disagree. Canon could sell a boatload of thin mount FF bodies, offer a handful of lenses and simply point them to an adaptor for more glass. They only must climb up 'EF rebuild mountain' if they choose to.

I've heard riffs on this before: _If it's a thin mount and it sells well, that's the end of EF. They will go all in on the new mount._ Can someone explain that logic to me?

1) People may go in on the thin mount body for size reasons. Rebuilding a large percentage of the EF portfolio in a thin mount does not help that goal.

2) The market has numerous segments with wildly different priorities. Why should some one-time bolus of sales to pent-up enthusiasts cause Canon to _build the entire business strategy_ around that slate of priorities? What about wedding shooters? What about portaiture folks? What about sports/wildlife folks? What about photojournos? Why do they all get hosed by the needs of some mirrorless fanatics?

I'll say something possibly backwards to some here. The above says Mirrorless has to demonstrate why _*it*_ is worthy of more water and sunlight than EF is getting far more than the other way around. In absence of those reasons being a clear, sustainable and broadly useful to many types of photographers, all my chips are on EF.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

mirage said:


> No point to bring some mirrorfree FF cameras with EF mount, when EF-X can do anything EF can plus a lot more, like more compact lenses in mostly used focal length range.



You seem treat this decision as if Canon was a startup with a clean slate. It is not.

You forgot that EF has one epic advantage over EF-X. *EF lenses already exist and folks already own them*. So there _absolutely_ is value in a full EF mount mirrorless: it would be seamless to their SLR experience, not require an adaptor, and not require additional spending on lenses.

I'm not saying full EF is better than thin mount. Either will work. But to state that there's no point to come out with a full EF mirrorless body is nonsense, IMHO.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> An unanswered question is how small an FF camera Canon could build based on the EF mount. Canon may not feel the need to bring out a new mount to go as small as it wants to with FF. The SL2 is aps-c, but it uses the EF mount, and how much bigger would a FF mirrorless with an EF mount have to be?



It would not have to be much bigger than an SL2... _if they didn't need room to:_

cool things for 4K
provide more processing horsepower to meet professional throughput and AF expectations
offer a grip large enough to comfortably wield faster EF glass
offer a pro ergonomic feature set _and_ a large tilty-flippy
I don't say that to be flippant or anything. Canon could go super duper small here, but it would not come without cost. The feature set / ergonomics side of things would likely suffer and undercut the appeal of the product.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> You seem treat this decision as if Canon was a startup with a clean slate. It is not.
> 
> You forgot that EF has one epic advantage over EF-X. *EF lenses already exist and folks already own them*. So there _absolutely_ is value in a full EF mount mirrorless: it would be seamless to their SLR experience, not require an adaptor, and not require additional spending on lenses.



I could be wrong here, but I think some folks see the notion of a full EF mirrorless being sold alongside a thin mount mirrorless as Canon only partially committing to its future. A full EF mount mirrorless represents a clear message that EF is here to stay, and no, Canon isn't going to rebuild EF in a thin mount.

Some folks would call that too conservative. I call it really sound thinking: 

Thin mount and some small lenses? Yeah, we've got that.
A seamless-to-use mirrorless rig to be used on the other shoulder of your 5D4 that uses all the same lenses? Yeah, we've got that, too.
How did we avoid the pains of starting over, eliminating EF and rebuilding it in the new mount? Easy. _We didn't do it at all._ Viva EF.
- A


----------



## mirage (Jul 31, 2018)

As we know [Sony A7], FF mirrorfree cameras can be made very compact: 100% more sensor area with only about 20% more bulk/volume/weight than APS-C is possible. 

Good ergonomics for large hands and or balance with large lenses can not only be achieved with large camera body, but also by offering well-designed (OEM) grips. Both front of camera and vertical/battery grips. And they typically generate very high-margin revenue for OEM maker. Canon's excellent touchscreen implementation reduces need for many physical control points and delivers good ergonomics also on smaller camera bodies. Just think of EOS M50. Very decent given size of camera. 

Most amateurs, many pro's (e.g. wedding) and even many folks who often use large lenses will appreciate "small, inconspicuous and light" gear in many situations times, without having to buy and maintain 2 cameras or even 2 systems. 

FF sensor in small body really is best of both worlds: compact for use with compact lenses when those suffice, and simple to make things bigger when more support/grip/balance is needed for use with larger lenses. But only when really needed. 

And use of simple Canon OEM extender tube adapter to use existing EF lenses with full functionality during transitional period is no real-life issue either.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

mirage said:


> FF sensor in small body really is best of both worlds



...to you. One person is not the market.

Some folks like a bigger body to wield heavier glass, or to have enough room between the mount and their fingers. Some also prefer a bigger body because they prefer dedicated buttons and wheels a larger body affords over touchscreens. Some folks might leave an adaptor at home during the 10-15 years when one mount is building up enough glass to obsolete the other.

We've climbed this mountain hundreds of times here. There is no winning argument we haven't heard. There are (at least) two camps of shooters here and I think they need separate bodies to tick all their boxes.

- A


----------



## mirage (Jul 31, 2018)

Small, new mount bodies plus well-designed grip/s can and simple EF adapter can tick all boxes for both existing and new Canon customers. 
Big advantage for Canon system over Nikon where F-mount lens owners are facing a much more difficult transition to Z-mount, especially for older F-mount lenses.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 31, 2018)

Ahsanford, what do you mean by "thin mount"? Some here seem fixated on smaller FF bodies. Aren't Nikon hinting at performance and other benefits as justifying their new mount?

"Thin" doesn't sound friendly to the current direction of lens design or Big Whites...


----------



## mirage (Jul 31, 2018)

"thin mount" as shorthand for mount with flange focal distance significantly shorter than typical DSLR mounts like Canon EF, which need to leave sufficient space for mirrorbox/moving mirror. Necessary to leverage omission of mirrorbox into thinner/smaller mirrorfree camera bodies. If mirrorfree cameras would retain long flange focal distance mount like Sony A-mount, Canon EF or Nikon F, it would not be possible to utilize all advantages of mirrorfree system cameras, such as slimmer/smaller bodies as well as more freedoms for lens design throughout mostly used focal length range.

For me "thinner" has positive connotation - as in "slim and trim" or "lean and mean". 


PS: Long tele lenses / "Big Whites" will however not be slimmer, shorter, lighter, better or cheaper by moving to a "thin mount".


----------



## BillB (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> It would not have to be much bigger than an SL2... _if they didn't need room to:_
> 
> cool things for 4K
> provide more processing horsepower to meet professional throughput and AF expectations
> ...



Your points about the limitations of a small camera are true, but some people want small cameras, or so they say. Assuming that Canon decides to address their needs, my question is how small a camera Canon can make using the EF mount. I am not suggesting that Canon make nothing but small cameras, but I am wondering whether Canon really needs to come up with a new "thin" mount at all.

I am pretty sure that there will be larger Canon mirrorless cameras, most likely before an as small as possible Canon FF mirrorless hits the street, whether with an EF mount, an EF-M mount or some new "thin" mount.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Ahsanford, what do you mean by "thin mount"? Some here seem fixated on smaller FF bodies. Aren't Nikon hinting at performance and other benefits as justifying their new mount?
> 
> "Thin" doesn't sound friendly to the current direction of lens design or Big Whites...



Every time I say that, I mean a small flange distance. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

That _generally_ is part and parcel to a smaller overall body size, but as we all know, it doesn't have to be. All sorts of options are on the table. You could have a huge 5D grip with a skinny main body, you could have everything very thin front to back (like the original EOS M) but still a wide body (L-R from a rear view) so your hands and larger lenses can coexist, etc.

To answer your question, above and beyond what a move to a thin flange mount can do in general (well covered here at CR) Nikon can structurally improve over the F mount. In particular, their throat diameter is too small for superfast lenses and this (apparently) has always bugged either Nikon or their customers. So in the see-saw decision of thin mount vs. FF SLR mount, there is an additional finger pushing down on the thin mount side at Nikon: a thin mount is a new mount, and a new mount could logically have a larger throat diameter to support f/0.9, f/1 exotic optics. So the betting man (even before the pictures dropped) expected Nikon to 'go thin'.

Canon does not have that throat diameter monkey on its back with EF (few are clamoring for f/1 lenses it would appear), so it's more of a neutral 50-50 decision, IMHO.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> "Thin" doesn't sound friendly to the current direction of lens design or Big Whites...



And I would decouple thin from 'fragile' if that's where your head was going. Balance with larger lenses may very well take a hit from a lighter body like this, but the mount may be just as rock solid as EF and the grip might be knocked straight off the 5D for all we know. Too many unknowns right now.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> I am pretty sure that there will be larger Canon mirrorless cameras, most likely before an as small as possible Canon FF mirrorless hits the street, whether with an EF mount, an EF-M mount or some new "thin" mount.



Totally fair. My guess is that they will lead with something vaguely A7 III form-factored (thin mount, surely smaller than a 6D2) with a better grip and far better handling/ergonomics, and then they'll do the same thing in a beefer 5d-gripped / 5D-spec'd body down the road (possibly with full EF).

And they totally might make an SL1/2 style super tiny mirrorless rig down the road. You just don't _open_ with that with a product that so many of the Canon faithful are waiting on.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jul 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ...But if the FF mirrorless is successful as first released, I can't see marketing or production strategies that would make splintering the line along different mounts worthwhile...



Why not? If Canon does release a FF mirrorless with a new mount, it will have four different body styles with four different native mounts: EF, EF-S, EF-M and EF-Whatever.

If they proceed as expected, then they've done the math and concluded it can be profitable. If they someday yank the mirrors out of their DSLRs, but retain the EF mount, they haven't splintered anything. And...which is cheaper -- manufacturing 3-4 high end bodies or redesigning and replacing dozens of lenses, while simultaneously alienating your most lucrative customers?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> I am wondering whether Canon really needs to come up with a new "thin" mount at all.



And we have litigated this to no end here. There is a camp that wants to breathe mirrorless into their EF world, and there is a camp that at least partially believes that 'mirrorless is all about being small' and the mirror box thickness _must_ be shed. *You can't touch the latter group with a full mount no matter how strong/practical/convincing your argument is. *And failing to make a thinner mount offering, Canon's folks in the latter group (surely not a small percentage) would be easy pickings to attack from Sony and Nikon.

Again: offering both thin and full EF divides the market into a bloody knife fight in the small sector (watering down the ceiling of units Sony and Nikon could get) and total dominance in the larger form factor. I think it makes a ton of sense to offer both mounts.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Why not? If Canon does release a FF mirrorless with a new mount, it will have four different body styles with four different native mounts: EF, EF-S, EF-M and EF-Whatever.
> 
> If they proceed as expected, then they've done the math and concluded it can be profitable. If they someday yank the mirrors out of their DSLRs, but retain the EF mount, they haven't splintered anything. And...which is cheaper -- manufacturing 3-4 high end bodies or redesigning and replacing dozens of lenses, while simultaneously alienating your most lucrative customers?



This. All day.

- A


----------



## mirage (Jul 31, 2018)

> Assuming that Canon decides to address their needs, my question is how small a camera Canon can make using the EF mount.



Smallest "FF" 35mm film SLR Canon has made was EOS Rebel Ti / EOS 300V (Note: like all "Rebels" only pentamirror viewfinder, not pentaprisma).
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film236.html
Dimensions & weight130 (W) x 88 (H) x 64 (D) mm, 365 g / without batteries - 5.12 x 3.46 x 2.52 in., 12.9 oz.

An FF sensored DSLR with EF mount might be possible down to about this size. Some serious challenges re. heat sink, CPU/electronics, power supply/battery, back LCD etc. though.

By comparison: Sony A7 1st gen (ILCE-7) is (WxHxD) 127 x 94 x 48 mm, 416g


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> and there is a camp that at least partially believes that 'mirrorless is all about being small' and the mirror box thickness _must_ be shed.



When you get down to where the rubber meets the road, being small(er) is all mirrorless systems can technologically provide which reflex systems can not. Every function which can be performed on a camera by reading the sensor is possible to perform on an SLR with its mirror up (including driving an EVF, if so designed).

So there is some merit to “if it can be smaller it must be smaller.” What is the point otherwise (selling new lenses notwithstanding)? I’d just hope that small as a virtue doesn’t overpower comfortable.


----------



## BillB (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> And we have litigated this to no end here. There is a camp that wants to breathe mirrorless into their EF world, and there is a camp that at least partially believes that 'mirrorless is all about being small' and the mirror box thickness _must_ be shed. *You can't touch the latter group with a full mount no matter how strong/practical/convincing your argument is. *And failing to make a thinner mount offering, Canon's folks in the latter group (surely not a small percentage) would be easy pickings to attack from Sony and Nikon.
> 
> Again: offering both thin and full EF divides the market into a bloody knife fight in the small sector (watering down the ceiling of units Sony and Nikon could get) and total dominance in the larger form factor. I think it makes a ton of sense to offer both mounts.
> 
> - A



On the other hand, if Canon can put out a camera with an EF mount than is "small enough" to compete with Sony and Nikon in the knife fight for small, they will have the only camera that uses EF lenses natively, which might make things interesting. Especially since a fair number of potential buyers of small FF mirrorless cameras already own EF lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> So there is some merit to “if it can be smaller it must be smaller.” What is the point otherwise (selling new lenses notwithstanding)?



Because being short-term ruthless profiteers may not always be the most profitable thing for Canon in the long haul. Consider: Canon [only coming out with thin mount] + [telling the world that in a short time that thin mount lenses are the only lenses they'll make] will have loyal customers leave the fold.

The alternative -- having a full EF mirrorless sold alongside a thin mount body -- allows Canon to keep it's #1 competitive advantage (EF), dramatically increase FF mirrorless adoption (a far easier sale to their current EF SLR owners), and it unloads R&D from having to rebuild all of EF (instead offering just a handful of smaller lenses). 

Seems like a win to me. All for the audacity of simply offering a second body with a full EF mount.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 31, 2018)

Canon have long put a lot of faith in what the professionals tell them that they (the pros) need in a camera - IMO they have at times done that to the seeming detriment of the general user but overall it has been successful. I see no reason for them to shift dramatically from that approach when it has served them so well - unless the twitterati complaints about the 6D2 has psychologically scarred them. And Canon have already publicly acknowledged that they cannot ignore the 135million EF lenses out there - and the pros do not want to see their EF lenses looking like they will be write-offs in 3-4 years. A simple adapter looks like a band aid solution and will send the message that the new mount is the future and all those EF lenses are on the way out.

I agree with ahsanford's reference to a "one-time bolus of sales" - it is easy to forget that a company like Canon needs to consider what happens once that pent up demand has gone, the dust has settled and people return to that mundane 'let's get out and take photographs' mentality. They then subconciously absorb what it all means - rather like those who went to Sony with all the excitement of the new technology then realised months later that what they actually miss is the simple interface and the fact their old Canon gear 'just works'.

So when a company like Canon has built their strategy on what pros would like to see, the proposal of some that it will be a new mount with EF as a design afterthought will be a massive leap in the dark. If it fails, is it because it is not EF or because they did not get the mirrorless component right? And unravelling that will be a nightmare amongst the self-important shitstorm that social media tends to generate.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> On the other hand, if Canon can put out a camera with an EF mount than is "small enough" to compete with Sony and Nikon in the knife fight for small, they will have the only camera that uses EF lenses natively, which might make things interesting. Especially since a fair number of potential buyers of small FF mirrorless cameras already own EF lenses.



That's a size knife fight Canon loses, I think. Only with a 40mm pancake (or big / fast glass where it's more about the lens size) does an SL1/2 vs. A7 look like a similar size in the bag:

​
On either side of that 40-ish f/2.8 space, Sony wins because that extra inch of mirror space is still there and it will lead to smaller overall constructs. The ads showing 'here's how much smaller our system is than theirs' almost write themselves. With a thin mount, Sony can demonstrably claim they are a smaller platform.

In short, the keep it small camp have hitched all their wagons to a thin mount and they will go bonkers if that doesn't arrive. I really think it's a binary response for them: Thin I'm in, EF I will melt down in broad daylight on as many social media platforms as possible. I also think the neutrals in social media -- influencers, tech media, Petapixel, DPR, etc. -- will pile on relentlessly if Canon struts out EF as new to the world.

Further: very few Canon pros will opt for the left above. They'll wait for a bigger body with a chunky grip.

- A


----------



## BillB (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> That's a size knife fight Canon loses, I think. Only with a 40mm pancake (or big / fast glass where it's more about the lens size) does an SL1/2 vs. A7 look like a similar size in the bag:
> 
> View attachment 179369​
> On either side of that 40-ish f/2.8 space, Sony wins because that extra inch of mirror space is still there and it will lead to smaller overall constructs. The ads showing 'here's how much smaller our system is than theirs' almost write themselves. With a thin mount, Sony can demonstrably claim they are a smaller platform.
> ...



You've laid it out quite clearly. That is what I was asking. Wonder whether Canon will decide that this would be close enough to neutralize Sony's smaller size argument. To make this work, it might be helpful to come up with a new EF 24-70 f4 STM IS. We shall see. Canon has set themselves up to lose internet buzz battles before. Hasn't always worked out badly for them.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> Canon has set themselves up to lose internet buzz battles before. Hasn't always worked out badly for them.


And that is the message that Canon will take on all this. For all the chatter and insults thrown at Canon for past decisions, when it comes to what matters, and what matters is whether your product sells, Canon always seem to get it right.
There are justifiable claims that this is brand loyalty because people are invested in the Canon lens system, but in turn what this means is that Sony (or whoever) has not done enough to overcome that hurdle.
And, as I have said many times, Sony has had a technological lead for 5+ years and that means an awful lot of newbies with no investment and Sony has still not expanded it market share to any great extent and still relies on stealing CaNikon customers for its client base. Which really says all you need to know about how important those technological superiorities are in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> You've laid it out quite clearly. That is what I was asking. Wonder whether Canon will decide that this would be close enough to neutralize Sony's smaller size argument. To make this work, it might be helpful to come up with a new EF 24-70 f4 STM IS. We shall see. Canon has set themselves up to lose internet buzz battles before. Hasn't always worked out badly for them.



If Canon does indeed go thin, I'd like to see Canon tinker with the ~ 3x zoom / constant max aperture paradigm a bit and see how small a 24-50 f/3.5-6.3 IS STM could be. Might not be _that_ much bigger than a 35 f/2 IS USM.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 31, 2018)

I really don't see size as the driving factor. Once you have a FF sensor and fast lenses, especially with longer focal lengths, the size of the body has to be guided by ergonomics. Who would be buying a FF mirrorless and expect to keep it in their pocket like a smartphone?

No, I think the main reason to ditch the mirror box is to move on from a tech that has served well for generations but now slows down max frame rates, AF development, plus needs AFMA for fast lenses, introduces mirror vibration, and includes moving parts that add complexity to manufacturing. Size reduction is a bonus appealing to a subset of customers who are happy with a pancake lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> You've laid it out quite clearly. That is what I was asking. Wonder whether Canon will decide that this would be close enough to neutralize Sony's smaller size argument. To make this work, it might be helpful to come up with a new EF 24-70 f4 STM IS. We shall see. Canon has set themselves up to lose internet buzz battles before. Hasn't always worked out badly for them.





Mikehit said:


> And that is the message that Canon will take on all this. For all the chatter and insults thrown at Canon for past decisions, when it comes to what matters, and what matters is whether your product sells, Canon always seem to get it right.



I am often accused of being a Canon apologist here. But even the most bullish 'Full EF mirrorless or bust' Canon partisan here would admit that the combination of...

Photography reviewers
Photo media sites
Gear sites
Internet influencers, IG celebrities, YouTube personalities, etc.
People like us at CR who want a smaller FF rig, want Canon's innovation perception to change, etc.
...getting all spun up about the mount still being a clunky fossil from 1987 would represent some pretty withering fire for Canon to sustain as they try to launch their system.

Canon doesn't need to make an A7-like platform and go all in on that new mount. But I think it must be a symbolic form-factor step forward, and a thin mount is simply the expectation, IMHO. I could delightfully be wrong and we get to enjoy an EF mirrorless platform, but I don't think Canon has the stones to brazenly fight such a staggering headwind if they went full EF (and only full EF) at launch.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I really don't see size as the driving factor. Once you have a FF sensor and fast lenses, especially with longer focal lengths, the size of the body has to be guided by ergonomics. Who would be buying a FF mirrorless and expect to keep it in their pocket like a smartphone?
> 
> No, I think the main reason to ditch the mirror box is to move on from a tech that has served well for generations but now slows down max frame rates, AF development, plus needs AFMA for fast lenses, introduces mirror vibration, and includes moving parts that add complexity to manufacturing. Size reduction is a bonus appealing to a subset of customers who are happy with a pancake lens.



Agree 100% with you, but I don't subscribe to 'mirrorless is all about being small' like others do. I'm geeked about the possibilities of what a 5D-mirrorless could do that my 5D3 cannot.

But to the small camp, small is a _really_ big deal. It makes the rig take up less space in your bag (with modest lens selection), makes it more likely to come with you in your travels, makes it a far less intimidating piece of kit for candids / travel / food / lifestyle photography and it mops the floor with what your cell phone can do.

These are two really different groups of photographers. They need two different products, IMHO. There's already 4-ish price points in FF SLRs for Canon today -- I don't see why two won't fly in FF mirrorless: one for the small camp, and one for the powerful camp. The idea that a new mount makes this a fundamentally different beast is only so if Canon rebuilds EF in the thin mount, which they probably definitely wouldn't do if a full EF mirrorless rig was coming.

- A


----------



## BillB (Jul 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I am often accused of being a Canon apologist here. But even the most bullish 'Full EF mirrorless or bust' Canon partisan here would admit that the combination of...
> 
> Photography reviewers
> Photo media sites
> ...



I doubt very much that Canon will start with a A7 size camera and I doubt they will put a new mount on a 6D size camera or larger.


----------



## BillB (Aug 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> If Canon does indeed go thin, I'd like to see Canon tinker with the ~ 3x zoom / constant max aperture paradigm a bit and see how small a 24-50 f/3.5-6.3 IS STM could be. Might not be _that_ much bigger than a 35 f/2 IS USM.
> 
> - A



A small 24-50 might be an interesting candidate for using the recessed lens concept with the EF mount.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Agree 100% with you, but I don't subscribe to 'mirrorless is all about being small' like others do. I'm geeked about the possibilities of what a 5D-mirrorless could do that my 5D3 cannot.
> 
> But to the small camp, small is a _really_ big deal. It makes the rig take up less space in your bag (with modest lens selection), makes it more likely to come with you in your travels, makes it a far less intimidating piece of kit for candids / travel / food / lifestyle photography and it mops the floor with what your cell phone can do.
> 
> ...



Just to clarify--you think there will be three mounts for mirrorless? EF and EF-X for full frame, and EF-M for cropped?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Just to clarify--you think there will be three mounts for mirrorless? EF and EF-X for full frame, and EF-M for cropped?



Sure, but that framing is a bit odd: I see it as two SLR mounts and two mirrorless mounts. One SLR mount just happens to work on mirrorless and use SLR lenses. It's not like there will be (for instance) three exclusively mirrorless lens lines in production.

Some folks have argued EF-X might _be_ EF-M -- that you could tuck an FF image circle in there -- but I believe many have poo-pooed that idea as it might be a shade too small. I'm not the ringer on that topic.

But the sheer number of mounts doesn't scare me off. If done right, that will be 3 mounts (EF-S, EF-M, EF-X) with just a handful of lenses each* and one comprehensive do-it-all EF mount where the big dollars and longer term investments go. It's only if EF-X truly gets big and comprehensive that the four mounts system will become too heavy to sustain, I think. What are 4-6 'keep it small' EF-X lenses versus 60 something EF lenses? Nothing Canon can't handle.

*On EF-S, to be clear: I'm talking about the more recent lenses lenses or ones they have refereshed, not the push-the-boat-out pricey EF-S USM lenses that we likely will never seen again.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> A small 24-50 might be an interesting candidate for using the recessed lens concept with the EF mount.



[The concept Bill is referring to is below, thread for discussion on it is here]

​
Agree on a 24-50mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM, Bill, but I think that's a major technical lift Canon will opt out of doing. This wouldn't be a slightly rearward protrusion of the lens, it would be a significant one, possibly requiring some complicated 'mount by wire' rearward telescoping mojo to protect the lens elements. And the mount cap on those lenses could be hysterically big, like dixie cup sized.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Aug 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ...*On EF-S, to be clear: I'm talking about the more recent lenses lenses or ones they have refereshed, not the push-the-boat-out pricey EF-S USM lenses that we likely will never seen again...




I could see Canon selling the EF-S 15-85 walkaround lens (or something similar) for as long as there are 80D and 7D models. That and a decent ultrawide zoom are about all they need to keep. (And actually, they could just cede the ultrawide market to third parties.)


----------



## BillB (Aug 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> A small 24-50 might be an interesting candidate for using the recessed lens concept with the EF mount.





ahsanford said:


> [The concept Bill is referring to is below, thread for discussion on it is here]
> 
> View attachment 179371​
> Agree on a 24-50mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM, Bill, but I think that's a major technical lift Canon will opt out of doing. This wouldn't be a slightly rearward protrusion of the lens, it would be a significant one, possibly requiring some complicated 'mount by wire' rearward telescoping mojo to protect the lens elements. And the mount cap on those lenses could be hysterically big, like dixie cup sized.
> ...



Fair points. On the other hand, it's sort like trying to use the EF-M mount for FF mirrorless. It may not be practical, but if Canon can find a way to make it work, it could be very neat. Things that might not be practical for a wide range of lens, could still be workable in some cases.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 1, 2018)

My guess is that Canon won't confuse its customers, marketing departments, or engineers with this many lens mounts. The proliferation envisioned here is a key reason for Canon to go with one new mount that will serve them for years to come.

But, come to think of it, once they go mirrorless, why stick with the 35mm format of full frame? But if they are sticking for now with the same sensor size currently in FF dSLR's, why change away from EF?

Looking forward to the announcement! Most excitement since the change to digital.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I could see Canon selling the EF-S 15-85 walkaround lens (or something similar) for as long as there are 80D and 7D models. That and a decent ultrawide zoom are about all they need to keep. (And actually, they could just cede the ultrawide market to third parties.)



Last ring USM lens for EF-S according to Keith's lovely chart was that 15-85 from 9 years ago. Canon has apparently left that price point and (by extension) left that technology out of EF-S, it would appear.

That said, just about everything EF-M gets, EF-S gets something like it: first it was the pancake, then the illuminated macro, and (who knows) perhaps an EF-S version of the EF-M 32 f/1.4 STM we've been hearing about. That would be cool.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> On the other hand, if Canon can put out a camera with an EF mount than is "small enough" to compete with Sony and Nikon in the knife fight for small, they will have the only camera that uses EF lenses natively, which might make things interesting. Especially since a fair number of potential buyers of small FF mirrorless cameras already own EF lenses.


Obviously, it could be made the same size as a SL-2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2018)

mirage said:


> Good ergonomics for large hands and or balance with large lenses can not only be achieved with large camera body, but also by offering well-designed (OEM) grips. Both front of camera and vertical/battery grips.



Every OEM battery grip I've used to date has flex between the grip and the body, which can be problematic for tripod mounting (flex = vibration).




mirage said:


> PS: Long tele lenses / "Big Whites" will however not be slimmer, shorter, lighter, better or cheaper by moving to a "thin mount".



Not just long lenses. Is Sony's 24-70/2.8 GM slimmer/shorter/lighter/better/cheaper than Canon's 24-70/2.8L II? The answer to all of those is no. They're very equivalent lenses, despite the former being designed for a 'thin mount'.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 1, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I really don't see size as the driving factor. Once you have a FF sensor and fast lenses, especially with longer focal lengths, the size of the body has to be guided by ergonomics. Who would be buying a FF mirrorless and expect to keep it in their pocket like a smartphone?
> 
> No, I think the main reason to ditch the mirror box is to move on from a tech that has served well for generations but now slows down max frame rates, AF development, plus needs AFMA for fast lenses, introduces mirror vibration, and includes moving parts that add complexity to manufacturing. Size reduction is a bonus appealing to a subset of customers who are happy with a pancake lens.



This is it exactly. I feel like reflex DSLRs are more and more like mirrorless bodies stuck in an antiquated legacy design. It's kludgy and noisy to switch operational modes and the reflex mode is becoming less and less able to keep up with pure mirrorless designs with each iteration. If the new Sony 400 2.8 is any indication, LEM is faster than USM and other focus drive systems. Although users don't like FBW (Focus by Wire), modern FBW on higher end lenses have a long focus throw which is great for MF unliike mechanically linked FTM AF lenses that have an exceptionally short focus throw.

When e-shutter performance can exceed 1/300 with flash sync and deliver speeds 30+ fps already with no blackout in between, there will be little reason for DSLRs to exist, unless the user has a specific reason to trade off that performance for an OVF.


----------



## hollybush (Aug 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> [The concept Bill is referring to is below, thread for discussion on it is here]
> 
> View attachment 179371​
> Agree on a 24-50mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM, Bill, but I think that's a major technical lift Canon will opt out of doing. This wouldn't be a slightly rearward protrusion of the lens, it would be a significant one, possibly requiring some complicated 'mount by wire' rearward telescoping mojo to protect the lens elements. And the mount cap on those lenses could be hysterically big, like dixie cup sized.
> ...



Nothing difficult or complex or with moving parts required. Simply a key (ridge) along the side of the protruding part of the lens, which has to be fitted into a slot in the bayonet. It certainly fits Canon's characterisation as "elegant".

As for the larger rear caps. the front caps on the extenders (teleconverters) are already a different size.


----------



## MartinF. (Aug 1, 2018)

My guess will be, that Canon in a near future will have two FF mirrorless bodies along current DSLRs: One thin, at with a new (EF-X?) mount. An a adapter to mount EF/EF-S lenses. (I could also be a variable flange-distance mount). That body will target all who wants to minimize size. This thinner body will target current 6D, 80D and xxxD, xxxxD customers.

And then a pro series, that will mount EF-lenses, and maybe a variable flange-distance mount, or a movable sensor, so this type of DSLR sized bodies also can take EF-X mount lenses. This series will, when more models are available, target current 1DX, 5D and 6D customers.

I think APS-C DSLR will be the first to die, and later, maybe even 10 years from now - the FF DSLR. Eventually DSLRs will go away, but that could be years from now - and my quess (and hope) is, that the EF-mount will survive.


----------



## MartinF. (Aug 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, but that framing is a bit odd: I see it as two SLR mounts and two mirrorless mounts. One SLR mount just happens to work on mirrorless and use SLR lenses. It's not like there will be (for instance) three exclusively mirrorless lens lines in production.
> 
> Some folks have argued EF-X might _be_ EF-M -- that you could tuck an FF image circle in there -- but I believe many have poo-pooed that idea as it might be a shade too small. I'm not the ringer on that topic.
> 
> ...


I am not afraid of 3 or 4 mounts. The key point for me is the future of EF-mount. And EF-S will will probably die with the last APS-C DSLR


----------



## MartinF. (Aug 1, 2018)

A little more thoughts on mirrorless: I think we will see that in the future is no longer "one-size fits all" - as DSLR has been in the past for pro or a enthusiast where 35mm "FullFrame" was what really matters.

With 35mm "FullFrame" mirrorless ILCs and FF mirrorless fixed-lens, I think we in the future will see pros and enthusiast using a DSLR-sized mirrorless ILC for sports, weddings and so - where you attach lagers lenses, and then the much smaller - but still 35mm "FullFrame" mirrorless ILCs OR fixed-lenses cameras in the field, for reportage, streets and so. Just like a Leica often was a part of pro photographers bag alongside a SLR - especially on war reportages and so. 

And if lenses in some way are interchangeable between lager and smaller cameras - that will be great, but is is probably not mandatory. On a small FF camera, you will probably mount lenses between 28 mm and 135mm - otherwise they are not small anymore....

In this case EF mount will still be here as long a the "pro-size" bodies exist. EF-M and EF-X mount will be for the smaller systems. And EF-S will be history.


----------



## BillB (Aug 1, 2018)

If Canon does go with a new mount for a mirrorless camera, what lenses could benefit most from being designed to make use of the new mount? One obvious possibility would be the normal zoom, especially if designed with a slowish variable aperture. Another possibility might be an ultra wide zoom with the same aperture constraints. But what other zooms could there be that would benefit from the new mount?

There might be some primes that could benefit from the new mount, but how many people are there in the real world who are going to make a substantial buying decision based on the availability of primes smaller than the 24, 28, 35mm EF trinity or the 50mm 1.8?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> If Canon does go with a new mount for a mirrorless camera, what lenses could benefit most from being designed to make use of the new mount? One obvious possibility would be the normal zoom, especially if designed with a slowish variable aperture. Another possibility might be an ultra wide zoom with the same aperture constraints. But what other zooms could there be that would benefit from the new mount?



In short, every slow zoom could get smaller because the mirror has gone poof. Heretofore f/5.6 was the slowest max aperture EF allowed (third parties broke this rule, but not Canon) so that every lens worked on every EF/EF-S body. With the mirror gone, that rule has been tempered to f/6.3, which we've seen on EF-M and the betting man might expect to see that for an FF lens or two.

It's also possible that Canon could the AF to work (in general, not just at a few AF points) at f/8 max aperture, which could be a very big deal for miniaturizing really long FL zooms: imagine a budget plasticky 200-600mm f/6.3 - 8.0 IS STM lens that you could still screw 77mm filters into! 

- A


----------



## BillB (Aug 1, 2018)

A big part of Canon's small mirrorless camera strategy is the EOS M line. It asks the question of how much a full frame sensor is worth if you want small. Sony and Nikon hope that enough people think that a fullframe sensor is worth paying for. 

Then there is the current Canon package of dual pixel sensor technology, the Canon touchscreen interface, and a fully articulated rear screen, along with with all those EF lenses. Every Canon FF mirrorless camera will come with that package. So, Canon's smallest mirrorless camera isn't going to be just about small. 

Speaking for myself, having used the 5DIV touchscreen interface, smaller wouldn't be enough for me to give up that interface, and I am not sure there is anything that would be. For Canon, almost as small could be good enough, especially with the other jaw of the vice being the EOS M line.


----------



## BillB (Aug 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> In short, every slow zoom could get smaller because the mirror has gone poof. Heretofore f/5.6 was the slowest max aperture EF allowed (third parties broke this rule, but not Canon) so that every lens worked on every EF/EF-S body. With the mirror gone, that rule has been tempered to f/6.3, which we've seen on EF-M and the betting man might expect to see that for an FF lens or two.
> 
> It's also possible that Canon could the AF to work (in general, not just at a few AF points) at f/8 max aperture, which could be a very big deal for miniaturizing really long FL zooms: imagine a budget plasticky 200-600mm f/6.3 - 8.0 IS STM lens that you could still screw 77mm filters into!
> 
> - A



So why would Canon need the new mount for the slower zooms, and why would the AF constraints apply to the sensor based AF of a mirrorless camera?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> There might be some primes that could benefit from the new mount, but how many people are there in the real world who are going to make a substantial buying decision based on the availability of primes smaller than the 24, 28, 35mm EF trinity or the 50mm 1.8?



The keep it small camp exists and I contend has larger numbers than this (presumably bigger SLR using) forum would concede. Paging FullAvTvMStop for their thoughts on the size of the rig.

Also: Social media mavens, IG jockeys, travelers, etc.
Also: Kids stepping up from their Sony RX100 and Fuji X100 rigs, etc. 
Also: Folks like us who love their 6D, 5D, etc. but wouldn't mind a smaller option -- but will not stomach a return to crop and will not pay a mint for a fixed lens FF rig.
Also: Folks who want to dabble with competitive/older lenses. (I, for one, might really enjoy shooting that Nikon 28mm f/1.4.)
Also: Astro or landscape folks who don't give a damn about ergonomics (as the camera lives on a tripod) and they just want to pack small.

My only must with FF mirrorless is a chunky grip for reasons I've already alluded to -- there's really no reason not to:

​
But I see value in a full EF mount and I see value in a thin mount.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> So why would Canon need the new mount for the slower zooms, and why would the AF constraints apply to the sensor based AF of a mirrorless camera?



Technically they don't need the new mount to do this, correct. But if they offered an EF mount lens with an f/6.3 or f/8 max aperture, it wouldn't work on all EF cameras and Canon is consistently against that. The mere _existence_ of that lens would create a 'EF for SLR' and 'EF for mirrorless' compatibility and naming problem. That's an icky proposition to simple, consistent Canon.

Canon would sooner just rise the tide for all boats and allow f/6.3 EF SLR lenses to exist, and they still (apparently) refuse to do that in 2018.

- A


----------



## BillB (Aug 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Technically they don't need the new mount to do this, correct. But if they offered an EF mount lens with an f/6.3 or f/8 max aperture, it wouldn't work on all EF cameras and Canon is consistently against that. The mere _existence_ of that lens would create a 'EF for SLR' and 'EF for mirrorless' compatibility and naming problem. That's an icky proposition to simple, consistent Canon.
> 
> Canon would sooner just rise the tide for all boats and allow f/6.3 EF SLR lenses to exist, and they still (apparently) refuse to do that in 2018.
> 
> - A



Well, it might create an issue for someone using an OVF, but at this point I am not sure that Canon makes a camera without Liveview and we have been talking about Canon FF mirrorless models with EF mounts (and I don't think there is any way a lens with a new mount is going to be adaptable to a camera with an EF mount). So we shall see what Canon does. Or not.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> Well, it might create an issue for someone using an OVF, but at this point I am not sure that Canon makes a camera without Liveview and we have been talking about Canon FF mirrorless models with EF mounts (and I don't think there is any way a lens with a new mount is going to be adaptable to a camera with an EF mount). So we shall see what Canon does. Or not.



I could be wrong, but I think the jury already came out on that. Canon's super consistent here.

Canon has considered a world where some kid with a 1300D (2000D?) has to hit a weird button he never uses (LiveView) to get his lens's AF to work, and they (likely correctly) don't want anything to do with that.

Because if they did -- if there was _any _wiggle room to allow this -- we'd have had a 150-600 f/6.3 IS STM zoom a long time ago. This single hard and fast rule is absolutely killing them on this end of the lens portfolio, and the only one holding them back is themselves. I read that as a clear tell that this rule isn't going away, at least not for EF/EF-S mount glass.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 1, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> In short, every slow zoom could get smaller because the mirror has gone poof. Heretofore f/5.6 was the slowest max aperture EF allowed (third parties broke this rule, but not Canon) so that every lens worked on every EF/EF-S body. With the mirror gone, that rule has been tempered to f/6.3, which we've seen on EF-M and the betting man might expect to see that for an FF lens or two.
> 
> - A



Presumably that has not to do with the mount but with the configuration of the PDAF unit. What apertures they require for focus on a full frame mirrorless will be related to the DPAF configuration.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Presumably that has not to do with the mount but with the configuration of the PDAF unit. What apertures they require for focus on a full frame mirrorless will be related to the DPAF configuration.



Absolutely. You could have f/6.3 max aperture lenses with an EF mount spacing, but not necessary using a standard SLR focusing setup. Lose the mirror, pull info from the sensor and f/6.3 max aperture lenses are fine. They are doing this right now on EF-M.

I'm simply contending that the combination of [FF mirrorless with a Full EF mount] + [new EF lenses with f/6.3 max aperture] are problematic because of all the other EF mounts that are not mirrorless that are out there. 

But the times they are a changin'. What used to be a premium thing -- f/8 AF points -- are now on almost all new cameras. Canon might get to the point where enough cameras have f/8 AF points that they finally cave and start offering slower max aperture lenses for EF/EF-S, but I guess they aren't there yet. I just checked: the 800D Rebel has a boatload of f/8 AF points, but the entry level 2000D is still stuck with f/5.6.

Paging Neuro, our resident AF nerd in chief, to shed some light on this.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2018)

No need, you've nailed it.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 2, 2018)

As an aside: Does going to mirrorless in any way enable sync speeds faster than 1/250? I know the (focal-plane) shutter is the limit with SLRs.

Jim


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2018)

Jim Saunders said:


> As an aside: Does going to mirrorless in any way enable sync speeds faster than 1/250? I know the (focal-plane) shutter is the limit with SLRs.
> 
> Jim


Currently no, most electronic shutters read slower than the mechanical shutters move.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 2, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Currently no, most electronic shutters read slower than the mechanical shutters move.



Ok thank you; I guess I'll have to save up for either one of those Fujis or something medium format if I can get over this attachment to both of my kidneys.

Jim


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Paging FullAvTvMStop for their thought







Unless I’m mistaken, it’s now paging AVTVMFULLSTOPMIRAGE


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

Jim Saunders said:


> Ok thank you; I guess I'll have to save up for either one of those Fujis or something medium format if I can get over this attachment to both of my kidneys.
> Jim



Yep. All the fixed lens larger sensored rigs have crazy fast sync speed leaf shutters to my knowledge: Fuji X100 series, Leica Q, Sony RX1R series, etc.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Unless I’m mistaken, it’s now paging AVTVMFULLSTOPMIRAGE



I do believe you're correct. 

Maybe he's trying to create the 'millions of people his opinions represent', one person at a time.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 2, 2018)

i don't expect Canon to bring EF-X lenses slower than f/5.6. at least not during the first few years. 

16-35/4, 24-80/4, 24-105/4, 16/2.0, 24/2.0, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/2.4, 105/2.0 would be the first EF-X lenses i would consider. All of them could be made more compact than the EF versions.

i see 3 ways for Canon to really make their FF MILC system standout from the start:

1) really smart AI implementation of DP-AF; automatic recognition and superior tracking of moving subject - way beyond any EOS DSLR AF ... make "AI-AF" mode really work as advertised

2) eye control AF - smart implementation using 2018 Hardware and software capabilities, combined with 1) AI-AF and Face/Eye/subject recognition .. eg. camera AF frames 3 persons or 5 birds or 2 lions or whatever visible in frame - user looks at the subject to be selected and double blinks to confirm, camera AI AF takes things from there ... and tracks, no matter what!

3) FF BSI DP-AF sensors with global shutter, total elimination of last moving mech unit (shutter) from camera. X-Sync at any shutter speed. no vibrations, no noise, no xsync limits.

good and fairly priced EF-X lenses as listed (and EF adapter of course) plus compact camera body/ies with the 3 features combined would give Canon instant and total dominance in FF MILCs.

Sony's market share would be cut in half in first year already. Nikon FF MILC system would be still-born.

but ... i doubt "innovative Canon" will be able to pull it off.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2018)

Is that all? Hell Harryfilm could probably hack the firmware of a mid-2000s Rebel using a USB cable and an HP48 calculator and get all that to work.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 2, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Currently no, most electronic shutters read slower than the mechanical shutters move.



E-shutters might (hopefully in short order) be able to achieve speeds faster than a mechanical shutter. The E-M1 Mk.1 had a sensor readout of 1/13 and the E-M1 Mk.2 had a sensor readout of 1/60. The A7R3 has a sensor readout of 1/30 and the Sony A9 has a sensor readout of 1/160. A mechanical FP shutter moves approx. at 1/300. I believe manufacturers might be able to optimize existing rolling shutter performance within a release cycle or two without actually needing to move to a global shutter which would have substantial frame rate/read noise penalties.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> E-shutters might (hopefully in short order) be able to achieve speeds faster than a mechanical shutter. The E-M1 Mk.1 had a sensor readout of 1/13 and the E-M1 Mk.2 had a sensor readout of 1/60. The A7R3 has a sensor readout of 1/30 and the Sony A9 has a sensor readout of 1/160. A mechanical FP shutter moves approx. at 1/300. I believe manufacturers might be able to optimize existing rolling shutter performance within a release cycle or two without actually needing to move to a global shutter which would have substantial frame rate/read noise penalties.



Yah it will get there sooner or later. In the semiconductor world, 4K global readout at 300FPS is already available in an off-the-shelf product (albeit at 10-bit).


----------



## fullstop (Aug 2, 2018)

If I am not mistaken, some of the Fuji X-cameras have electronic shutter with exposure times as short as 1/32.000s. "innovative Canon" may simply not be innovative enough.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> If I am not mistaken, some of the Fuji X-cameras have electronic shutter with exposure times as short as 1/32.000s. "innovative Canon" may simply not be innovative enough.



And Sony has an e shutter with an exposure time of 1/32000, but that’s not what we are talking about.

Canon had a mechanical shutter with 1/16000, but it would sync at 1/500 (which is beyond any other camera I can think of).


----------



## fullstop (Aug 2, 2018)

Why not? E-shutter. 1/32000s. It's real. And I don't care at all for rolling shutter in video, since I never capture video. All them video guys shall go buy real video cams. 

Actually, I'd be fine with an e-shutter with 1/4000s and X-Sync all the way. Where I shoot and with my puny "moderate aperture" lenses, I have never encountered enough light for 1/32.000s. Actually I think it would take a close-range nuclear blast at ISO 100 and f/5.6.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Why not? E-shutter. 1/32000s. It's real. And I don't care at all for rolling shutter in video, since I never capture video. All them video guys shall go buy real video cams.
> 
> Actually, I'd be fine with an e-shutter with 1/4000s and X-Sync all the way. Where I shoot and with my puny "moderate aperture" lenses, I have never encountered enough light for 1/32.000s. Actually I think it would take a close-range nuclear blast at ISO 100 and f/5.6.



Why not what? Why isn’t minimum exposure time what we’re taking about? Because that wasn’t the question asked. It was:



Jim Saunders said:


> Does going to mirrorless in any way enable sync speeds faster than 1/250?



Ultimately, faster than 1/250 sync may come out of mirrorless development, so the answer might be yes (although it would be due to sensor technology, not due to a mirror or lack thereof).

As far as any current mirrorless camera I’m aware of goes, the answer is no. The rated sync speed for the Fuji and Sony is 1/250, and I believe it’s limited to their mechanical shutters but I’m not certain.

Note, although the A9 enables 1/32000 sec exposure durations, it takes it about 1/160 of a second to read the shutter, which it does line by line. A flash lasting less than 1/160 will be incompatible with the real e-shutter in innovative sony’s bestest mirrorless camera, which is a heck of a long way from the 1/4000 you’d be “fine with.”


----------



## Kit. (Aug 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Why not? E-shutter. 1/32000s. It's real.


They are talking about flash sync.



fullstop said:


> And I don't care at all for rolling shutter in video, since I never capture video. All them video guys shall go buy real video cams.


It looks like you are taking it backwards. Rolling shutter in videos only causes artifacts at freeze frames, while every photo _is_ a sort of video freeze frame.



fullstop said:


> Actually, I'd be fine with


Who cares?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 2, 2018)

don't see why an electronic shutter today should not be able to X-Sync all the way down to the shortest exposure time, including 1/32.000 sec. No idea why Sony and Fuji still put mech shutters in addition to electronic shutters into their MILCs. Especially when mech shutters only cause problems like unwanted vibrations, unwanted noise and unwanted limits on X-Sync speed.

Probably those mech shutters are soleley in there to avoid rolling shutter, especially during video capture.


ah yes: who cares? Stupid question. I do! That's more than enough. But I don't care, whether you care or not.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> don't see why an electronic shutter today should not be able to X-Sync all the way down to the shortest exposure time, including 1/32.000 sec. No idea why Sony and Fuji still put mech shutters in addition to electronic shutters into their MILCs. Especially when mech shutters only cause problems like unwanted vibrations, unwanted noise and unwanted limits on X-Sync speed.
> 
> Probably those mech shutters are soleley in there to avoid rolling shutter, especially during video capture.
> 
> ...



As has been described above, it is not technologically possible - but it seems to be another case of you ignoring reality. When we have a true global-electronic-shutter yes, faster sync speeds will be possible.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> don't see why an electronic shutter today should not be able to X-Sync all the way down to the shortest exposure time, including 1/32.000 sec.



Go up two posts from yours. It takes about 1/160 s to read out the shutter from top to bottom (A9), regardless of the exposure duration. Getting it to read that fast took stacked DRAM sensor architecture; the A7 series is down around 1/30 s or slower. Getting one to read in 1/32000 s would be amazing, but it’s beyond the state of the art.

Reference: https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/how-fast-is-the-sony-a9-electronic-shutter/


----------



## fullstop (Aug 2, 2018)

1/500s sync speed was already possible with electronic shutters more than 10 years ago, and even in entry level mirrorslpappers, eg. Nikon D40. 
So why should an X-Snc speed of 1/32000 not be "technically possible" in 2018?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 1/500s sync speed was already possible with electronic shutters more than 10 years ago,


The d40 has a CCD with global readout. It is unlike the CMOS sensor as in most modern cameras.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 2, 2018)

aha! yes. thx.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 3, 2018)

Canon has a global shutter CMOS in its c700 (but you have to choose between that and DPAF). Sony has a global shutter CMOS in the F55. I wonder how long until such sensors are adapted for stills/hybrid cameras. Conventional wisdom is that they’re too expensive, but CMOSIS offers one, full frame and 8k nonetheless, for $5400. Sony Semicon, with its massive production, ought to be able to compete with that (note you don’t need a large order quantity to get that price from CMOSIS).


----------



## Kit. (Aug 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Canon has a global shutter CMOS in its c700 (but you have to choose between that and DPAF). Sony has a global shutter CMOS in the F55. I wonder how long until such sensors are adapted for stills/hybrid cameras. Conventional wisdom is that they’re too expensive, but CMOSIS offers one, full frame and 8k nonetheless, for $5400. Sony Semicon, with its massive production, ought to be able to compete with that (note you don’t need a large order quantity to get that price from CMOSIS).


Global shutters reduce the DR at the native ISO by up to 1 EV.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 3, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Global shutters reduce the DR at the native ISO by up to 1 EV.


Necessarily? Or is that just a trend you’ve seen?

Either way, for those wanting faster sync, it would likely be a reasonable trade.


----------



## hollybush (Aug 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Why not? E-shutter. 1/32000s. It's real. And I don't care at all for rolling shutter in video, since I never capture video.



Rolling shutter is a problem in stills as well. For example, older cameras with 1/60s sync used to quite badly distort moving balls (I think there's a famous _Life_ magazine photo). The limit of acceptability is somewhere between there and the current standard 1/250s. This would be why Sony still includes a mechanical shutter with the α9.

It's quite possible that Canon had intended to wait until the mechanical shutter was superfluous before introducing mirrorless, but had their hand forced by the market.

And yes, there is reduced image quality from the α9 when using the electronic shutter.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Necessarily?


Yes, as you need to split your "electron well" into two: one to capture those photoelectrons when "the shutter is open" and one to store them for digitization when "the shutter is closed". For each pixel.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 3, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Yes, as you need to split your "electron well" into two: one to capture those photoelectrons when "the shutter is open" and one to store them for digitization when "the shutter is closed". For each pixel.


Thanks, that makes general sense. Still, if you’re looking for high sync speeds, you’re by definition lighting the scene so DR /and native ISO aren’t substantially concerning, so the trade may be worthwhile.

Also, I just went down a rabbit hole:

IEEE has a paper titled “A 100dB dynamic range CMOS image sensor with global shutter.” The prototype has fairly big pixels (10micron^2), but uses sample-and-hold with correlated calibration to significantly reduce noise.

It does use separate per-pixel wells like you’ve described (one for the PD, which is amplified and then stored in a sample and hold well before readout). It mentions another implementation: skimming (a term introduced in another paper, “CMOS Image Sensor with NMOS-only Global Shutter and Enhanced Responsivity”). The latter paper is stretching my understanding of the technology (I’m not an EE), but it seems to improve efficiency by decoupling the capacitance of the PD from the conversion. The shutter never entirely closes, and when reset closes, the voltage across the PD remains while discharge occurs to the sense node, allowing a gain in responsivity.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Also, I just went down a rabbit hole:
> 
> IEEE has a paper titled “A 100dB dynamic range CMOS image sensor with global shutter.” The prototype has fairly big pixels (10micron^2), but uses sample-and-hold with correlated calibration to significantly reduce noise.


"Logarithmic architecture pixel"? A nice idea for a continuous light source, but may lead to unpredictable color shifts when using flash.

And the pixels, yes, are quite big.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Canon have long put a lot of faith in what the professionals tell them that they (the pros) need in a camera - IMO they have at times done that to the seeming detriment of the general user but overall it has been successful. I see no reason for them to shift dramatically from that approach when it has served them so well - unless the twitterati complaints about the 6D2 has psychologically scarred them. And Canon have already publicly acknowledged that they cannot ignore the 135million EF lenses out there - and the pros do not want to see their EF lenses looking like they will be write-offs in 3-4 years. A simple adapter looks like a band aid solution and will send the message that the new mount is the future and all those EF lenses are on the way out.
> 
> I agree with ahsanford's reference to a "one-time bolus of sales" - it is easy to forget that a company like Canon needs to consider what happens once that pent up demand has gone, the dust has settled and people return to that mundane 'let's get out and take photographs' mentality. They then subconciously absorb what it all means - rather like those who went to Sony with all the excitement of the new technology then realised months later that what they actually miss is the simple interface and the fact their old Canon gear 'just works'.
> 
> So when a company like Canon has built their strategy on what pros would like to see, the proposal of some that it will be a new mount with EF as a design afterthought will be a massive leap in the dark. If it fails, is it because it is not EF or because they did not get the mirrorless component right? And unravelling that will be a nightmare amongst the self-important shitstorm that social media tends to generate.



The problem Canon has with building their strategy on what pros want is that the number of true full-time pros is dwindling dramatically and swiftly into a number so small that it will not be sufficient to support their past business model in this respect. The well-to-do amateur enthusiast market has been propping up Canon's lines of pro bodies and lenses for years. As long as those customers accept/agree with what the pros say they want it will continue to work.

But a point will eventually come when what happens in the blog/social media/rumors/twitter/reviewers more interested in clicks than in quality content (TN... cough cough... Fro)/IG sphere will outweigh, in the minds of _buyers,_ what the 'Explorers of Light', highly respected PJs, and their ilk think.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> You seem treat this decision as if Canon was a startup with a clean slate. It is not.
> 
> You forgot that EF has one epic advantage over EF-X. *EF lenses already exist and folks already own them*. So there _absolutely_ is value in a full EF mount mirrorless: it would be seamless to their SLR experience, not require an adaptor, and not require additional spending on lenses.
> 
> ...



Or to put it more succinctly: *If Canon indicates that EF is a lame duck mount, most of their customers will have absolutely zero reason to stick with Canon when choosing their next mount.*

Canon rolled the dice once back in 1987, and ultimately it proved to be the right move as the new EF mount and lens based USM allowed performance doing Sports/Action that Nikon's all-mechanical connection at the time could not even pretend to come close to matching.

If Canon chooses to so much as hint that they will 'abandon' the EF mount, they better have something else just as revolutionary up their sleeve as the EF mount+USM was in the early 1990s or it will be a disaster of epic proportions.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> In short, every slow zoom could get smaller because the mirror has gone poof. Heretofore f/5.6 was the slowest max aperture EF allowed (third parties broke this rule, but not Canon) so that every lens worked on every EF/EF-S body. With the mirror gone, that rule has been tempered to f/6.3, which we've seen on EF-M and the betting man might expect to see that for an FF lens or two.
> 
> It's also possible that Canon could the AF to work (in general, not just at a few AF points) at f/8 max aperture, which could be a very big deal for miniaturizing really long FL zooms: imagine a budget plasticky 200-600mm f/6.3 - 8.0 IS STM lens that you could still screw 77mm filters into!
> 
> - A



Canon has broken the f/5.6 rule plenty of times, they just didn't/don't call those lenses what they actually were/are:

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS slower than f/5.6 at every focal length longer than about 85mm. Every focal length past 200mm is f/6.7 or slower. 

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II is slower than f/5.6 anywhere past around 235mm and tops out at f/6.3 at 400mm.

EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 passed f/5.6 at 140mm and was f/6.4 at 300mm.

There are plenty of other examples. Maybe the "f/5.6 rule" was really always the "less than f/8 rule?"


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 6, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon has broken the f/5.6 rule plenty of times, they just didn't/don't call those lenses what they actually were/are:
> 
> EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS slower than f/5.6 at every focal length longer than about 85mm. Every focal length past 200mm is f/6.7 or slower.
> 
> ...



From an AF perspective, geometry matters, not transmissibility. When you say “slower,” speed is implied, so do you mean t-stop? Or did you actually measure the aperture diameter?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> From an AF perspective, geometry matters, not transmissibility. When you say “slower,” speed is implied, so do you mean t-stop? Or did you actually measure the aperture diameter?


My question also. Most people seem to erroneously believe that the f-number limitation for AF systems/points is about the amount of light available, rather than the necessary baseline for phase separation.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 6, 2018)

Agreed. From a light gathering perspective, very few lenses have T-stops exactly equal to their F-stop. That would mean 100% optical transmission. Elements do absorb/reflect/etc a very small amount of light. So, very few (any?) f/5.6 lenses are letting the same amount of light through as if there was no glass in the lens, just the iris. 

I have assumed that Canon bakes in a certain inefficiency. This is really about how much light the PDAF system needs to efficiently do its job. We know from third party lenses that it can function with less light than f/5.6. But, it really does get down to, my understanding, speed, accuracy, etc. 

It is a pity, as I do not think they even do them any more, but Popular Photography magazine used to test PDAF speed at different EV levels of light. Speed really falls off as less light is hitting the sensors. I have to assume less light allowed by the lens has a similar effect, perhaps a few others as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2018)

The AF point requirement (e.g. an f/5.6 AF point vs. an f/2.8 AF point) really has nothing to do with the amount of light. Pumping 4x or 40x more light through an f/5.6 lens won’t activate an f/2.8 AF point, and you could illuminate the scene in front of an f/11 lens (e.g. 400/5.6 with a 2x TC) with the light towers from Fenway Park placed 5 meters from your subject, and the f/5.6 or f/8 AF still won’t work.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2018)

The question, of course, is when Canon might change it's 'EF/EF-S lens mandate' for f/5.6 now that AF technology has evolved a bit. I believe every current-gen SLR other than the 2000D has f/8 AF points today.

Any chance Canon risks p---ing off folks with older bodies to make a 150-600 f/6.3 IS STM happen at a far cheaper cost than an f/5.6 version? That could be the critical difference between a competitive $1500 lens and a 'there goes Canon again' $2500 lens.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Aug 6, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The AF point requirement (e.g. an f/5.6 AF point vs. an f/2.8 AF point) really has nothing to do with the amount of light. Pumping 4x or 40x more light through an f/5.6 lens won’t activate an f/2.8 AF point, and you could illuminate the scene in front of an f/11 lens (e.g. 400/5.6 with a 2x TC) with the light towers from Fenway Park placed 5 meters from your subject, and the f/5.6 or f/8 AF still won’t work.



I hadn't been thinking of it in that way, triggering the f/2.8 sensors. I had more been thinking of it in terms of that there is a measurable consequence of having less light hit the same AF sensor whether it be f/2.8 or F/5.6. 

But, now that you mention it, any thoughts on differences other than light hitting the AF sensor that would trigger the f/2.8 sensor over a f/5.6 sensor? Quantity and direction of light are the physical things I can think of, but direction would be more a function of focal length than aperture leaving light intensity as the primary difference off the top of my head. So, what does trigger the f/2.8 sensor if it isn't light intensity? Genuinely curious (thesis not required  ).


----------



## docsmith (Aug 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The question, of course, is when Canon might change it's 'EF/EF-S lens mandate' for f/5.6 now that AF technology has evolved a bit. I believe every current-gen SLR other than the 2000D has f/8 AF points today.
> 
> Any chance Canon risks p---ing off folks with older bodies to make a 150-600 f/6.3 IS STM happen at a far cheaper cost than an f/5.6 version? That could be the critical difference between a competitive $1500 lens and a 'there goes Canon again' $2500 lens.
> 
> - A


They already have EF-m lenses that go to f/6.3. So the easy answer would be yes, I can see it. Especially for the EF-s lenses. I wonder how far Canon would take it? EF-m: already there. EF-s, sure, not that different than EF-m; EF (non-L)---maybe, this is where it gets interesting, but I am going to say yes, for a super tele zoom; EF "L" lens--I am thinking this is where the line gets drawn. I would be surprised to see a EF "L" lens above f/5.6 max aperture.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Genuinely curious (thesis not required  ).



Neuro dips his toes into this in his 'thesis' here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/canon-eos-dslr-autofocus-explained.aspx
​_Generally, an aperture value is associated with an AF line sensor. The terminology usually used is "f/number-sensitive", e.g, you may have an f/5.6-sensitive line sensor, or an f/2.8-sensitive line sensor. The f/number refers to the maximum aperture of the lens, because AF is performed with the lens wide open (i.e. the aperture you choose for the shot does not matter, only the max aperture of the lens). The use of 'sensitivity' in this context implies that light levels matter, because that's what we think of when we normally use f/numbers. In this case, though, a wider aperture simply means a wider baseline for the rangefinder system is required for that line to function. Personally, I think better terminology might be to use threshold instead of sensitivity, so an f/2.8-threshold line would require an f/2.8 lens to function, and if you mounted an f/4 lens, that sensor line would not operate. An f/5.6-threshold sensor would work with any lens having a max aperture of f/5.6 or wider._​​_Note that these thresholds are not absolute - a lens with a narrower aperture than the threshold might still work, but at reduced effectiveness, accuracy, and speed. Thus, Canon limits the functionality to the rated aperture for a given AF sensor. However, some third party lenses (e.g. Tamron and Sigma zooms with a max aperture of f/6.3 at the long end) effectively trick the AF system into thinking there's an f/5.6 lens attached. Likewise, although not condoned by Canon, it is possible to use tape to block some of the contacts on a Canon 1.4x extender used with an f/5.6 lens, resulting in the camera attempting to autofocus with an f/8 lens on bodies which are limited to f/5.6. Sometimes, it even works..._​​_All EOS bodies have f/5.6-sensitive sensors, and thus will work with any Canon EF or EF-S lens. Some 1-series bodies have an f/8-sensitive sensor at the center AF point, enabling them to autofocus (properly, and with official support) with an f/5.6 lens plus 1.4x extender or an f/4 lens plus 2x extender - a significant benefit for users of supertelephoto lenses. Notably, that feature is not included in the specification for the 1D X, which is limited to f/5.6 lenses for autofocus._​​_An f/2.8 sensor line is more accurate than an f/5.6 sensor line - the wider the aperture threshold, the wider the rangefinder baseline for triangulation and thus, the more accurate the measurement of focus. However, the wider the aperture, the fewer lenses that work with that aperture (and the more expensive those lenses are), and also, the detection range of f/2.8 sensors is narrower, meaning it may take longer for an f/2.8 line to achieve a focus lock when a subject is well out of focus. As a result, AF systems will usually focus in two steps when possible - 'coarse' focus with an f/5.6 line, then 'fine' focus with an f/2.8 line._​
- A


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 6, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The AF point requirement (e.g. an f/5.6 AF point vs. an f/2.8 AF point) really has nothing to do with the amount of light. Pumping 4x or 40x more light through an f/5.6 lens won’t activate an f/2.8 AF point, and you could illuminate the scene in front of an f/11 lens (e.g. 400/5.6 with a 2x TC) with the light towers from Fenway Park placed 5 meters from your subject, and the f/5.6 or f/8 AF still won’t work.



Or is that because the camera tells the lens it is set at f2.8 and the camera is programmed to say 'I don't care howmuch light there is I ain't doing it'. You only need to see older bodies that AF max a f5.6 - put a third party 1.4x tc on a Canon f5.6 lens and it will AF (or at least try), put a Canon 1.4xtc on the same lens and it will refuse to even try. 
In other words Canon want the AF to work in all cases, not 'it will work if there is enough light' because the 'enough light'becomes a wide variable. If Canon has defined 'normal'lighting conditions then the user know that if it is at f2.8 it will AF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Or is that because the camera tells the lens it is set at f2.8 and the camera is programmed to say 'I don't care howmuch light there is I ain't doing it'. You only need to see older bodies that AF max a f5.6 - put a third party 1.4x tc on a Canon f5.6 lens and it will AF (or at least try), put a Canon 1.4xtc on the same lens and it will refuse to even try.
> In other words Canon want the AF to work in all cases, not 'it will work if there is enough light' because the 'enough light'becomes a wide variable. If Canon has defined 'normal'lighting conditions then the user know that if it is at f2.8 it will AF.


Once again, it's not about the amount of light. Say it with me..."It's not about the amount of light."

Yes, Canon limits it by firmware to f/5.6 for the appropriate 'width' of the light cone falling on the PDAF sensor. 3rd party/non-reporting TCs (and Canon TCs with pins taped) often fail to deliver reliable AF.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 8, 2018)

I came late to this thread and didn't have time to read all postings. Turning to the original post, I'd say that DSLR sales will smoothly decline and ML rise as we can see today. But there will be a certain threshold when the elaborate mechanics of an advanced SLR will be so costly to produce that the prize of such cameras will substantially rise and they may end as a niche product such as Leica's rangefinders. So I agree with your vinyl market picture.

That said, DSLRs still have advances for some applications: no lag and real world depiction in the viewfinder is one aspect, the other is that you can use the viewfinder without emptying the battery. That's e.g. important for wildlife photography, because you have to observe e.g. a bird's nest many times before something interesting happens and you start shooting. With ML you would have to carry loads of exchange batteries with you, with DSLR much less.

Another advantage is for those who change between digital and chemical photography with classical cameras, because your eye and your imagination keeps to be trained for optical viewfinders.

The size is getting lesser important, since Sony and Leica seem keen to blow up their ML FF models to finally beat the dimensions of SLRs with the next generations. Well, e.g. in Arabian countries people are more impressed by bigger cameras (and cars), so it may also be market driven, not only by in-built 10-axis gyro satellite link stabilization stuff ...


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The AF point requirement (e.g. an f/5.6 AF point vs. an f/2.8 AF point) really has nothing to do with the amount of light. Pumping 4x or 40x more light through an f/5.6 lens won’t activate an f/2.8 AF point, and you could illuminate the scene in front of an f/11 lens (e.g. 400/5.6 with a 2x TC) with the light towers from Fenway Park placed 5 meters from your subject, and the f/5.6 or f/8 AF still won’t work.



You are correct that the geometry has nothing to do with the amount of light, but you can bet your sweet you-know-what that the S/N ratio on the PDAF sensor is affected by the amount of light for any given geometry-limited AF line pair.

Thus Chuck Westfall's often cited quotes that 'One Shot' AF using a longer sampling period than 'AI Servo' as the reason 'One Shot' can AF in up to two stops lower light than 'AI Servo' on the same camera with the same lens can. In dwindling light eventually noise overcomes signal and the PDAF sensor no longer provides any meaningful information, no matter how wide the baseline is. If there's a wider than f/2.8 lens on the camera but there's not enough light to be able to differentiate the signal from the noise on the PDAF sensor, the geometry doesn't do anything.

As has been oft discussed in the past, Canon's "f/5.6" AF points often work, sometimes even rather well, with lenses having maximum apertures somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8. Particularly if those lenses are used in bright light. Which might lead one to conclude that the "f/5.6 geometry" is really much closer to "almost but not quite f/8 geometry."


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> From an AF perspective, geometry matters, not transmissibility. When you say “slower,” speed is implied, so do you mean t-stop? Or did you actually measure the aperture diameter?



Since the difference between f-number and T-stop with those lenses often varies widely from one focal length to another, the difference between f-number and T-stop can not be fully explained by transmission loss. It seems that the actual entrance pupil size does not grow at the same rate with the 28-300mm from, for example, 70mm to 100mm as it does from 35mm to 70mm.




As with all variable aperture zoom lenses, the size of the entrance pupil, as magnified by the optical elements between the aperture diaphragm and the front of the lens, is not keeping up with the focal length as it is zoomed to longer focal lengths. Yet at certain points in the zoom range of these lenses they seem to "make up" some of the loss. If it was all transmission loss one would expect the difference between f-number and T-stop to be constant and the above graph would be flat lines for each of the lenses. Link to lens comparison at DxO Mark. As always, ignore the "number scores" and go to the actual measured data by clicking on 'Measurements' and then 'Transmission'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> You are correct that the geometry has nothing to do with the amount of light, but you can bet your sweet you-know-what that the S/N ratio on the PDAF sensor is affected by the amount of light for any given geometry-limited AF line pair.
> 
> Thus Chuck Westfall's often cited quotes that 'One Shot' AF using a longer sampling period than 'AI Servo' as the reason 'One Shot' can AF in up to two stops lower light than 'AI Servo' on the same camera with the same lens can. In dwindling light eventually noise overcomes signal and the PDAF sensor no longer provides any meaningful information, no matter how wide the baseline is. If there's a wider than f/2.8 lens on the camera but there's not enough light to be able to differentiate the signal from the noise on the PDAF sensor, the geometry doesn't do anything.
> 
> As has been oft discussed in the past, Canon's "f/5.6" AF points often work, sometimes even rather well, with lenses having maximum apertures somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8. Particularly if those lenses are used in bright light. Which might lead one to conclude that the "f/5.6 geometry" is really much closer to "almost but not quite f/8 geometry."


Of course the light level ultimately limits AF functionality. But the line sensors are quite sensitive. Past discussions made much of some cameras' ability to AF at -3 EV vs. -2 EV, but an example of that difference is f/2.8, 1/15 s, ISO 51200 vs. 102400. Even with older/cheaper AF sensors only sensitive down to -0.5 EV, the illumination at which light sensitivity becomes limiting is still so dim as to yield images of poor (for many, unacceptable) technical quality. 

Also, in reference to the earlier discussion point, although the camera will prevent AF based on the geometry limitation of aperture, it will not do so when light levels are limiting. In other words, a camera with f/5.6 AF points will not AF when an f/8 lens is mounted, but if you try focusing with an f/5.6 lens in an unlit coal mine it will hunt for focus in the darkness.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Since the difference between f-number and T-stop with those lenses often varies widely from one focal length to another, the difference between f-number and T-stop can not be fully explained by transmission loss. It seems that the actual entrance pupil size does not grow at the same rate with the 28-300mm from, for example, 70mm to 100mm as it does from 35mm to 70mm.
> 
> View attachment 179591
> 
> ...


At their worst, the deltas are less than 2/3-stop, and generally less than 1/2-stop. Keep in mind that lens specifications are rounded to the nearest incremental value, and that rounding is almost always in favor of the manufacturer. For example, the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 might actually be something like 29.6-291.3mm f/3.72-5.87.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 9, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Since the difference between f-number and T-stop with those lenses often varies widely from one focal length to another, the difference between f-number and T-stop can not be fully explained by transmission loss. It seems that the actual entrance pupil size does not grow at the same rate with the 28-300mm from, for example, 70mm to 100mm as it does from 35mm to 70mm.
> 
> View attachment 179591
> 
> ...



That’s all very interesting, but my inquiry was to the application of lens speed (introduced by the term “slower”) as it pertains to specified compatibility with the line sensors and their spacing.

Better stated, when you say canon has broken the rule and various zoom lenses are “slower” than their specified maximum, do you mean that the exit diameter as viewed by the PDAF unit is smaller than f/5.6 would imply because it doesn’t benefit from the magnification of the zoomed geometry? Or did you really mean “slower” to mean that although the light is falling in the right location on the sensors, there isn’t enough of it?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> That’s all very interesting, but my inquiry was to the application of lens speed (introduced by the term “slower”) as it pertains to specified compatibility with the line sensors and their spacing.
> 
> Better stated, when you say canon has broken the rule and various zoom lenses are “slower” than their specified maximum, do you mean that the exit diameter as viewed by the PDAF unit is smaller than f/5.6 would imply because it doesn’t benefit from the magnification of the zoomed geometry? Or did you really mean “slower” to mean that although the light is falling in the right location on the sensors, there isn’t enough of it?



I think it is a bit of both. The entrance pupils appear to vary more than can be accounted for by the change in magnification as the lenses are zoomed. So at some focal lengths the actual entrance pupil seems to be slower than f/5.6 by up to 1/2 to 2/3 stops. Which seems to support what I suggested earlier, based on a lot of user's experience, that the "f/5.6" limit may actually be the "a little less than f/8 limit." In other words, the f/5.6 limited AF points may not actually be cut off, based on their geometry, until a lens is somewhere between f/6.3 or f/7.2 and f/8.

Just for kicks, I can put my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS + 2X TC (non-Canon) on a 5D Mark II and it will AF when pointed at reasonably bright scenes with targets that have decent contrast. It's a bit slow, but no slower than, for example, the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di Macro (about 2 generations back from their current 70-200/2.8) is on the same body.

If I put the same lens + TC on a 7D it won't AF on anything except a bare light bulb on a dark background.

Addendum: The EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS a T-5.0 or slower lens across its entire zoom range. Either the lens' elements absorb/reflect 2/3 stop or some of that loss is due to the entrance pupil not being a true f/4 at any focal length.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Which seems to support what I suggested earlier, based on a lot of user's experience, that the "f/5.6" limit may actually be the "a little less than f/8 limit." In other words, the f/5.6 limited AF points may not actually be cut off, based on their geometry, until a lens is somewhere between f/6.3 or f/7.2 and f/8.


Certainly. From the piece I wrote for TDP several years ago:


> Note that these thresholds are not absolute - a lens with a narrower aperture than the threshold might still work, but at reduced effectiveness, accuracy, and speed. Thus, Canon limits the functionality to the rated aperture for a given AF sensor.


Clearly, the absolute limitation is based in the firmware. This becomes very obvious if you look at the 1D X – at launch, it was limited to f/5.6 for all AF points. Soon there after, Canon released a firmware update allowing AF at f/8 with the center point. I presume that in response to use the requests (previous 1-series cameras had f/8 capability), Canon empirically tested the performance and found it to be acceptable.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 10, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Certainly. From the piece I wrote for TDP several years ago:
> 
> Clearly, the absolute limitation is based in the firmware. This becomes very obvious if you look at the 1D X – at launch, it was limited to f/5.6 for all AF points. Soon there after, Canon released a firmware update allowing AF at f/8 with the center point. I presume that in response to use the requests (previous 1-series cameras had f/8 capability), Canon empirically tested the performance and found it to be acceptable.



The limitation is based in the firmware for many *newer* EOS models. Many older EOS models will try, and sometimes succeed, to AF with f/8 lens + TC combos.

These older models that still try to AF with f/8 lens + TC combinations don't all seem to be trying to fool the camera using the "this is an f/5.6 lens set to f/8 with a manual aperture ring" trick. When the EOS system was launched way back in 1987 it seems there were allowances made for as-yet-to-be-designed tilt-shift lenses to have mechanical aperture rings on the lens. Thus there are two apertures reported by the lens: maximum aperture and current aperture setting.


----------

