# Is a native EF mount coming to a Canon full frame mirrorless camera? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 2, 2018)

> The talk of what mount Canon will use on its first full frame mirrorless camera is likely the biggest question that exists about the new system. We have no heard two different people tell us pretty much identical things on the topic.
> We’re told that there will be a new mirrorless mount for a full frame mirrorless camera, though we weren’t told if it’s a modified version of the EF-M mount or not.
> That’s not all.
> We’ve also been told that there will be a native EF mount full frame mirrorless camera coming as well. In what order these cameras would hit market is unknown.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 2, 2018)

OK. I will wait for the EF mount, SLR style body thank you. Or, maybe it will be the first out of the gate? Getting more interested.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 2, 2018)

Two FF mirrorless...two mounts....

Each niche is filled with a product. 

That actually sounds like Canon.


----------



## Canoneer (Aug 2, 2018)

Producing two distinct lines of mirrorless cameras with different mounts seems like a risky move, but it might be a way to avoid consumer backlash from everyone whose adopted a large collection of EF glass. I suppose the mirrorless EF mount cameras would likely all conform to the 1D body style: integrated vertical grip, high capacity battery, fast and lag-free EVF, weather sealing, and so on. It wouldn't save much weight over a DSLR aside from losing the pentaprism, but throwing in the extra goodies associated with 1D bodies at a competitive price might make it a tempting proposition if you've already amassed a sizable collection of EF lenses.

On the other hand, a separate mirrorless camera line using a modified EF-M mount could conform to the original merits of mirrorless cameras: compact and light weight. The EF-M lenses seem to perform well for being as small and light as they are, and I would expect the full-frame variants to be no different. But a dedicated mirrorless full-frame camera could forego features like weather sealing and extended battery life to keep the size, weight, and cost of the system down if those features are already being satisfied by an EF mirrorless camera line.

I'm skeptical Canon would launch two concurrent full-frame mirrorless systems, but it's an interesting idea.


----------



## MartinF. (Aug 2, 2018)

Well - I know this is a CR1, but it makes perfect sense for me, that Canon will make a compact FF ILC mirrorless with a new mount (EF-X?) (and a adaptor for EF-lenses) and then a DSLR sized mirrorless with a EF mount - and maybe the ability to take the new mount (EF-X?) as well, ex. by moving the sensor forward on detection of such a lens - to reduce flange distance.
This will give Canon the chances to see customer needs, and it will give time to build up a new mount lens lineup parallel with existing EF lenses, and maybe - but only maybe - phase EF lenses out years from now, if the market goes in that direction (which I really don't hope). 
I will be so pleased if Canon keeps native EF mount for years to come even if mirrorless ILC eventually take over DSLRs


----------



## MartinF. (Aug 2, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Two FF mirrorless...two mounts....
> 
> Each niche is filled with a product.
> 
> That actually sounds like Canon.


exactly ! - I think this is the right way to go.
Do not make a "one size fits all". Small cameraes for streets and some reportage, and bigger cameras (and lenses) for sports, weddings, nature, studio and so).


----------



## tron (Aug 2, 2018)

Canon to H_ll with mirrorless. Just give us a 5DsR MkII


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 2, 2018)

CR1... hard to believe. EF-M is a different segment and it doesn't compete with EF segment. 

Consider they have mirrorless EF and mirrorless EF-X cameras. No doubt mirrorless EF will compete with mirrorless EF-X. If somebody releases self-competing products, it's not Canon.

So it's plausible they stick to mirrorless EF only, but two competing mounts? I don't think so.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 2, 2018)

I am sure there will be some level of functional differentiation between the two cameras. But, as I think about it, this is a great way to 'bridge" between EF and EF-X. Likely the EF will be more pro-oriented, and perhaps sized between a 6DII and 5DIV. The EF-X version would likely have a thinner flange distance, hence smaller, so would likely be smaller than the 6DII but bigger than the M5. 

I expect DSLRs to survive as long as masses of people are buying them (and they still outsell mirrorless by a wide margin). But, say that erodes over time, if this rumor happens, people still have a reason to buy EF glass as there is a native EF mount FF mirrorless body. If you want smaller, you go EF-X. Eventually (and I mean decades), EF-X may replace EF, but in that interim Canon is selling camera bodies and camera lenses. 

It makes a lot of sense.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 2, 2018)

I think this is inevitable, a 1DX class body with native EF mount and a 6D/5D class (features, not size) in a smaller body with a smaller mount.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> OK. I will wait for the EF mount, SLR style body thank you. Or, maybe it will be the first out of the gate? Getting more interested.



I really like the dual approach. If one has a thinner body like the M series does then think of all the old FD, FL, R and others like Minolta etc. that could be mounted with a simple adapter and not optics in the adapter. In fact it would be awesome if Canon made a chipped adapter that would work with the FD etc. old Canon lenses to provide focus confirmation. This would be very interesting and create some interest in the older lenses.
Just dreaming.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Consider they have mirrorless EF and mirrorless EF-X cameras. No doubt mirrorless EF will compete with mirrorless EF-X. If somebody releases self-competing products, it's not Canon.
> 
> So it's plausible they stick to mirrorless EF only, but two competing mounts? I don't think so.



"Competing" implies the two are given the same offerings to fight over the same customers and customer needs. Canon may not go that route.

EF-X could get just a handful of lenses -- the ones to keep the overall rig small -- and that's it. Done. f/4 UWA zoom, f/4 standard zoom, a handful of small f/2-ish primes and a compact macro. Done. That's it. For everything else, they point you to the adaptor.

EF would get all the traditional resources and support a flagship mount should get.

That won't compete much at all. You'd get the EF-X body and a few of the smaller lenses to build a small & light rig and you'd get the full mount and use your EF lenses on that. Easy peasy.

- A


----------



## Equinox (Aug 2, 2018)

Dual Approach maximises Canon's profits and doesn't put majority of peoples jaw out of joint. Highly likely IMHO


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I think this is inevitable, a 1DX class body with native EF mount and a 6D/5D class (features, not size) in a smaller body with a smaller mount.



If they go with both mounts in mirrorless, I think we're entirely living in the 5D/6D spec space at first. That's where all the units and market energy is, surely.

I think Canon knows better than to offer something half-baked for the uber high standards of the 1-series camp in mirrorless anytime soon. I see them first pleasing the FF masses (i.e. 5D/6D users), improving the technology over time, and then someday offering some A9-like throughput hot rod to the 1-series camp -- but it won't be soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon skipped the 1-series users altogether for the first generation of these mirrorless cameras. 

- A


----------



## noodeel (Aug 2, 2018)

I'm most interested to find out what happens to the M system if they develop two new lines for full frame. It seems that development of M lenses has gone from slow to stagnant... I hope that there is some sort of commitment to the M line...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

Equinox said:


> Dual Approach maximises Canon's profits and doesn't put majority of peoples jaw out of joint. Highly likely IMHO



^^ This ^^

Offering both right out of the gate eliminates the horror of Canon making the wrong call on an impossible 50-50 decision. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but some folks are so wound up about Canon's first foray into FF mirrorless that they will meltdown and leave the fold if this billion dollar decision about an additional 1" in size doesn't go their way. 

Offering both does some very nice things:

Zero chance of pissing off the market if you say yes to both options.
Clearly keeps EF alive in the long term, and by extension, gives Canon a huge excuse not to have to make the new mount cover every need. Canon doesn't have to wind down a monstrous lens portfolio and replace it. The 10+ year climb to do that would be financially radioactive.
Some folks _really_ hate adaptors and Canon will have an answer for them. They can scoop up the Nikonians who adamantly did not want to see the F mount die for the same reasons folks here are defending EF so hard.
It's a clear message of intent to the industry. Small FF folks? We have that. Working pros? We love you, too. We're Canon -- we have something for everyone.
I personally still think thin will come first and full EF may follow -- either on day one they announce that someday full EF is coming or it's a painful Plan B / course correction in response to the market freaking out.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

noodeel said:


> I'm most interested to find out what happens to the M system if they develop two new lines for full frame. It seems that development of M lenses has gone from slow to stagnant... I hope that there is some sort of commitment to the M line...



Disregarding the older pricier Ring USM lenses that Canon is probably done making, EF-S presently has:

wide zoom
standard zoom
longer standard zoom (18-135)
short tele (55-250)
compact illuminated macro
pancake
...and EF-M has just about the same list. It would appear that EF-M and EF-S are being held in some form of lens parity: what one gets, the other gets in short order thereafter.

I know there's talk of a fast prime coming for EF-M (which is awesome), but I'm not convinced that we'll every ever see new 10-22 USM, 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, 15-85 USM lenses ever again. EF-S was a proving ground the first time around (when EF-S was first getting fleshed out in the 2000s), and either between a lack of market interest in pricey crop glass or Canon wanting folks to step up to EF, I don't see that happening again.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ^^ This ^^
> 
> Offering both right out of the gate eliminates the horror of Canon making the wrong call on an impossible 50-50 decision. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but some folks are so wound up about Canon's first foray into FF mirrorless that they will meltdown and leave the fold if this billion dollar decision about an additional 1" in size doesn't go their way.
> 
> ...



My money is on a clear statement in September on a thin EF-X mount and a statement of intent along the lines of 'don't worry EF users we have an EF version in 6 months'. This would also enable them to effectively trial-run some features based on reviews/response and tweak things for 'the big one' so the pros are happy all in one go. 

Canon has so far tried to control release news but I think one thing the 6D2 release told them is that social media takes it out of your hands and you have to take control of the agenda. Which may be why Nikon have gone through this very protracted drip-drip of release news.


----------



## $winter (Aug 2, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I think this is inevitable, a 1DX class body with native EF mount and a 6D/5D class (features, not size) in a smaller body with a smaller mount.


i'll go for the 1Dx style


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 2, 2018)

Up or Down, Chicken or Egg?

Which will come first? 
The EF or the New.

I say the New comes first, if they release the EF first they risk bad sales of the new body / lens combination.


----------



## Leigh (Aug 2, 2018)

Canon's "problem" competitively, is that the SONY A7R series Camera's already work with Canon EF lens's, & though Adapter's can be cumbersome, & limiting, they continue to improve. Once "someone" becomes familiar, & likes a competing brand camera, there's a viable possibility of them migrating totally to that brand over time.

I think it would be a mistake for Canon to offer it's "Flagship" , FF-M body without some manner of flawless EF compatibility.

I've been on the fence of buying an A7R3 for Landscape work with my EF-L WA lens's; & if Canon doesn't deliver, I'll likely do so.


----------



## bitm2007 (Aug 2, 2018)

Yes there is still a chance of a native EF mount full frame mirrorless camera.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Up or Down, Chicken or Egg?
> 
> Which will come first?
> The EF or the New.
> ...



It's more than that. What does FF mirrorless offer that DSLR doesn't? What advantage does the new mount offer?

If the new mount doesn't offer any significant upgrade over the old mount, people will stay with EF mount for their glass compatability and cheaper used price.

Canon is in precarious situation now. If they have a lackluster FF mirrorless showing, Nikon & Sony are viable alternative. Some may be tire of waiting for Canon FF mirrorless only to be disappointed again - Canon 5D IV, 6D II. At least on specs.

If Nikon new FF mirrorless camera is like the A7III but with better ergonomic, weather sealing, I'll be intrigue. If their new mount is compatible with EF lens, watch out.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 2, 2018)

IF Canon really goes with 2 mount (versions) for their mirrorless FF system - which i absolutely doubt - then according to Murphy's law, the first camera/s to be released will be big, fat, expensive with EF mount nozzle - simply because I am waiting for compact, light, affordable, new slim mount camera/s and lenses.


----------



## Adelino (Aug 2, 2018)

Two mounts has always seemed likely to me. These mounts would not compete with each other, per se. They would be complimentary in many ways just like the 7D and 80 D compliment a 5D setup. Being Canon this market segmentation would still drive some people nuts. The thin mount people will cry about th EF mirrorless having better battery life, faster FPS, better weather sealing, more lens options etc. The thin mounters will declare the FF X series is intentionally "crippled" (I hate that term especially when applied to a less expensive device). Canon will sell more cameras and more lenses along the way. 
Canon loves this kind of market segmentation.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2018)

Adelino said:


> Canon loves this kind of market segmentation.



So do every manufacturer.


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 2, 2018)

Bodies are just a support mechanism for glass -- each new generation getting better sensors that show us that our old glass is capable of more than we have previously seen. My 20 year old 70~200 f2.8 delivers far better images on my 6D than it did in my film days on 650, Elan, A2e and others.

I'll buy the first mirrorless if it supports EF either natively or with adapter. Done deal, I want wysiwyg EVF. If it is with an EF adapter, I will try an "new mount" prime but keep all my EF glass.

If the subsequent bodies offer better features, I may well upgrade later.

At a minimum, I want 5D-IV level sensor and AF. If they take it to 50mp, I'll celebrate!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 2, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I think this is inevitable, a 1DX class body with native EF mount and a 6D/5D class (features, not size) in a smaller body with a smaller mount.



While 6D is enthusiast level, 5D is clearly targeting pros, and many pros are using both 1DX and 5D (II, III, IV). Also if mirrorless EF will only have one option with the price of 1DX, the huge customer base with EF glass + 5D/6D + EF-compatible crops will be disappointed to say the least. Pros with 5D + L glass will be forced to upgrade to 1DX-grade mirorrless? Or downgrade a prospective low-end EF-X mount? I think not.
Another point, mirrorless 1DX in its form factor loses many advantages of mirorrlessness. 

New EF-X compatible with EF does makes sense. 'Dual Approach' doesn't.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

Leigh said:


> Canon's "problem" competitively, is that the SONY A7R series Camera's already work with Canon EF lens's, & though Adapter's can be cumbersome, & limiting, they continue to improve. Once "someone" becomes familiar, & likes a competing brand camera, there's a viable possibility of them migrating totally to that brand over time.
> 
> I think it would be a mistake for Canon to offer it's "Flagship" , FF-M body without some manner of flawless EF compatibility.
> 
> I've been on the fence of buying an A7R3 for Landscape work with my EF-L WA lens's; & if Canon doesn't deliver, I'll likely do so.



1) What about the EF-M adaptor to EF/EF-S makes you think Canon can't make an excellent adaptor? They write the AF routines and make the lenses, so it should work just fine, correct? 

2) If it's just for landscape work, why not just get the Sony? You don't need great AF if you're living in tripod LiveView work, do you? You just need the lenses to mount and communicate with the body for aperture, so any concerns of adaptor AF somewhat go out the window.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> If the new mount doesn't offer any significant upgrade over the old mount, people will stay with EF mount for their glass compatability and cheaper used price.



The new mount must be a "significant upgrade", must be better, etc. are the wrong takes here, IMHO. Canon isn't trying to migrate current users to _only_ use a new mount. That would be madness.

The new mount unlocks possibility to make a *smaller overall apparatus* and *adapt competitive/old/third-party lenses*, that's all. You may have no interest in that or only shoot big/fast FF glass that won't really benefit from a smaller body. That's fine -- just wait for the FF mirrorless body with a full EF mount.

But for a large chunk of the prospective mirrorless market (percentage is anyone's guess), mirrorless is all about the perception of being smaller, and a full EF mount cannot deliver that without some zany design shenanigans. For the 'mirrorless is all about being small' camp, it simply has to have a thinner mount or they won't look twice at it.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> New EF-X compatible with EF does makes sense. 'Dual Approach' doesn't.



I think it makes perfect sense _if Canon has the resolve to not build too many thin mount lenses_. When you think of thin mount mirrorless as a 4-6 lens build and they are done -- everything else requires EF on adaptor -- thin mount mirrorless become a niche line to satisfy the small crowd and the non-Canon lens adapting crowd.

Everything else FF mirrorless would be what we know it is today with SLRs: a tool to wield bigger, heavier glass that will still exist regardless of what happens to the mirror.

But if Canon starts dipping it's toes into 'well we need a 24-70 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4 option in a thin mount' and 'what's the harm in one 70-200', etc. they will (a) sow discord that EF will eventually go away and (b) not save any size at all. I contend that if two mounts happen, Canon will need to be ruthless with any thin mount lens 'portfolio creep'.

- A


----------



## melgross (Aug 2, 2018)

If true, it makes sense to me. I would prefer a model with the current physical mount that allows all current lenses to give their full performance and use the entire feature set. At the same time, I’d like to see the mount incorporate new connections for a newer lens line for the future.

For those wanting the smaller camera, a different mount would be called for. After all, all camera manufacturers that have two sensor sizes have two lens mounts. It’s not impossible. Supposedly the M mount isn’t suited for FF. Too bad. But a third mount isn’t without reason. Sony has, what five mounts now? Of course, they throw everything against the wall to see what sticks, and most of them haven’t.


----------



## melgross (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The new mount must be a "significant upgrade", must be better, etc. are the wrong take here, IMHO. Canon isn't trying to migrate current users to _only_ use a new mount. That would be madness.
> 
> The new mount unlocks possibility to make a *smaller overall apparatus* and *adapt competitive/old/third-party lenses*, that's all. You may have no interest in that or only shoot big/fast FF glass that won't really benefit from a smaller body. That's fine -- just wait for the FF mirrorless body with a full EF mount.
> 
> ...


I keep on saying that not everyone wants a smaller, lighter camera. It’s true. If Canon comes out with a more pro level model, size and weight aren’t much of a factor, if it’s a factor at all. The very popular 5D series isn’t small and light. The top model 1D is bigger and heavier. Same thing for Nikon’s 850 and D5.

The idea that every mirrorless camera has to be smaller and lighter simply isn’t true, and distorts the discussion.


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 2, 2018)

melgross said:


> For those wanting the smaller camera, a different mount would be called for.


Consider size/mount. I have a SL/1 buried in my kit for backup should FF cameras fail. Yep, it is crop sensor, but all my EF glass works flawlessly on this TINY body.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> for a large chunk of the prospective mirrorless market (percentage is anyone's guess), mirrorless is all about the perception of being smaller, and a full EF mount cannot deliver that without some zany design shenanigans. For the 'mirrorless is all about being small' camp, it simply has to have a thinner mount or they won't look twice at it.





melgross said:


> The idea that every mirrorless camera has to be smaller and lighter simply isn’t true, and distorts the discussion.



I'm sorry, when did I say 'every mirrorless camera has to be smaller'? I'm saying there are (principally) two camps of form factor devotees here -- people who care about it being smaller and those that don't. 

Let's say Canon had market data that said that:

40% of folks will not touch FF mirrorless unless it has a thin mount.​20% of folks who don't care about mount and are simply interested in FF mirrorless in general​40% of folks will not touch FF mirrorless unless it has a full EF mount.​
All of this forum's lengthy, correct, practical statements (about size savings being meaningless when you think about FF lenses, why adaptors are a pain, that all the current EF users will be bummed, etc.) will be true, _but Canon will still be out in the cold for 40% of the market._

Some feature-based A or B decisions are so difficult to call that the 'or' becomes an 'and'. I contend that this is absolutely one of those decisions, and that Canon is big enough and ambitious enough to make that 'and' a reality.

- A


----------



## sdz (Aug 2, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> Bodies are just a support mechanism for glass....



For many, better lenses are the the best path leading to improved image quality -- and, better technique.


----------



## Harm (Aug 2, 2018)

Really hope this rumor is true. I prefer the ergonomics and design of the bigger camera bodies and lenses. Cameras with interchangeable lenses will never be pocketable, so in this class of cameras size is not a big issue for me. Why should mirrorless bodies be slimmer? I like the combination of a big camera for serious photography and one for every day use that fits in my pocket.


----------



## Talys (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ^^ This ^^
> 
> Offering both right out of the gate eliminates the horror of Canon making the wrong call on an impossible 50-50 decision. I know this sounds like hyperbole, but some folks are so wound up about Canon's first foray into FF mirrorless that they will meltdown and leave the fold if this billion dollar decision about an additional 1" in size doesn't go their way.
> 
> ...


It's an easy way to make everyone happy  And besides, there will be those who buy both a thin mount and an EF mount FF mirrorless, and also mix in lenses of two series, so why not? It's like having Coke Classic and Cherry Coke!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2018)

noodeel said:


> I'm most interested to find out what happens to the M system if they develop two new lines for full frame. It seems that development of M lenses has gone from slow to stagnant... I hope that there is some sort of commitment to the M line...


Canon is #1 domestically and #2 globally in MILC sales...that’s the M line. It baffles me that anyone would question their commitment to that line.

OTOH, what some people mean by ‘commitment to the M line’ is making the specific lens(es) they want in the EF-M mount, be that a telephoto prime, a TS-E lens, or whatever. Those people should understand that it’s not Canon’s goal to make everyone happy, it’s to sell lots of cameras and to make a profit. To that end, expect mostly ‘consumer-level’ lenses for the M line, just Ike we’ve seen with the EF-S line.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ...I'm not convinced that we'll every ever see new 10-22 USM



The ‘replacement’ was the EF-S 10-18mm IS. 

We won’t see USM, STM is the path forward for consumer-level lenses.


----------



## denstore (Aug 2, 2018)

What I worry about the most, is that Canon will be hamstringing themselves with a too small mount, like the EF-M. It will not be as versatile as the larger throat EF. 
And looking at Nikon’s new 65mm throat mount, they will be able to develop faster glass, and maybe medium format as well. Canon should consider that path as well. To me, a new larger mount, ready for heavy, fast glass, and with a close to native functionality EF mount adapter would be the best solution.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon is #1 domestically and #2 globally in MILC sales...that’s the M line. It baffles me that anyone would question their commitment to that line.
> 
> OTOH, what some people mean by ‘commitment to the M line’ is making the specific lens(es) they want in the EF-M mount, be that a telephoto prime, a TS-E lens, or whatever. Those people should understand that it’s not Canon’s goal to make everyone happy, it’s to sell lots of cameras and to make a profit. To that end, expect mostly ‘consumer-level’ lenses for the M line, just Ike we’ve seen with the EF-S line.



+1. Spot on.

There's a zero chance EF-M goes away. That's absurd to contemplate for the reasons Neuro points out.

But there's _also_ a zero chance EF-M blossoms into a Fuji X sort of lens portfolio. Never going to happen.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

denstore said:


> What I worry about the most, is that Canon will be hamstringing themselves with a too small mount, like the EF-M. It will not be as versatile as the larger throat EF.
> 
> And looking at Nikon’s new 65mm throat mount, they will be able to develop faster glass, and maybe medium format as well.



We do not know how big the Nikon FF mirrorless mount is. 

Everyone is guessing because there are no reliably sized features to scale the mount with -- because it's a cleverly shot ad that deliberately obfuscated the hotshoe. It's likely bigger than F for a host of reasons, but no one knows just how big.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The ‘replacement’ was the EF-S 10-18mm IS.
> 
> We won’t see USM, STM is the path forward for consumer-level lenses.



Of late:

EF-M = STM
EF-S = STM + Nano USM
EF = STM + Nano USM + Ring USM

- A


----------



## denstore (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> We do not know how big the Nikon FF mirrorless mount is.
> 
> Everyone is guessing because there are no reliably sized features to scale the mount with -- because it's a cleverly shot ad that deliberately obfuscated the hotshoe. It's likely bigger than F for a host of reasons, but no one knows just how big.
> 
> - A


Possible. But there has been quite a lot of extrapolated calculations, and not all of the that far from logic and reason. I believe it will be large and if they start making cameras that fit my hands, and have fast glass available, like the rumoured 50/0,95, I might pick up a Nikon before a dinky sized Canon with mostly f/4 lenses available. The prime reason that I’ve stayed away fron the M-series so far is that the available glass is slow, and if I use EF glass and an adapter, it’s not better than any other APS-S body.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 2, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> It's more than that. What does FF mirrorless offer that DSLR doesn't? What advantage does the new mount offer?



In the instance of a new mount, a smaller more compact package.

In the instance of a mirrorless EF mount, what would it offer that you will not be able to get with a dSLR?
I can go to live view and shoot without a mirror now.


----------



## Uneternal (Aug 2, 2018)

I don't think that they're going a dual route. That would mean the big model would be EF and the small one EF-X, so people who are willing to spend less money would be screwed. Also in earlier rumors it's been mentioned Canon has a "sexy solution" for adapting lenses. We've also seen patents suggesting the new mount can take EF lenses as well. IMO we get an updated EF mount and the camera will fix the flange distance somehow automatically (hopefully not with a lens).


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> In the instance of a mirrorless EF mount, what would it offer that you will not be able to get with a dSLR?
> I can go to live view and shoot without a mirror now.



...like one captures images with an iPad.  

Imagine doing what's shown below with an f/2.8 zoom or f/1.4 prime. That has the ergonomic sensibilities of a selfie stick. Hard, hard pass.







I want a camera up to my eye. It is more stable, more intutive for framing, I can operate controls without needing to look at them, etc.

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> _...like one captures images with an iPad._ Imagine doing what's shown below with an f/2.8 zoom or f/1.4 prime. That has the ergonomic sensibilities of a selfie stick. Hard, hard pass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tilt screen for the win in this discussion.
Imagine doing it with a tilt screen and holding at your chest, far more stable than holding your arms high to get to the camera to your eye. Keeping your face free to look around and see the world. Off your face is often a better perspective.

With the M people asked for a mirrorless then complained because it didn't have a viewfinder. What is the point to own a mirrorless if you are going to have it at your face all day? Only size and weight.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Tilt screen for the wind in this discussion.
> Imagine doing it with a tilt screen and holding at your chest, far more stable than holding your arms high to get to the camera to your eye. Keeping your face free to look around and see the world. Off your face is often a better perspective.



What camera(s) have a tilt screen configuration that you can see from the top down with the camera stabilized against your chest? The only ‘top down’ view that comes to mind is the one on my first camera.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Tilt screen for the wind in this discussion.
> With the M people asked for a mirrorless then complained because it didn't have a viewfinder. What is the point to own a mirrorless if you are going to have it at your face all day? Only size and weight.




MF assist in the age of disappearing manual focus screens
Elimination of mirror slap
Ability to use AF in a much larger part of the frame
Unlocking mroe affordable f/6.3 max aperture lenses (e.g. 150-600 f/6.3 IS STM for $1500, anyone?)
Amplifying VF light in dark rooms
Silent operation
Adapting third party / FD / competitive lenses
Removing the mirror box from being rate-limiting for fps
Elimination of AFMA
But yeah, not much besides size and weight. You're totally right. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Tilt screen for the win in this discussion.
> Imagine doing it with a tilt screen and holding at your chest, far more stable than holding your arms high to get to the camera to your eye. Keeping your face free to look around and see the world. Off your face is often a better perspective.



FTR, tilt-screen liveview work is a very cool option for SLR or mirrorless cameras. I just don't want it as my primary option with which to shoot in a mirrorless fashion.

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> What camera(s) have a tilt screen configuration that you can see from the top down with the camera stabilized against your chest? The only ‘top down’ view that comes to mind is the one on my first camera.



Imagine it without the flash.
Far less intrusive for street photography.

For our last vacation I found the wife's M50 to be great for walking around taking street photo's at chest level. Far less of a distraction than using the 5DsR and 24-70 II.


----------



## applecider (Aug 2, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I think this is inevitable, a 1DX class body with native EF mount and a 6D/5D class (features, not size) in a smaller body with a smaller mount.


I’d give you the 1D body with EF, but I’ll call you on the 5D with non-EF. Perhaps the demarcation point should be with the 1s, 5s, and 7s having native EF with the new camera or the 6 being the lite version. This because anytime you deal with a heavy lens a bigger body feels better. YMMV.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

applecider said:


> I’d give you the 1D body with EF, but I’ll call you on the 5D with non-EF. Perhaps the demarcation point should be with the 1s, 5s, and 7s having native EF with the new camera or the 6 being the lite version. This because anytime you deal with a heavy lens a bigger body feels better. YMMV.



Thin doesn't have to be small. They could put a big chunky grip on a thin mount body, because even a kit zoom or small prime would protrude past the front-back distance of the 5D grip -- i.e. leave any lens other than a pancake on a thin mount body and you would take no less space in your bag than if you had a chunky grip.

​​So give it a chunky grip with proper spacing for your fingers from the mount. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Imagine it without the flash.
> Far less intrusive for street photography.
> 
> For our last vacation I found the wife's M50 to be great for walking around taking street photo's at chest level. Far less of a distraction than using the 5DsR and 24-70 II.



I think you’re missing ahsanford’s point. A viewfinder has an eyecup, and that provides a third contact point for stabilizng the camera during a shot. Holding a camera down at chest level is more stable than holding it out in front of your face, but you’ve still got only 2 contact points. With the TLR, you could hold it against your chest – very stable – and look down into the VF. What I was asking (and what you didn’t answer) is if there’s a MILC with a tilt screen that allows the stability of a 3rd contact point without a VF.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think you’re missing ahsanford’s point. A viewfinder has an eyecup, and that provides a third contact point for stabilizng the camera during a shot. Holding a camera down at chest level is more stable than holding it out in front of your face, but you’ve still got only 2 contact points. With the TLR, you could hold it against your chest – very stable – and look down into the VF. What I was asking (and what you didn’t answer) is if there’s a MILC with a tilt screen that allows the stability of a 3rd contact point without a VF.



Neck,chest and hand. Your neck bears the weight, chest rests and hand stabilizes. The viewfinder of the M50 is in contact with your chest for stability. Are you assuming that you can not do this and you have to hold it away from your body? I didn't have an issue, in fact it feels very locked in doing it this way.
It probably wouldn't have worked with a black rapid but the strap it comes with works well.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think you’re missing ahsanford’s point. A viewfinder has an eyecup, and that provides a third contact point for stabilizng the camera during a shot. Holding a camera down at chest level is more stable than holding it out in front of your face, but you’ve still got only 2 contact points. With the TLR, you could hold it against your chest – very stable – and look down into the VF. What I was asking (and what you didn’t answer) is if there’s a MILC with a tilt screen that allows the stability of a 3rd contact point without a VF.



Not an MILC, but a hack of the PowerShot N has popped up in a similar usage application a few times now:

The easy way:​https://petapixel.com/2015/01/12/canon-powershot-n-transformed-waist-level-rolleiflex-style-camera/​​The hard way:​https://petapixel.com/2018/04/13/how-i-made-a-frankencamera-digital-tlr/​
My dad would totally dig these if he still shot -- he rocked a Rolleiflex in the military and then afterwards in civilian life.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Neck,chest and hand. Your neck bears the weight, chest rests and hand stabilizes. The viewfinder of the M50 is in contact with your chest for stability. Are you assuming that you can not do this and you have to hold it away from your body? I didn't have an issue, in fact it feels very locked in doing it this way.
> It probably wouldn't have worked with a black rapid but the strap it comes with works well.



Takesome, I take your point -- there are many ways to use a camera and I'm sure I could reel in something decent with the method you are describing. I'm just saying that I don't prefer to use it that way -- especially with heavier FF glass -- and surely I'm not the only one.

That doesn't mean waist-level liveview work is without value, I just think it shouldn't be the primary means to get at all the LiveView/mirrorless good stuff.

- A


----------



## stevelee (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ...like one captures images with an iPad.
> 
> Imagine doing what's shown below with an f/2.8 zoom or f/1.4 prime. That has the ergonomic sensibilities of a selfie stick. Hard, hard pass.
> 
> ...



Sure, I prefer to look through the OVF when that is practical. Other than for video, I use Live View when the camera is on a tripod or when holding the camera to my face would put me lying in the mud or the like, when I need the tilty flippy view. Oh, and obviously when I shoot with the G7X II.


----------



## melgross (Aug 2, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> Consider size/mount. I have a SL/1 buried in my kit for backup should FF cameras fail. Yep, it is crop sensor, but all my EF glass works flawlessly on this TINY body.


Yes, but we’re talking about a small FF body with a thinner mount. The M mount isn’t for FF. That’s what I’m saying. We’ve already discussed that elsewhere.

But using an adapter results in compromises. We’ve talked about that too.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 2, 2018)

The G7X II screen tilts, but does not flip. Still, that works fine for waist level viewing and for photographing looking up into domes and towers.


----------



## melgross (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'm sorry, when did I say 'every mirrorless camera has to be smaller'? I'm saying there are (principally) two camps of form factor devotees here -- people who care about it being smaller and those that don't.
> 
> Let's say Canon had market data that said that:
> 
> ...


I’m saying that not directly to what you said there. But a lot of posts here are about the need for mirrorless being smaller. I’m sorry that I wasn’t clearer in that. I’m agreeing with your statement that both camps need to be happy.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 2, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> My money is on a clear statement in September on a thin EF-X mount and a statement of intent along the lines of 'don't worry EF users we have an EF version in 6 months'. This would also enable them to effectively trial-run some features based on reviews/response and tweak things for 'the big one' so the pros are happy all in one go.
> 
> Canon has so far tried to control release news but I think one thing the 6D2 release told them is that social media takes it out of your hands and you have to take control of the agenda. Which may be why Nikon have gone through this very protracted drip-drip of release news.


6 months between releases is not sufficient time to trial run anything except a few firmware tweaks. Most, maybe all HW is already in production by the time of the first release.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ....For the 'mirrorless is all about being small' camp, it simply has to have a thinner mount or they won't look twice at it.
> 
> - A



I tend to think that the mount is the least important "direction" if making a camera smaller is your goal. Height and width (and more importantly, the weight) can clearly be reduced considerably while keeping the EF mount. The SL1 is much smaller than the 80D, for example, and I would much prefer that Canon uses the same approach for their smaller FF mirrorless. Keep the EF mount, keep a good size grip, and make the reductions in the other dimensions. I would look twice at this type of camera and I think many others would, too.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 2, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> ...
> Canon has so far tried to control release news but I think one thing the 6D2 release told them is that social media takes it out of your hands and you have to take control of the agenda. Which may be why Nikon have gone through this very protracted drip-drip of release news.



I think the social media lesson with the 6d2 is that they need to reset the expectations of what that particular line of camera is supposed to be before they release a new version that provides a lower relative value than the previous one. In the absence of that, they look either deceptive or clueless. The 6d1 was so revered because of the image quality being so close to the then-popular 5d3, which was so much more expensive. It even had superior features, like autofocus in half as much light. When the 6d2 was anticipated there was a reasonable expectation - in the absence of any market preparation - that it would be roughly a few years ahead of its predecessor. 

So, in essence, this wasn't because they didn't use a clever strategy to prepare market expectations, it was that there was no market preparation in any medium whatsoever. Which makes you wonder whether - if they know about taking control of social media - they would have the self awareness to do so to their advantage.

Also, you have the various country-based corporate entities responsible for much of this as well, which muddles things. It took years for Canon USA to even want the m-series on our shores while they were selling in Asia. Wouldn't it be a hoot if Canon USA opts out of the new full frame mirrorless?


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Disregarding the older pricier Ring USM lenses that Canon is probably done making, EF-S presently has:
> 
> wide zoom
> standard zoom
> ...




Canon's new lens release frequency has fallen behind that of the two big third party vendors. I just don't see a new mount being supported to the point of being fully fleshed out (even eventually) when the current lens release frequency is failing to update existing lenses at their previous update periodicities. And if they did quickly flesh things out with any speed, it would be partly outsourced to Tamron or the like, for manufacturing. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I just think we should look at these predictions through the eyes of Canon considering itself release-constrained. In that light, we're going to be shooting high end EF glass for a while.

-tig

PS: The quickest way to a somewhat complete, high quality lens set in the new mount will be waiting for Sigma to offer the entire Art range in the new mount, like they just did with Sony.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I tend to think that the mount is the least important "direction" if making a camera smaller is your goal. Height and width (and more importantly, the weight) can clearly be reduced considerably while keeping the EF mount. The SL1 is much smaller than the 80D, for example, and I would much prefer that Canon uses the same approach for their smaller FF mirrorless. Keep the EF mount, keep a good size grip, and make the reductions in the other dimensions. I would look twice at this type of camera and I think many others would, too.



Agree of course, but I still think a good chunk of the market is poised to ridicule an EF offering and dismiss it outright as 'typical Canon innovation' regardless of specs or feature-set.

Canon doesn't really give two hoots about perception in that regard -- provided it sells. But a thinner mount instantly defines the product as a new offering far more straightforwardly than full EF might. 

As I've said many times, both offering thin and full EF would be wise. Not having a thin option leaves considerably difficult-to-earn money (without a thin mount) on the table.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> Canon's new lens release frequency has fallen behind that of the two big third party vendors. I just don't see a new mount being supported to the point of being fully fleshed out (even eventually) when the current lens release frequency is failing to update existing lenses at their previous update periodicities


The EOS launched with the M18-55 and the M22/2...*and the EF mount adapter*. Following that, new M lenses have come out on average at one per year (two in. 2016, none in 2017, we’re due for one this year). I could see that schedule working fine for a new FF MILC mount (if one happens), because of the adapter.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> I think the social media lesson with the 6d2 is that they need to reset the expectations of what that particular line of camera is supposed to be before they release a new version that provides a lower relative value than the previous one. In the absence of that, they look either deceptive or clueless. The 6d1 was so revered because of the image quality being so close to the then-popular 5d3, which was so much more expensive. It even had superior features, like autofocus in half as much light. When the 6d2 was anticipated there was a reasonable expectation - in the absence of any market preparation - that it would be roughly a few years ahead of its predecessor.



And Canon wisely saw to it that would never happen again. A 6-series camera should never upstage a 5-series camera unless it's a nice add-over-time (e.g. Wifi, GPS, etc.). The 6D1 set a terrible precedent that 5-series folks (or even 50-50 _prospective_ 5-series folks) should sit on their cash until the 6D2 is announced. That's a marketing fail of a high order. (In a similar light, I'm curious to see how A7R3 sales took a hit when a $2k A7 III arrived -- MP alone is not enough to protect a product's price.)

Other than the 6D2 tilty-flippy, which I believe was a wise market segmentation decision, everything on the 5D4 _should_ be better than a 6D2 other than weight -- and that seems to have been Canon's thinking as well. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> Canon's new lens release frequency has fallen behind that of the two big third party vendors.
> 
> ...
> 
> PS: The quickest way to a somewhat complete, high quality lens set in the new mount will be waiting for Sigma to offer the entire Art range in the new mount, like they just did with Sony.



1) Canon isn't competing with Tamron or Sigma. Sigma could put out 20 EF lenses a year and Canon wouldn't care. I am curious to see how many lenses Nikon has put out in the last five years. That's a far fairer benchmark of a company (as Nikon didn't launch a new FF mount over that time like Sony did).

2) Your definition of high quality is not Canon's (or mine, for that matter). Sigma offers a fearsome sharpness per dollar. Canon adds first party AF reliability, a zoom ring that somehow doesn't ruin everything, mechanical reliability, weather sealing, IS (and hybrid IS for that matter), and has stellar service should something go sideways. The EF portfolio didn't become the industry's #1 embedded competitive advantage overnight, and it sure as hell didn't happen because Canon outsourced the work. 

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Takesome, I take your point -- there are many ways to use a camera and I'm sure I could reel in something decent with the method you are describing. I'm just saying that I don't prefer to use it that way -- especially with heavier FF glass -- and surely I'm not the only one.
> 
> That doesn't mean waist-level liveview work is without value, I just think it shouldn't be the primary means to get at all the LiveView/mirrorless good stuff.
> 
> - A



Of course, there are many ways, and it isn't the main way.
This probably why many of us on this forum really have to much gear. We need gear that will cover all of the situations that arise.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> 6 months between releases is not sufficient time to trial run anything except a few firmware tweaks. Most, maybe all HW is already in production by the time of the first release.



True, but a lot of things that mirrorless does that DSLR finds it harder to do are software driven and any issues will be software so Canon can see from the first release what needs honing


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> True, but a lot of things that mirrorless does that DSLR finds it harder to do are software driven and any issues will be software so Canon can see from the first release what needs honing



Sure, but Canon's MO is to hold it back from the market another 6-12 months and work all that stuff out in advance with its army of test photographers.

Canon does many things, but rushing to market isn't one of them. They don't do 'we'll see how it works' with customers that often.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2018)

I heard Sony has been giving away free t-shirts with their ILCs.


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 2, 2018)

What if Canon were to REALLY be innovative while continuing the EF line of lens AND giving us much more image?
I started this madness in the fifties shooting 120 roll film twin lens reflex (TLR) cameras. No need for landscape versus portrait, the film was square!

Now considering that our lenses project a CIRCULAR image upon the sensor, *why not sell a camera with a square sensor of 36mm by 36mm?*

Same lens with new sensor processing = 50% more area! The len's perspective remain unchanged (even though math gives me a crop factor of 0.85) but more image is delivered. {Someone check my math -- I feel that crop factor is the ratio of image circle radius}

No more turning the camera for portrait mode. Camera could do it for us (if we didn't want square) -- or we crop in post.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 2, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> CR1... hard to believe. EF-M is a different segment and it doesn't compete with EF segment.
> 
> Consider they have mirrorless EF and mirrorless EF-X cameras. No doubt mirrorless EF will compete with mirrorless EF-X. If somebody releases self-competing products, it's not Canon.



 Every camera Canon has, competes with another camera in the Canon lineup. Every cotton pickin' one.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I heard Sony has been giving away free t-shirts with their ILCs.



And a bilge pump.


----------



## ken (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> And Canon wisely saw to it that would never happen again. A 6-series camera should never upstage a 5-series camera unless it's a nice add-over-time (e.g. Wifi, GPS, etc.). The 6D1 set a terrible precedent that 5-series folks (or even 50-50 _prospective_ 5-series folks) should sit on their cash until the 6D2 is announced. That's a marketing fail of a high order. (In a similar light, I'm curious to see how A7R3 sales took a hit when a $2k A7 III arrived -- MP alone is not enough to protect a product's price.)
> 
> Other than the 6D2 tilty-flippy, which I believe was a wise market segmentation decision, everything on the 5D4 _should_ be better than a 6D2 other than weight -- and that seems to have been Canon's thinking as well.



Your reasoning as to when it is OK for a 6 series to best the 5 series seems highly suspect to me. Flip screen, Wifi, GPS... so those (at various times) were all OK. The flip screen omission was wise?!? The 5D4 should absolutely have had the flip screen. At least they gave it Wifi. I would own one if it had the flip screen, and I probably wouldn't be nearly as curious as to what is happening in mirrorless. And my Canon lens collection would most certainly have grown by now as well. The feature segmentation for the consumer is maddening when you want some features of the higher model and some features of the lower model. 

Canon should take a lesson from car manufacturers. If you're going to coax a consumer up a trim level for a specific feature, the consumer shouldn't be giving up key features of the lower trim level. When I look at an Audi Prestige trim level, I know there's nothing from the lower Premium level that I'd be giving up. (Well... there are exceptions based on engineering constraints. Sometimes one feature consumes too much space to preserve another.) But if Audi asked for a bunch of arbitrary compromises, I'd need to go look at the Acura. 

I hope this is the direction Canon is heading. I will gladly pay for the premium trim level if they do.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I think it makes perfect sense _if Canon has the resolve to not build too many thin mount lenses_. When you think of thin mount mirrorless as a 4-6 lens build and they are done -- everything else requires EF on adaptor -- thin mount mirrorless become a niche line to satisfy the small crowd and the non-Canon lens adapting crowd.
> 
> Everything else FF mirrorless would be what we know it is today with SLRs: a tool to wield bigger, heavier glass that will still exist regardless of what happens to the mirror.
> 
> ...



With crop sensor cameras (80D), I can build my system with EF and then upgrade eventually to FF. Also I can have say 5DmkIV and a backup 80D and use the same lenses.
If 'dual approach' separates hi-end and low-end markets (and also separates EF-M mount from EF-X), it makes it virtually impossible to migrate and upgrade. And still this low-end EF-X will compete with 6D and partially with M50.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> Now considering that our lenses project a CIRCULAR image upon the sensor, *why not sell a camera with a square sensor of 36mm by 36mm?*



But think of all the lost vertical grip sales!  

I kid.

Also, I think your trig is a little off there. 36 only works because 24 is in the picture -- it's an inscribed rectangle, right? So a square 36x36 wouldn't be covered by the EF image circle and all new lenses would be required.

The idea could work, but it would have to be a slightly different sized square sensor. Rough calcs on a piece of paper imply it would be more like 30x30 without increasing the image circle size.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

ken said:


> Your reasoning as to when it is OK for a 6 series to best the 5 series seems highly suspect to me.



Forgive me, I meant to say: The 6D should never one-up the 5D in the beefier top-line horsepower specs. The 5-series should undeniably have better AF, a better sensor, better throughput, etc. and that could not be said for the 6D1 vs. 5D3 comparison. Canon will never do _that_ again -- 6D money should never get you into the 5D party or people will wonder why the 5D party is worth paying for.

Should have the 5D4 have had a tilty-flippy? Absolutely. That was a poor call from Canon.

But with the 5D4 getting +4 MP, DPRAW, an on-chip ADC sensor and a 1DX2-like AF setup, few folks today are alleging the 6D2 is a better overall camera than the 5D4. Canon, in really broad strokes, solved their prestige/price points problem this go round. I think they laid a horrible egg with no tilty-flippy and only 7 fps, but they spiked the punch on the 6D2 enough to leave the two products fairly well differentiated.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> With crop sensor cameras (80D), I can build my system with EF and then upgrade eventually to FF. Also I can have say 5DmkIV and a backup 80D and use the same lenses.
> If 'dual approach' separates hi-end and low-end markets (and also separates EF-M mount from EF-X), it makes it virtually impossible to migrate and upgrade. And still this low-end EF-X will compete with 6D and partially with M50.



Fair, but your buying of EF glass instead of EF-S glass with your 80D was a choice. In the FF scenario, the same choice would apply. You could buy the new thin FF mirrorless body and just buy EF lens to future proof all your lens purchases. (You could do the same thing and just buy EF lenses for an EF-M mirrorless for the same reason as well.)

My guess is that folks who might own a thin mount FF mirrorless and either an FF SLR or (down the road) Full EF mirrorless probably will only own 1-2 thin mount lenses and rely heavily on an adaptor to use their EF glass. In other words, if you're vested in EF (say 5-10+ EF lenses), even if you want a thin mount mirrorless, you're still largely going to shoot EF because you already own it.

But no one said small meant beginner / enthusiast and big is only for pros. _Canon loves their price points. _ They very well might try to build a 6D / 5D / 5DS hierarchy in thin mount _and_ full EF mirrorless if the market is willing to pay for it.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And a bilge pump.



Ha! That A7 battery lid should come with one.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> What if Canon were to REALLY be innovative while continuing the EF line of lens AND giving us much more image?
> I started this madness in the fifties shooting 120 roll film twin lens reflex (TLR) cameras. No need for landscape versus portrait, the film was square!
> 
> Now considering that our lenses project a CIRCULAR image upon the sensor, *why not sell a camera with a square sensor of 36mm by 36mm?*
> ...



You may want to pick up a geometry textbook and read through it. Pay close attention to the section on squares inscribed within circles. When you do the math, you'll find the largest square that can be inscribed within a 43 mm diameter circle (the EF lens image circle) has sides of 30.6 mm. Crop a 3:2 rectangle out of that and you'll have much less sensor area than full frame offers.


----------



## tron (Aug 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The ‘replacement’ was the EF-S 10-18mm IS.
> 
> We won’t see USM, STM is the path forward for consumer-level lenses.


And the 10-18 is a very nice sharp little wide angle lens. Its only drawback is that it can't handle reflections well (speaking out of experience after a night shooting). But for daily landscape use it's really very good. And its value for money is excellent. I guess an updated 10-22 would serve mainly for the f/3.5 at the wide end. Also I believe USM or STM doesn't seem really important for a wide angle lens.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Agree of course, but I still think a good chunk of the market is poised to ridicule an EF offering and dismiss it outright as 'typical Canon innovation' regardless of specs or feature-set.
> 
> Canon doesn't really give two hoots about perception in that regard -- provided it sells. But a thinner mount instantly defines the product as a new offering far more straightforwardly than full EF might.
> 
> ...



Canon will get ridiculed by the internet and social media crowd regardless of what it does. The question for Canon - and unfortunately many others is - should you care about what the knee-jerk reaction of the internet is, especially considering that knee jerk reaction is usually ignorant and incompetent.

Personally, I have always agreed with your assessment that two mirrorless mounts is the way to go. There definitely seem to be two very different target groups that can't be satisfied with one solution.


----------



## tron (Aug 3, 2018)

As long as they make an EF mount camera they can get ridiculed by the stupid social media crowd. They will still sell well and they will get recognition by the professionals and the Canon lens owners...


----------



## eosuser1234 (Aug 3, 2018)

The EF-M mount in itself is perfectly capable of full frame performance. However, none of the EF-M lenses produced to date would be capable of full frame coverage. The EF-M mount is simply the electronics, physical mount dimensions and flange focal distance. Which is the same flange focal distance which Sony is using in their full frame mirrorless. They may change the name to EF-FM, but the lenses mount in itself is the same. What will be the question is if you can use the APS-C EF-M line on the new FF camera and it has auto crop to aps-c mode.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Forgive me, I meant to say: The 6D should never one-up the 5D in the beefier top-line horsepower specs.



On the Canon website, when you filter out cameras by level, it shows 1DX MkII, 5Ds(r), 5DMkIV and, surprisingly, 6DMkII under the 'professional' tab. 6DMkII is also under the 'enthusiast' tab.
That's how Canon themselves position their cameras. If they split EF mirrorless and EF-X mirrorless, according to this theory, they should create (eventually) analogues of 6D, 5D and 1DX as EF mirrorless. 

Initially it'll likely be a continuation of the 5D line, whether it's a mirrorless EF or EF-X.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 3, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> The EF-M mount in itself is perfectly capable of full frame performance.



Maybe it's capable of FF performance in theory, but it's 7mm narrower than the EF mount. So if the new FF morrorless mount is a EF-M derivative, it won't be compatible with EF lenses even through an adapter.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 3, 2018)

I said it 12 months ago, they could release two versions with the EF mount version the stepping stone they need whilst building native mirrorless lens line-up. The EF version will be thicker, but still lighter and have all the other benefits of mirorless. Will be interesting though to see if Nikon's adapter allows full speed AF with legacy glass on it's mirrorless, if so, there is no need for the EF version IMO as Canon should be able to do the same thing. Ok it might be quite as fast as native mirrorless glass but it should be a small penalty.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'm sorry, when did I say 'every mirrorless camera has to be smaller'? I'm saying there are (principally) two camps of form factor devotees here -- people who care about it being smaller and those that don't.
> 
> Let's say Canon had market data that said that:
> 
> ...



I think you almost got it right in this post and others...

I think Canon has data that says (roughly);

60% of folk want a small form factor ILC regardless of DSLR/mirrorless - this is what EOS-M is targeting.
20% of folk don't care about mount and are simply interested in a FF mirrorless that provides improvements - pro users.
20% of folk hope that the new FF mirrorless will us EF lenses - these are the enthusiasts who have a collection of EF lenses.

Yes, I your latter comment about the EOS-M hits the spot, EOS-M is not going away as per above.

Question is: EF-X for the pros... how will it be designed to bring improvements to photography???


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

tron said:


> Also I believe USM or STM doesn't seem really important for a wide angle lens.




Which is why all FF 16-35 lenses (same FOV as the 10-22) have no AF tech at all, just the old sqeaky microm--

Oh. Hold on a minute. 

Not everyone is shooting landscapes with their ultra-wides. If you are shooting people, candids, travel, photojourno, football coaches shaking hands after the game, environmental portraiture, etc. quick AF is a really nice thing to have. I loved my 10-22, but my move to FF saw me give it away to a friend.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

Mr Majestyk said:


> I said it 12 months ago, they could release two versions with the EF mount version the stepping stone they need *whilst building native mirrorless lens line-up.*



This is the part I'm definitely in the minority on: why will Canon build up a new FF mirrorless mount portfolio of lenses when a smaller overall rig will only be made from a handful of those lenses? In other words, making a 24 2.8, 50 2, 85 1.8, etc. in a thin mirrorless format will save space overall when bolted on the lens. But put a 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 135 2, heck probably even f/4 zooms, etc. on there and you don't save a lick of space. You are effectively re-doing EF... for what? Will the lens magically be lighter? Sharper? Focus faster? I'm not so sure.

Remember, the space savings we are talking about is about 25mm, i.e. _one inch_ front to back.

So why do it? Why spend countless millions to make all your lenses (maybe) an inch shorter? Why not just offer 2-3 tiny primes, an ultracompact f/5.6-6.3-ish standard zoom, a compact macro and just call it good?

- A


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 3, 2018)

nchoh said:


> I think you almost got it right in this post and others...
> 
> I think Canon has data that says (roughly);
> 
> ...



Pro users don't care about the mount? Especially those who have the EF beasts like this https://store.canon.com.au/lenses/telephoto-lenses/ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm.html. They don't care at all!


----------



## nchoh (Aug 3, 2018)

ken said:


> Your reasoning as to when it is OK for a 6 series to best the 5 series seems highly suspect to me. Flip screen, Wifi, GPS... so those (at various times) were all OK. The flip screen omission was wise?!? The 5D4 should absolutely have had the flip screen. At least they gave it Wifi. I would own one if it had the flip screen, and I probably wouldn't be nearly as curious as to what is happening in mirrorless. And my Canon lens collection would most certainly have grown by now as well. The feature segmentation for the consumer is maddening when you want some features of the higher model and some features of the lower model.
> 
> Canon should take a lesson from car manufacturers. If you're going to coax a consumer up a trim level for a specific feature, the consumer shouldn't be giving up key features of the lower trim level. When I look at an Audi Prestige trim level, I know there's nothing from the lower Premium level that I'd be giving up. (Well... there are exceptions based on engineering constraints. Sometimes one feature consumes too much space to preserve another.) But if Audi asked for a bunch of arbitrary compromises, I'd need to go look at the Acura.
> 
> I hope this is the direction Canon is heading. I will gladly pay for the premium trim level if they do.



How many times have you heard "My back up camera is a ..."?
How many time have you heard "My backup car is a ..."?


----------



## nchoh (Aug 3, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Pro users don't care about the mount? Especially those who have the EF beasts like this https://store.canon.com.au/lenses/telephoto-lenses/ef-400mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-usm.html. They don't care at all!



Yup, IMO, if the new mount gives them competitive advantage (for example, a bigger better sensor) over their competitors, they won't care at all. Hence my question. What advantage will the new mount bring?


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 3, 2018)

ken said:


> Canon should take a lesson from car manufacturers. If you're going to coax a consumer up a trim level for a specific feature, the consumer shouldn't be giving up key features of the lower trim level. When I look at an Audi Prestige trim level, I know there's nothing from the lower Premium level that I'd be giving up. (Well... there are exceptions based on engineering constraints. Sometimes one feature consumes too much space to preserve another.) But if Audi asked for a bunch of arbitrary compromises, I'd need to go look at the Acura.



My wife didn't want the fully loaded Ford Raptor because they couldn't have vibrating seats.
She settled for the fully loaded King Ranch.
She drives my Raptor and sometimes she regrets that decision.

You are comparing convenience trim features of cameras that coax the common consumer to those of advance users. If you look at the 1D series it is built for professional work in adverse conditions. If your at the level to shoot with this body you really do not need the running man and mountain option on your camera. Needs are different at different levels. Different features for different tasks.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 3, 2018)

nchoh said:


> How many times have you heard "My back up camera is a ..."?
> How many time have you heard "My backup car is a ..."?



I have a back up camera in my car.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

nchoh said:


> How many times have you heard "My back up camera is a ..."?
> How many time have you heard "My backup car is a ..."?



Sure, but Ken raises a fair point. In other industries, there a very clear delineation of good / better / best.

$X gets you Good.
$X + $Y gets you Better, which offers everything that Good did and then adds some stuff
$X + $Y + $Z gets you Best, which offers everything that Good + Better did and then adds some more stuff

Canon is usually pretty good at this, but they don't always do this. Sometimes it's for segmentation reasons (wildlifers need fps, not MP as one example) or sometimes because they arugably drop the ball. In 2012, some folks ponied up a lot of money for a 5D3 as the only FF option other than the 1DX1 -- quite possibly buying more camera than they needed -- and then Canon put out the 6D1 at 60% of the price. Surely the superlative 5D3 would run circles around the cheaper product, right?  (In fairness, largely it did, but one could certainly make a parity argument on the most important component inside.)

Canon either listened to peoples' complaints (unlikely) or saw unit sales values which more heavily favored the 6D1 than the 5D3, and they (apparently) vowed to not repeat that error with the 5D4 vs. 6D2. Job done.

- A


----------



## nchoh (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, but Ken raises a fair point. In other industries, there a very clear delineation of good / better / best.
> 
> $X gets you Good.
> $X + $Y gets you Better, which offers everything that Good did and then adds some stuff
> ...



You made my point for me. In cameras there tends to be trade offs. Bigger sensor, bigger file size. More mp bigger file size, longer write time. AA filter, less moire, less sharp image. For cars, not so much, pick type, pick size of car, pick trim level. A3, A5, A7 for sedans. Q3, Q5, SQ5 for SUV. Basic, standard, premium or what ever name to want to give your trim levels.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 3, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Yup, IMO, if the new mount gives them competitive advantage (for example, a bigger better sensor) over their competitors, they won't care at all. Hence my question. What advantage will the new mount bring?



New mount won't give them a competitive advantage that's worth up to $$15000. So if the new mount isn't EF-compatible one way or another, that's pros who will be frustrated the most, not casual users. Often it's not a person but a company who owns the expensive gear - they will be frustrated too.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 3, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> New mount won't give them a competitive advantage that's worth up to $$15000. So if the new mount isn't EF-compatible one way or another, that's pros who will be frustrated the most, not casual users. Often it's not a person but a company who owns the expensive gear - they will be frustrated too.



How do you know the new mount won't give or enable competitive advantages? I don't know, but I do suspect that Canon R&D knows. They might be going after sports or they might be going after portrait/wedding/landscape photographers.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 3, 2018)

Let's say the the new mount allows for a sensor 1.2 x FF, shorter flange distance with the result of better low light performance and longer zoom range at the same weight and costs of existing lense. Would professional sports photographers not upgrade? Tough choice for a professional to just sit on the sidelines and watch their competitors pull in the money.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

Here's how a mount -- by itself -- could change the game for users:

It is larger, such that larger max aperture lenses can be developed. (Many believe Nikon is going to do this, btw)
It is much much larger, such that it could support a larger sensor, like 44x33 or 645 medium format. Not happening.
It communicates with lenses in an improved manner to do something heretofore impossible (IDK... automated focus stacking, a means to firmware update lenses without a dock?). Seems possible, but I'm looking for a killer application here.
The mount physically moves front to back to work with both thin mount and full EF lenses without adaptor. There are other options that surely are more mechanically reliable than this if Canon is hellbent on a super camera with both Full EF and a small form factor.
The mount is stepped/nested to allow (IDK) crop lenses to tuck inside the FF mount. ...Yay?
Can someone tell me if any of those at all are on the docket for Canon? 

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the mount itself is potentially magical. The _impact of the mount decision_ is colossal on a host of fronts: strategic, competitive positioning, user costs, lens inventory, etc. But the mount itself? It's a mount. It's a means to an end and I'm sure Canon will make one that works.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Let's say the the new mount allows for a sensor 1.2 x FF, shorter flange distance with the result of better low light performance and longer zoom range at the same weight and costs of existing lense. Would professional sports photographers not upgrade? Tough choice for a professional to just sit on the sidelines and watch their competitors pull in the money.



1) You are conflating the mount and the sensor into 'the mount could deliver this' -- that's a bit misleading. But yes, a different sized sensor could change the game, absolutely.

2) You need to explain your idea, b/c it kind of sounds like a 1.2x larger sensor than FF that somehow gives you more zoom range. It doesn't work that way. I must be missing something -- please set me straight.

Canon could go with a smaller than FF sensor that works with either new lenses or EF on adaptors -- let's resurrect APS-H as an example -- and yes, sports users would enjoy a nice little 1.3x bump in their effective FL. But that smaller sensor would be worse in low light for a given resolution (see crop vs. FF low light performance as an example.
Canon could go with a larger than FF sensor, but it gets complicated. Those sensors will cost a lot more and that cost will get passed on to us. New lenses with a larger image circle would be needed to use that sensor to its utmost, and those lenses would actually be bigger and heavier than EF lenses. EF lenses (via adaptor) would not change their zoom with this -- they'd just use the central parts of that sensor and would work as they do on FF.
I'm not saying there isn't something slick Canon could with the mount/sensor decision. They could. I don't think they will. The sensor defines this market because is provides ideal access to a massive slate of EF glass -- Canon's #1 competitive advantage. So I don't see them pulling out an APS-H or 44x33 medium format sort of surprise on us.

- A


----------



## ThailandEyes (Aug 3, 2018)

My issue is the possible loss of the optical viewfinder ... my old eyes don't do EVF all that well ...

With the optical I was able to add a diopter adjustment to suit my focus without glasses ...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 3, 2018)

nchoh said:


> How do you know the new mount won't give or enable competitive advantages? I don't know, but I do suspect that Canon R&D knows. They might be going after sports or they might be going after portrait/wedding/landscape photographers.



Suppose I have a fleet of very expensive lenses (I can be a rich photog or a company). If the new mount is not EF compatible, what do I do with my $15000 lenses? Also how long should I wait for the new mount lenses to arrive, e.g. 400mm, 800mm etc?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 3, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Suppose I have a fleet of very expensive lenses (I can be a rich photog or a company). If the new mount is not EF compatible, what do I do with my $15000 lenses? Also how long should I wait for the new mount lenses to arrive, e.g. 400mm, 800mm etc?


You should wait until there is a compelling reason to update your fleet, and keep using them until then. Same answer with series I to II, and II to III.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 3, 2018)

ThailandEyes said:


> My issue is the possible loss of the optical viewfinder ... my old eyes don't do EVF all that well ...
> 
> With the optical I was able to add a diopter adjustment to suit my focus without glasses ...



On the M50 the EVF has diopter adjustment (a slider being a little bit fiddly but it works).
I never thought that I would accept an EVF within minutes but just the EVF of that plastic fantastic is very usable if not very good. The colors and color transitions on the back display are definitely better but I really like (1) exposure simulation, (2) advanced info, (3) preview and (4) visible video viewfinder with EVF.
Only in very bright conditions the OVF is much much better. Maybe only a matter of time if OLED displays can show 100x brighter images.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> You should wait until there is a compelling reason to update your fleet, and keep using them until then. Same answer with series I to II, and II to III.



That's exactly the point. I was answering the claim that pros don't care about the mount.
If I have lenses much more expensive than any top pro Canon camera, why would I buy a new incompatible camera? I do care about compatibility and about the mount.


----------



## fingerstein (Aug 3, 2018)

When you have no news from Canon, you have to fabricate one.... The fact is: we are hearing nothing from Canon.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 3, 2018)

EF lenses will definitely remain fully functional on all upcoming Canon FF mirrorfree cameras. with or without (simple, inexpensive, solid, little, glass-free) OEM adapter is the only open question.

but ... even if Canon were to bring (some) FF mirrorfree camera/s with EF mount, AF performance of (most) existing EF lenses would not be as good as
1. it is on DSLRs (in mirror mode, separate phase-af sensor) and
2. not as good as new lenses with dual, triple or quadruple LEM AF drives and more CPU/AI, better algorithms built in, designed exclusively for mirrorless, on-sensor DP-AF operation. 

that's why Canon will develop (almost) all lenses in new versions, optimized for mirrorfree operation. therefore, instead of launching "EF Mk. III for mirrorfree" they may as well fully utilize ALL advantages of mirrorbox elimination: 1. more freedoms in optical formulae and 2. more compact designs across entire most frequently used focal length range - by introducing a new mount with shorter flange focal distance (and backwards compatibility with all EF glass via little adapter) . 

because of these facts i do not believe in 2 different mounts for Canon FF mirrorfree lineup.

All existing EF glass with possible exception of STM (40/2.8, 50/1.8) and Nano-USM (70-300 IS II) will be "legacy" the very moment Canon's first FF mirrorfree camera appears, irrespective of mount used. residual resale value of EF glass will drop - like it or not. 

and once again: EF-M mount is APS-C only. the very people at Canon who designed it, said so publicly. FF use might theoretically be possible, but it would be as compromise-fraught as Sony's E-mount. Which is Sony's greatest achilles heel. Canon is nit so stupid and will avoid this grave mistake.

Canon is evidently (!) planning a smooth transition from 1 FF and 1 crop mount in their mirrorslapping past (EF, EF-S) to 1 FF and 1 crop mount in their mirrorfree, bright future: "EF-X" and EF-M.

even i as fairly Canon critical observer have to applaud them on this strategy and say "SMART move, well played, Canon". you will sell millions of new cameras, multi-millions of new lenses abd lead sales stats and market shares for many years to come. much to canon forum fanbois' delight and neuronal pleasure.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Also, I think your trig is a little off there. 36 only works because 24 is in the picture -- it's an inscribed rectangle, right? So a square 36x36 wouldn't be covered by the EF image circle


That's not a problem, one can crop the rest out (selecting the needed crop in postprocessing: 2:1 or 3:2 or 4:3 or 1:1 or 3:4... you got it). But the sensor will still not provide some pixels that EF lenses can render. 43 by 43 sensor is better. Or actually a round sensor with 43mm diameter.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 3, 2018)

nchoh said:


> How do you know the new mount won't give or enable competitive advantages? I don't know, but I do suspect that Canon R&D knows. They might be going after sports or they might be going after portrait/wedding/landscape photographers.



The problem Canon (and any company in fact) now face, is that we are seeing an increasing disparity between what the designers see as an advance and what the twitterati will hail as an advance. 
Pros are somewhat different - they know what they need and need what they know and they are usually too busy taking photos to join the baying mobs which ends up with an unbalanced internet view of what is important.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> It communicates with lenses in an improved manner to do something heretofore impossible (IDK... automated focus stacking, a means to firmware update lenses without a dock?). Seems possible, but I'm looking for a killer application here.
> Can someone tell me if any of those at all are on the docket for Canon?


Current mount is fine for those. Magic Lantern can do automatic focus stacking, lens firmware updates can be applied via camera body now (starting with bodies from ~2012, IIRC).


----------



## michaelichiro (Aug 3, 2018)

EF mount mirrorless sounds good. This system perfectly support all range of lens immediately. Although the size of camera cannot reduce too much, but i think it is acceptable of DSLR user.


----------



## snoke (Aug 3, 2018)

EOS 1Dm
Pro do weddings? No noise.
Tennis same.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 3, 2018)

Well they have releases a lot of EF glass recently - so that would be odd if they were dropping EF mounts


----------



## snoke (Aug 3, 2018)

Drop EF mount hurt. Ask foot.


----------



## tron (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Which is why all FF 16-35 lenses (same FOV as the 10-22) have no AF tech at all, just the old sqeaky microm--
> 
> Oh. Hold on a minute.
> 
> ...


I also have 16-35 L lenses (4L and III) and I enjoy using them. But when I had a need for portability I got the 200D with 10-18, 18-55 and 24 with me (because I also had a 5DsR with 400 DO II and the total weight was more than enough) I do not recall having focusing speed issues with them (but true I was shooting static or slow moving targets). Plus they are wide enough to have a margin for focusing error. Of course YMMV (and the type of your shooting too).


----------



## Quackator (Aug 3, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> In the instance of a new mount, a smaller more compact package.



Only with pancakes or rather mediocre kit zooms.

Switch to better glass and/or longer focal lengths, and 
the kit grows when you have more than one lens.

Also, compact translates to bad ergonomics, smaller 
and/or less buttons and dials, shorter battery life.

You buy a lot of problems for the niche application of
a compact kit with slow pancakes.

Except for "compact", there is nothing that EF can't do
now or in the future. EF presents no technical limit for
Canon's engineers.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 3, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> I have a back up camera in my car.



And that car is a Ford Raptor (drooling profusely). haha BTW: Probably going to be a classic one day. Gorgeous truck.


----------



## tron (Aug 3, 2018)

Back to EF mount issue I do not believe all the native mount supporters are heavily invested on EF lenses. Some of them may not even have a Canon camera and they just spend their time on the internet. I do not think that a few fixed - and not so fast - Wide Angle lenses is reason enough for making a new mount. Just my opinion. We will know soon. I just preferred that Canon put their resources to making 7DIII and 5DsRII as major upgrades to their predecessors. Regarding lens range and lens IQ they are second to none.


----------



## Quackator (Aug 3, 2018)

dak723 said:


> The SL1 is much smaller than the 80D, for example, and I would much prefer that
> Canon uses the same approach for their smaller FF mirrorless.



I think many people don't realize that with the removal of the mirror box 
one can easily fit a full frame sensor into the SL1 body. 

Don't think that it needs to be any flimsier, but if it does, EOS M serves you well.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 3, 2018)

Quackator said:


> Only with pancakes or rather mediocre kit zooms.
> 
> Also, compact translates to bad ergonomics, smaller
> and/or less buttons and dials, shorter battery life.



Less buttons and dials: Not the case, in my case. That tiny little mirrorless camera has crap crammed all over it. It has buttons on top of switches and dials. Just a mess. And yes, tiny buttons and switches and dials. Horrible ergonomics.

I still hope and believe that Canon will beat everyone else in ergonomics with their mirrorless offering.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 3, 2018)

btw. i also expect all future Canon EF-X lenses to have focus by wire. EF-X "L" lenses will have a superb implementation (user adjustable throw and dampening for example, no play whatsoever) and FTM (full time manual override). non L consumer grade EF-X lenses may well come as "pure AF" - without manual focus ring and/or video-centric EF-X glass with powerzoom.


----------



## snoke (Aug 3, 2018)

Quackator said:


> I think many people don't realize that with the removal of the mirror box
> one can easily fit a full frame sensor into the SL1 body.



You pay 5D4 price for SL1?


----------



## amorse (Aug 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> non L consumer grade EF-X lenses may well come in AF only", without manual focus ring. and video-centric EF-X glass with powerzoom.


Oh please no. I'd rather have no autofocus at all rather than auto focus only. Are there any current examples of lenses that are AF only from any manufacturer?


----------



## ewg963 (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> "Competing" implies the two are given the same offerings to fight over the same customers and customer needs. Canon may not go that route.
> 
> EF-X could get just a handful of lenses -- the ones to keep the overall rig small -- and that's it. Done. f/4 UWA zoom, f/4 standard zoom, a handful of small f/2-ish primes and a compact macro. Done. That's it. For everything else, they point you to the adaptor.
> 
> ...


I agree with you ahsanford Canon has the great EF line up why not take advantage of that by using an adaptor but yet give us a new line of lighter lens. Yep problem solved.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 3, 2018)

Quackator said:


> Only with pancakes or rather mediocre kit zooms.
> 
> Switch to better glass and/or longer focal lengths, and
> the kit grows when you have more than one lens.
> ...



Bad ergonomics to some, not every one will have problems with a smaller package. 

I doubt "niche" will apply. That would indicate small or specialized. "Niche" applies better to the big white lenses, the macro lenses and the tilt and shifts.


----------



## ken (Aug 3, 2018)

nchoh said:


> How many times have you heard "My back up camera is a ..."?
> How many time have you heard "My backup car is a ..."?


My backup car is a pickup truck.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 1) You are conflating the mount and the sensor into 'the mount could deliver this' -- that's a bit misleading. But yes, a different sized sensor could change the game, absolutely.
> 
> 2) ...
> 
> - A



You had me at yes.


----------



## lightthief (Aug 3, 2018)

snoke said:


> You pay 5D4 price for SL1?



No. But take the SL2/200D, add the sensor of 6DII, give it AFMA, and i will pay 1200-1500€ (2-3 x price of SL2) for it.
And yes, no need for AFMA when it comes with EFV.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 1) You are conflating the mount and the sensor into 'the mount could deliver this' -- that's a bit misleading. But yes, a different sized sensor could change the game, absolutely.
> 
> 2) You need to explain your idea, b/c it kind of sounds like a 1.2x larger sensor than FF that somehow gives you more zoom range. It doesn't work that way. I must be missing something -- please set me straight.
> 
> ...



What's the lifespan of a lens? 15~20 years? How long does it take to fill out a complete/competitive lineup of lenses for a new mount? 15~20 years?

Does Canon have enough market share and manufacturing capacity to support more than 3 lens mounts? I think they do.


----------



## ken (Aug 3, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> My wife didn't want the fully loaded Ford Raptor because they couldn't have vibrating seats.
> She settled for the fully loaded King Ranch.
> She drives my Raptor and sometimes she regrets that decision.
> 
> You are comparing convenience trim features of cameras that coax the common consumer to those of advance users. If you look at the 1D series it is built for professional work in adverse conditions. If your at the level to shoot with this body you really do not need the running man and mountain option on your camera. Needs are different at different levels. Different features for different tasks.



So an advanced user doesn't want convenience? Sorry, I'm not buying that argument. 6D had wifi before 5D3, and people justified that with "that's a consumer feature". Now 5D4 has wifi. If it's just a "common consumer feature", why is it now in the 5D4? What changed?

The flip screen is just the latest example of that. People will say "pro shooters don't want that." All they have to do is never flip it out if they're so worried about it breaking.

I predict the next 1D will have a flip screen. And most people will be very glad it does.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 3, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> I doubt "niche" will apply. That would indicate small or specialized. "Niche" applies better to the big white lenses, the macro lenses and the tilt and shifts.


Or a "compact" FF camera with a lens mount for mediocre lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Suppose I have a fleet of very expensive lenses (I can be a rich photog or a company). If the new mount is not EF compatible, what do I do with my $15000 lenses? Also how long should I wait for the new mount lenses to arrive, e.g. 400mm, 800mm etc?



Simple. You use the adaptor or you wait for a Full EF mirrorless option. Opt in or wait, it's up to you.

- A


----------



## amorse (Aug 3, 2018)

ken said:


> So an advanced user doesn't want convenience? Sorry, I'm not buying that argument. 6D had wifi before 5D3, and people justified that with "that's a consumer feature". Now 5D4 has wifi. If it's just a "common consumer feature", why is it now in the 5D4? What changed?
> 
> The flip screen is just the latest example of that. People will say "pro shooters don't want that." All they have to do is never flip it out if they're so worried about it breaking.
> 
> I predict the next 1D will have a flip screen. And most people will be very glad it does.


I don't think WiFi is a consumer feature any more - I've found it incredibly useful. I don't think I'd buy a camera without it after using it on my 5D IV. I'm not a professional, but I'd assume anyone who needs a fast turnaround time would really appreciate the option of transferring photos from their camera to their phone to deliver them immediately after taking them, rather than having to go back to the office, download them then send them. When time matters I'd assume WiFi is a must - I could see that being very useful to photojournalists (if that's still a thing). 

In addition, maybe not as important for others, the WiFi remote shooting option has been amazing for me - I don't always have a wireless remote trigger on me, but I do have my phone. With that said, I didn't think I'd want a flip screen, but more and more I'm seeing the benefit of it. I was working on a composition a couple weeks ago and I realized that I literally had to put my head on the ground to get the right angle - that experience would have been much nicer with a flip screen.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 3, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's exactly the point. I was answering the claim that pros don't care about the mount.
> If I have lenses much more expensive than any top pro Canon camera, why would I buy a new incompatible camera? I do care about compatibility and about the mount.



I missed the “if the mount is not EF compatible” but of your first post. 

I expect if it’s not an EF mount, it will be easily adapted.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 3, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And that car is a Ford Raptor (drooling profusely). haha BTW: Probably going to be a classic one day. Gorgeous truck.



 If they limit production it will be for sure.


ken said:


> So an advanced user doesn't want convenience? Sorry, I'm not buying that argument. 6D had wifi before 5D3, and people justified that with "that's a consumer feature". Now 5D4 has wifi. If it's just a "common consumer feature", why is it now in the 5D4? What changed?
> 
> The flip screen is just the latest example of that. People will say "pro shooters don't want that." All they have to do is never flip it out if they're so worried about it breaking.
> 
> I predict the next 1D will have a flip screen. And most people will be very glad it does.



What the common user may think of as convenience may not be necessary for the more experienced user.
The shooter at NBA game doesn't need the running man setting of a rebel. I am not sure he would need the flip screen.

I thought the same thing about features when I bought my 1D IV, it had less bells and whistles than the consumer models. But I found it didn't need them. At the time it had a superior AF system and a build quality to withstand adverse weather.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

nchoh said:


> What's the lifespan of a lens? 15~20 years? How long does it take to fill out a complete/competitive lineup of lenses for a new mount? 15~20 years?
> 
> Does Canon have enough market share and manufacturing capacity to support more than 3 lens mounts? I think they do.



I'm actually arguing Canon goes with four mounts: EF, EF-X, EF-M, EF-S. And yes, they absolutely could handle that load.

My argument is that there is no big upside in rebuilding all of EF in EF-X for a lousy 1" savings -- you'd be climbing 'Whole lot o' nothing new' mountain for those 10-15 years as you clone EF for the new mount. That makes no sense. So keep EF-X to a handful of lenses that really make the sizing savings pop:

35 f/2.8
Likely a pancake
50 f/1.8
85 f/2
24-50 f/3.5 - 6.3
50mm f/2.8 compact macro (illuminated?)

And you call it good. You're done. Everything else requires the adaptor. EF reigns as the big tent that gets all the R&D support and EF-X, EF-S and EF-M are svelte little portfolios that cover their respective mounts.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

ken said:


> I predict the next 1D will have a flip screen. And most people will be very glad it does.



5D5 = certain tilty-flippy, 100% happening

5DS2 = surely needs one so I wouldn't be surprised to see it, but I recall some commentary that the 5DS1 used 5D3 body componentry, so perhaps the 5DS2 is stuck with a 5D4 like fixed screen setup?

1DX3 = Canon may piss people off here and withhold it, claiming it wouldn't survive the tundra or jungle or desert if they offered a tilty-flippy.

- A


----------



## melgross (Aug 3, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> The EF-M mount in itself is perfectly capable of full frame performance. However, none of the EF-M lenses produced to date would be capable of full frame coverage. The EF-M mount is simply the electronics, physical mount dimensions and flange focal distance. Which is the same flange focal distance which Sony is using in their full frame mirrorless. They may change the name to EF-FM, but the lenses mount in itself is the same. What will be the question is if you can use the APS-C EF-M line on the new FF camera and it has auto crop to aps-c mode.


Even Canon said that that mount isn’t good for FF. I wish people would stop thinking it is.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2018)

ThailandEyes said:


> My issue is the possible loss of the optical viewfinder ... my old eyes don't do EVF all that well ...
> 
> With the optical I was able to add a diopter adjustment to suit my focus without glasses ...



A diaptor adjustment should be available for EVF. I had it on all my Video cameras going back into the 1980's, The M5 has a adjustment, I'm don't believe that add-on diopters from DSLR's fit. Certainly, a pro level model will have them.


----------



## ken (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 5D5 = certain tilty-flippy, 100% happening
> 
> 5DS2 = surely needs one so I wouldn't be surprised to see it, but I recall some commentary that the 5DS1 used 5D3 body componentry, so perhaps the 5DS2 is stuck with a 5D4 like fixed screen setup?
> 
> ...


I think Canon is smart enough to know that the number of buyers of 1DX hiking through the jungle is a fraction of the 1DX customer base.  Dollars to donuts they have more buyers who are retired doctors and lawyers who can afford expensive toys than they do shooters roughing it on the Serengeti. Anecdotal, but I live in a city with a population of just under 200,000 people, and I've been at least once to all of the local photo clubs to see that's the camera of choice for the retired professional.

Of course, you could be right. A carefully crafted perception might be more important than reality.

P.S. Not trying to malign the retired docs. Some of them are really, really good amateur photogs, and take it very seriously. Intelligent, educated people tend to become good at whatever their passion leads them to.


----------



## snoke (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 1DX3 = Canon may piss people off here and withhold it, claiming it wouldn't survive the tundra or jungle or desert if they offered a tilty-flippy.
> 
> - A



Now 1DM. No more 1DX,


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2018)

amorse said:


> Oh please no. I'd rather have no autofocus at all rather than auto focus only. Are there any current examples of lenses that are AF only from any manufacturer?



Canon has made some in the past, they may do it again.

My EF 35-80mm power zoom has only AF

I also had another one, but I don't have a photo. All were consumer lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

ken said:


> I think Canon is smart enough to know that the number of buyers of 1DX hiking through the jungle is a fraction of the
> P.S. Not trying to malign the retired docs. Some of them are really, really good amateur photogs, and take it very seriously. Intelligent, educated people tend to become good at whatever their passion leads them to.



+1. I work with the ones who haven't retired yet in my day job. A mad intellect + a ceaseless engine to work hard + a battle-hardened sense of repetition/routine/algorithm and it's not surprising that a number of them have highly technical hobbies (including photography). I can't vouch for their creativity or eye, but their ability to juggle information in realtime figuratively resembles Tony Stark effortlessly processing all of his HUD inputs. I consider myself a bright engineer, but some of these guys are on another planet.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

snoke said:


> Now 1DM. No more 1DX,



Does Canon even dare to try such a camera in the first round of FF mirrorless? 

I don't think so. I think they'll court the entry / mid level of FF users and see how the market shapes up, if FF segmentation like SLRs makes sense or if the market for mirrorless is differently structured, etc. All the while, they'll be working on throughput, shutter technology, AF and tracking improvements, rolling shutter reduction, etc. so that the second wave of FF mirrorless in a few years' time will have some 20+ fps superbeast of a 1-series mirrorless.

Don't get me wrong, a 1DXm or equivalent is surely coming -- but not anytime soon.

- A


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> But think of all the lost vertical grip sales!
> 
> I kid.
> 
> ...


I am not a mathematician and I'm lazy -- I took ½ the hypotenuse to be the radius of the circle. Then for each format, calculated the square area.
Probably not 100% correct! Thank you for looking.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 3, 2018)

I stopped by Best Buy the other week, and the guy who sold me the 6D2 last year was asking me about how I liked it. He later asked about my use of wifi on it, and I realized that I have never tried it. I do keep the GPS logging all the time the camera is on, probably more to see that the clock stays right. So far I haven't taken the camera more than 40 miles from home.

When traveling, I have used wifi on the G7X II, but that was mostly for getting the GPS readings off my phone. And on day-long bus tours, I'm hesitant to leave that on and be continually using up battery on both devices. If the pairing worked easier and more reliably, I could turn it off an on. But it is just easier to take a picture with the iPhone at the same spot and use the GPS reading from that to tell me where I was at the time.

On the 6D2 I have used an infrared remote one time when I needed a recent picture of myself. My wired remote for the Rebel won't work with it supposedly, so I have bought a wired remote for it, but haven't used it. I used the T3i one when I shot the solar eclipse.

Maybe some late afternoon I'll set the 6D2 up on the deck and try remote connection to my iPad to see if I can photograph the deer when they come around. They are skittish enough when I'm on the deck at all, and if I point something at them, they duck into the woods.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 3, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> I am not a mathematician and I'm lazy -- I took ½ the hypotenuse to be the radius of the circle. Then for each format, calculated the square area.
> Probably not 100% correct! Thank you for looking.



The radius of the circle should be right. The problem comes in switching to area. Inscribing a square would mean that the diameter of the circle becomes the diagonal of the square. So each side of the square would be about sqrt((43^2)/2) if I haven't messed up my notation, or 30ish as mentioned above.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

stevelee said:


> The radius of the circle should be right. The problem comes in switching to area. Inscribing a square would mean that the diameter of the circle becomes the diagonal of the square. So each side of the square would be about sqrt((43^2)/2) if I haven't messed up my notation, or 30ish as mentioned above.



The crude and non-mathy way:

1) Draw a circle. (This is all the real estate your EF lens can reel in.)
2) Draw a rectangle (3:2-ish, doesn't have to be perfect to make this point) that has all four corners touching the circle.
3) Now change the shape of that rectangle to a square that still must touch the circle in all four corners. 

​
There is no way to do that without the long side of the rectangle getting shorter.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2018)

The lazy, let someone else do the math for you way:

https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/122343260


----------



## amorse (Aug 3, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon has made some in the past, they may do it again.
> 
> My EF 35-80mm power zoom has only AF
> 
> I also had another one, but I don't have a photo. All were consumer lenses.


I had no idea! Well, I guess there must have at some point been market space for a product like that, maybe there still is. How did it perform for you? I feel like this would drive me mad if I couldn't quite get the focus right.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 3, 2018)

Having relatively recently bought the 1DX2 I could hardly justify a repeat but all I can say is give me all the best features of mirrorless and DSLR and I'll be hard pressed to restrain myself from one last body purchase. Must have full EF capability.

Jack


----------



## markazali (Aug 3, 2018)

I thought it was really cool that Pentax went this route with the K-01


----------



## Kit. (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> View attachment 179422​
> There is no way to do that without the long side of the rectangle getting shorter.


Make the sensor round, and then you have a choice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Make the sensor round, and then you have a choice.


Wouldn't it be great if silicon wafers were like sugar cookie dough, where you could cut out circles then gather it back into a ball, roll it out again, and cut out more circles? Alas.....


----------



## scyrene (Aug 3, 2018)

denstore said:


> Possible. But there has been quite a lot of extrapolated calculations, and not all of the that far from logic and reason. I believe it will be large and if they start making cameras that fit my hands, and have fast glass available, like the rumoured 50/0,95, I might pick up a Nikon before a dinky sized Canon with mostly f/4 lenses available. The prime reason that I’ve stayed away fron the M-series so far is that the available glass is slow, and if I use EF glass and an adapter, it’s not better than any other APS-S body.



Wait, the make-or-break issue for you is whether they can produce f/0.95 lenses??


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wouldn't it be great if silicon wafers were like sugar cookie dough, where you could cut out circles then gather it back into a ball, roll it out again, and cut out more circles? Alas.....



If Santa brings you a new camera for Christmas, that is exactly how the Elves do it.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Make the sensor round, and then you have a choice.



And the viewfinder, and the pentaprism/EVF, etc.

It's a lot to ask.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Wait, the make-or-break issue for you is whether they can produce f/0.95 lenses??



I can't speak for that poster, but some folks see mirrorless as a chance to smash the limits/orthodoxy/constraints we live with in our current systems. Some folk look to mirrorless not for size or the potential upsides of mirrorless, but because it's their company's one chance in 20-30 years to try something new: f/0.95 lenses, medium format mirrorless, etc. comes to mind.

In short, while the mount / sensor size / etc. are unknown, anything could be possible. Some people are off the races with that notion. Let them dream -- no harm there.

- A


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 3, 2018)

If I were Canon I would do a flagship 1DX III mirrorless. It can have superior battery power than Sony. It could have a great FPS and silent mode. A bold statement of intent. I’d keep the EF Mount for it but promise a future EF-x compact full frame. I think Canon trade a lot from the brand exposure at sports events. It can let that market fall into the hands of Sony


----------



## snoke (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Does Canon even dare to try such a camera in the first round of FF mirrorless?



I not say 1DM first.
You say 1DX3.
I say no more 1DX.



Hector1970 said:


> If I were Canon I would do a flagship 1DX III mirrorless. ... I think Canon trade a lot from the brand exposure at sports events. It can*'t* let that market fall into the hands of Sony



Smart.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

snoke said:


> I not say 1DM first.
> You say 1DX3.
> I say no more 1DX.



This somewhat implies that if Sony simply had more lenses, the A9 would eat the 1DX2's lunch. That's a farce.

Please tell me why a super high FPS mirrorless FF rig is needed so urgently when 99% of all sports photogs are happily using D5 and 1DX2 cameras. I would argue this segment of user is the last bastion of the mirror, where it will be the hardest to get people to switch due to some very very high performance standards. I wouldn't touch this market with mirrorless until it legitimately was as good as the 1DX2 is now.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> If I were Canon I would do a flagship 1DX III mirrorless. It can have superior battery power than Sony. It could have a great FPS and silent mode. A bold statement of intent. I’d keep the EF Mount for it but promise a future EF-x compact full frame. I think Canon trade a lot from the brand exposure at sports events. It can let that market fall into the hands of Sony



Sony is years away from truly making trouble for Canon here. They need a good 4-5 more higher end superwhites and a mechanical shutter that can handle high fps shooting. Currently the A9 is capped at 5 fps mechanical and the 20 fps e-shutter rather famously had some problems with stadium lighting.

The A7 III / A7R3 is a 10 fps mechanical shutter, so Sony is improving. But they need to have world class AF + a big spread of longer glass + 15 fps or so to even get into a conversation about stealing sideline sports work, IMHO. They are years away from that.

- A


----------



## Leigh (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 1) What about the EF-M adaptor to EF/EF-S makes you think Canon can't make an excellent adaptor? They write the AF routines and make the lenses, so it should work just fine, correct?
> 
> 2) If it's just for landscape work, why not just get the Sony? You don't need great AF if you're living in tripod LiveView work, do you? You just need the lenses to mount and communicate with the body for aperture, so any concerns of adaptor AF somewhat go out the window.
> 
> - A


Using the Sony + Adapter for Landscape would certainly be an option; but I'd rather stay with a system that I'm familiar with, rather than endure the learning curve of an unfamiliar system----So I'll wait to see what Canon has offer---If Canon disappoints, in that regard, I'm getting tired of playing the "waiting game", & I likely will be getting a Sony A7R3.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 3, 2018)

Leigh said:


> Using the Sony + Adapter for Landscape would certainly be an option; but I'd rather stay with a system that I'm familiar with, rather than endure the learning curve of an unfamiliar system----So I'll wait to see what Canon has offer---If Canon disappoints, in that regard, I'm getting tired of playing the "waiting game", & I likely will be getting a Sony A7R3.



Depends on what you are waiting for: if it's a sensor better than Sony's, just get the Sony now. If it's better ergonomics, handling, AF, etc. then wait for Canon.

And if you are leaning, remember that you don't have to plunge -- you can dabble. Consider a rental from Uncle Rog and giving it a go, or possibly even just picking up the (now ancient and far more afforable) A7R I, which had a sensor on par with the D810 (which is to say = great).

I continue to be appalled buy folks who convert their photography armamentarium at spectacular cost only to realize they've made a mistake. Rent rent rent before making any plunges! 

- A


----------



## Kit. (Aug 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wouldn't it be great if silicon wafers were like sugar cookie dough, where you could cut out circles then gather it back into a ball, roll it out again, and cut out more circles?


They are, in a sense, but "gathering it back into a ball, rolling it out again" is not cheap.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 3, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> If I were Canon I would do a flagship 1DX III mirrorless. It can have superior battery power than Sony. It could have a great FPS and silent mode. A bold statement of intent. I’d keep the EF Mount for it but promise a future EF-x compact full frame. I think Canon trade a lot from the brand exposure at sports events. It can let that market fall into the hands of Sony



You may be right.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wouldn't it be great if silicon wafers were like sugar cookie dough, where you could cut out circles then gather it back into a ball, roll it out again, and cut out more circles? Alas.....



Now, I'm not an expert in CMOS fabrication by any means, but would it be possible to use the wasted corners of the circle to add some more circuitry for the sensor to use, eg RAM?

Anyway, I did a thing on the whole circular sensor thing a while back on my blog. http://www.everyothershot.com/whats-better-full-frame-sensor-circular-sensor-course where I go on and on about how wonderful an idea it is.

Of course it'll never happen.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Sony is years away from truly making trouble for Canon here. They need a good 4-5 more higher end superwhites and a mechanical shutter that can handle high fps shooting. Currently the A9 is capped at 5 fps mechanical and the 20 fps e-shutter rather famously had some problems with stadium lighting.
> 
> The A7 III / A7R3 is a 10 fps mechanical shutter, so Sony is improving. But they need to have world class AF + a big spread of longer glass + 15 fps or so to even get into a conversation about stealing sideline sports work, IMHO. They are years away from that.
> 
> - A


I don't think they are that far off at all. Their big whites are en-route. The electronic shutter will give them the frame rate well beyond 15 FPS. Their eye focus is impressive, the focus ability will keep improving. I've never been particularly interested in Sony but I'd have to say the A7RIII is very good camera. Alot of things depend on Sony will to win. The sector is not as profitable as it once was and I'm sure its not cheap for Sony or Canon to keep developing the technology in a shrinking market


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I don't think they are that far off at all. Their big whites are en-route. The electronic shutter will give them the frame rate well beyond 15 FPS. Their eye focus is impressive, the focus ability will keep improving. I've never been particularly interested in Sony but I'd have to say the A7RIII is very good camera. Alot of things depend on Sony will to win. The sector is not as profitable as it once was and I'm sure its not cheap for Sony or Canon to keep developing the technology in a shrinking market


*A* big white is en-route. Singular. How about TC's to use with that one (singular) big white? Sure, Sony has them. You can mount them between their weather sealed A9 and their weather sealed (singular) big white...and provide the perfect ingress for water. But maybe Sony is only targeting the fair-weather pro sports photography market.


----------



## applecider (Aug 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, but Ken raises a fair point. In other industries, there a very clear delineation of good / better / best.
> 
> $X gets you Good.
> $X + $Y gets you Better, which offers everything that Good did and then adds some stuff
> ...


The missing ingredient comparing the 5D4 vs 6Dii is time.

Sure the lower camera should not say have a better sensor if it is released simultaneously, but if the release of the lower camera is say two years later, and on sensor processing has been introduced and resulted in better performance in this case even with a crop the 80D, then I’d say that the “lower” camera could have say better low light especially if it has fewer larger pixels.

So time of release would seem to be a factor as to whether a non top of the line could have a better feature than an apex model. I’m not saying the 6dii is not a great camera, just that certain expectations were made by consumers about sensor say progress.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I don't think they are that far off at all. Their big whites are en-route. The electronic shutter will give them the frame rate well beyond 15 FPS. Their eye focus is impressive, the focus ability will keep improving. I've never been particularly interested in Sony but I'd have to say the A7RIII is very good camera. Alot of things depend on Sony will to win. The sector is not as profitable as it once was and I'm sure its not cheap for Sony or Canon to keep developing the technology in a shrinking market





neuroanatomist said:


> *A* big white is en-route. Singular. How about TC's to use with that one (singular) big white? Sure, Sony has them. You can mount them between their weather sealed A9 and their weather sealed (singular) big white...and provide the perfect ingress for water. But maybe Sony is only targeting the fair-weather pro sports photography market.



And if crazy high fps e-shutter is such a winner, why did Sony revert to a mechanical 10 fps shutter in the recent III line of A7 cameras? 

Answer: it's not ready for primetime. There were problems shooting sports with stadium lighting. The A9 was simply not a finished product nearly so much as a showhorse with eye-popping specs. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

applecider said:


> The missing ingredient comparing the 5D4 vs 6Dii is time.
> 
> Sure the lower camera should not say have a better sensor if it is released simultaneously, but if the release of the lower camera is say two years later, and on sensor processing has been introduced and resulted in better performance in this case even with a crop the 80D, then I’d say that the “lower” camera could have say better low light especially if it has fewer larger pixels.



Sure, but that delay of time was less than a year b/c the 6D follows the 5D, which follows the 1DX. When they are that close together, I consider all three of those lines arriving on more or less the same bus. Those products should be very clearly delineated good/better/best as a result, and (now) I think they are.

The wildcards that muck with this approach are:

Products on a completely different timeline with a high-level of prestige/market value. 5DS, I'm squarely looking at you -- that product line was seemingly engineered to create some feature-set envy with the 5D line. Canon has to walk a careful line when it staggers two roughly equivalent price point cameras 2-2.5 years apart like that. If the 5D4 gets too much good stuff, the 5DS people freak (case in point: the wifi SD card appeasement move). If the 5DS2 gets some sick hot lava that the 5D4 wants (tilty-flippy immediately comes to mind), it will happen the other way. (This could be chaos Canon benefits from as well, but that's another matter.)
Generational tech trickling down inconsistently: on chip ADC sensors making it into an 80D but not a 6D2 come to mind here.
Lower level tech getting heretofore premium features: 4K popping up on lower/middle cameras while nicer cameras abouve it don't have it (as they simply haven't come up for refresh: M5, M6, etc.)
- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I don't think they are that far off at all. Their big whites are en-route. The electronic shutter will give them the frame rate well beyond 15 FPS. Their eye focus is impressive, the focus ability will keep improving. I've never been particularly interested in Sony but I'd have to say the A7RIII is very good camera. Alot of things depend on Sony will to win. The sector is not as profitable as it once was and I'm sure its not cheap for Sony or Canon to keep developing the technology in a shrinking market



Also: as much as Sony is offering a ton of tech, they've shown little ability to flip pros. 

Consider: Sony is in a far far far better position to flip (say) photojournos, wedding shooters, portaiture folks, studio folks, etc. than sports and wildlife people. And they _still_ haven't even flipped many of those folks yet.

So I give Sony a lot of credit for pumping a lot of tech out, but if they haven't flipped pros that would represent technical difficulty 3 out 10, what makes you think they'll soon have the goods to flip the 9 out of 10 warhorse sideline / safari / wildlife guys?

- A


----------



## melgross (Aug 4, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Make the sensor round, and then you have a choice.


And just how big, heavy and expensive a camera do you require, sir?


----------



## melgross (Aug 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Also: as much as Sony is offering a ton of tech, they've shown little ability to flip pros.
> 
> Consider: Sony is in a far far far better position to flip (say) photojournos, wedding shooters, portaiture folks, studio folks, etc. than sports and wildlife people. And they _still_ haven't even flipped many of those folks yet.
> 
> ...



Sony has been working s hard as possible to sell cameras, with more different body types and mounts than anyone else over the years. But yet, other than in mirrorless, as yet a smaller category where there are no major competitors, they haven’t moved the needle one bit.

That’s not just for pros, it’s for anyone.


----------



## melgross (Aug 4, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> If I were Canon I would do a flagship 1DX III mirrorless. It can have superior battery power than Sony. It could have a great FPS and silent mode. A bold statement of intent. I’d keep the EF Mount for it but promise a future EF-x compact full frame. I think Canon trade a lot from the brand exposure at sports events. It can let that market fall into the hands of Sony


Canon has stTed that they aren’t ready for a 1D mirrorless. The technology is t there yet for a top pro model. The viewfinder is a major reason given. If these new models do well, then Canon MIGHT be encouraged to put more resources into speeding that timeline up. But it could easily be another 2, 3 or even more years away.

That’s one product they have to get exactly right the first time.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

melgross said:


> Canon has stTed that they aren’t ready for a 1D mirrorless. The technology is t there yet for a top pro model. The viewfinder is a major reason given. If these new models do well, then Canon MIGHT be encouraged to put more resources into speeding that timeline up. But it could easily be another 2, 3 or even more years away.
> 
> That’s one product they have to get exactly right the first time.




Well said. 100% agree. This is a market segment you don't make a sacrificial half-cooked offering to 'show that you are trying' because the internet is screaming YAPODFC. This is a market segment that will only give up their gear for something better than what is presently in their hands.

In fact, if Canon wanted to rattle its sports/wildlife pros and drive them straight into Sony's Nikon's arms, the absolute _best_ way to do it would be to drop a lemon of a "you're going to love this" that isn't ready.

- A


----------



## denstore (Aug 4, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Wait, the make-or-break issue for you is whether they can produce f/0.95 lenses??


No, but I want lenses as fast or faster than the ones available for EF today. It’s a part of lens development as important as ever. 
If Nikon brings out a new system, with really fast glass available and good ergonomics, and Canon at the same time decides to make small bodies, with few and mostly slow lenses, I will probably go with the Nikon. I’m not that bound to any specific brand. But I do dislike the trend of small cameras, with retro style flat and angular bodies.


----------



## RGF (Aug 4, 2018)

Won't allowing an EF lens require that body has the same thickness as the current EOS bodies This will not make the ML bodies smaller, at least in the thickness dimension


----------



## Bert (Aug 4, 2018)

Hello All,
My guess is that a new mirrorless FF EF-X mount will be an “extreme EF-S” with the sensor to mount distance equaling the EF (so EF & EF-S are a native fit) and EF-X lenses will be able to have glass extending into the body further than EF-S. This will give the FF mirrorless a comprehensive lens range from the start while allowing mirrorless lenses to have specific benefits compared to EF lenses.
Not sure if this has been discussed above as I haven’t read all posts.
Regards, Bert


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

Bert said:


> Hello All,
> Not sure if this has been discussed above as I haven’t read all posts.
> Regards, Bert



It has indeed -- Don Haines (and someone else, please forgive me) brought the idea up some time ago:

​
The thread for discussion on this is elsewhere: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ef-x-mirrorless-concept.35311/

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> It has indeed -- Don Haines (and someone else, please forgive me) brought the idea up some time ago:
> 
> View attachment 179438​
> The thread for discussion on this is elsewhere: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ef-x-mirrorless-concept.35311/
> ...



You are absolutely the king of visual aids (I'm jealous)... but that sure looks weird. The new lens style would have to be narrower to fit past the EF flange and then as wide as the EF flange to seal. I'm not convinced there will be such a hyper-hybrid mount. Then it still really is not beneficial on the tele lengths so it seems like a lot of trouble when a pancake lens will do. Would it be any benefit weight wise? Enough to make a difference? Doesn't look like it unless the lenses are slow... which brings us back to the pancakes. It is looking more and more like a skinny mirrorless and fatty mirrorless are coming. We're sure skinny won't take EF without an adapter and fatty won't take lenses from skinny's line. It will be pure EF and more serious video wise, I think. What do we have? I guess about two months if the announcement takes place at Photokina. I'm not in the market at all, but I can't wait for the wait to be over and everybody can kiss and make up  Oops, I forgot. Then we'll have all the disappointment threads. *sigh*


----------



## Kit. (Aug 4, 2018)

melgross said:


> And just how big, heavy and expensive a camera do you require, sir?


Like 5D-series with a vertical grip.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 4, 2018)

melgross said:


> And just how big, heavy and expensive a camera do you require, sir?



I vote for an octogonal sensor.


----------



## Talys (Aug 4, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I vote for an octogonal sensor.


Parabolic. After all, if it's good for capturing signs of alien life, just imagine how awesome it will be much smaller stuff that's nearby!


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Here's how a mount -- by itself -- could change the game for users:
> It is larger, such that larger max aperture lenses can be developed. (Many believe Nikon is going to do this, btw)



Because f/1.2 isn't fast enough?

<snip>

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the mount itself is potentially magical. The _impact of the mount decision_ is colossal on a host of fronts: strategic, competitive positioning, user costs, lens inventory, etc. But the mount itself? It's a mount. It's a means to an end and I'm sure Canon will make one that works.


denstore said:


> No, but I want lenses as fast or faster than the ones available for EF today. It’s a part of lens development as important as ever.
> If Nikon brings out a new system, with really fast glass available and good ergonomics, and Canon at the same time decides to make small bodies, with few and mostly slow lenses, I will probably go with the Nikon. I’m not that bound to any specific brand. But I do dislike the trend of small cameras, with retro style flat and angular bodies.



The difference between Canon's f/1.2 lenses and the rumored Nikon's f/0.95 are ~0.6 of a stop.

If that fraction of a stop made a difference for a large enough section of the market, Canon would come out with some incarnation of the 50mm f/1.0


----------



## snoke (Aug 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> This somewhat implies that if Sony simply had more lenses, the A9 would eat the 1DX2's lunch. That's a farce.



Farce? Because you say it?

Some married to Canon. Some married to Nikon. Divorce always messy. Waste energy.

Sony want new photographers. Eat Canon/Nikon market growth. Easier.



> Please tell me why a super high FPS mirrorless FF rig is needed so urgently when 99% of all sports photogs are happily using D5 and 1DX2 cameras.



I didn't say sports photographers change, you did. Stop. Twice you try make me say something wrong. You bad at conversation. Very bad.

Why 1DM good? This possible:
* Frames per second - 20
* Shutter blackout - no
* Shutter noise - no


Canon make 1DM then many used 1DX2 cheap on ebay. You like cheap 1Dx2, yes?


----------



## denstore (Aug 4, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Because f/1.2 isn't fast enough?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



1.2 is quite OK with me , even if I always like more light and shallower depth of field.
But my point is that i don’t see any reason to build a FF camera, and then cripple it with slow lenses, only in the pursuit of making it small. Nikon seem to be aiming for a low light monster with their new FF mirrorless and large aperture (NOCT?) lenses, which would be my choice of path for Canon as well. EF mount would be my preferred choice, but if they do intend to switch mounts, please make it larger, not smaller.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 4, 2018)

Talys said:


> Parabolic. After all, if it's good for capturing signs of alien life, just imagine how awesome it will be much smaller stuff that's nearby!



Like a Pringles chip: A Parabolic Paraboloid. No wonder we've been seeing those curved sensor patents.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 4, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Like a Pringles chip: A Parabolic Paraboloid. No wonder we've been seeing those curved sensor patents.





CanonFanBoy said:


> You are absolutely the king of visual aids (I'm jealous)... but that sure looks weird. The new lens style would have to be narrower to fit past the EF flange and then as wide as the EF flange to seal. I'm not convinced there will be such a hyper-hybrid mount. Then it still really is not beneficial on the tele lengths so it seems like a lot of trouble when a pancake lens will do. Would it be any benefit weight wise? Enough to make a difference? Doesn't look like it unless the lenses are slow... which brings us back to the pancakes. It is looking more and more like a skinny mirrorless and fatty mirrorless are coming. We're sure skinny won't take EF without an adapter and fatty won't take lenses from skinny's line. It will be pure EF and more serious video wise, I think. Then again, how many will get in bed with Skinny only to see their dreams drop dead and then wish they had sided with Fatty when they were trying to satisfy their G.A.S?
> 
> What do we have? I guess about two months if the announcement takes place at Photokina. I'm not in the market at all, but I can't wait for the wait to be over and everybody can kiss and make up  Oops, I forgot. Then we'll have all the disappointment threads. *sigh*


----------



## melgross (Aug 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> It has indeed -- Don Haines (and someone else, please forgive me) brought the idea up some time ago:
> 
> View attachment 179438​
> The thread for discussion on this is elsewhere: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ef-x-mirrorless-concept.35311/
> ...


I completely agree with this. I’ve been saying the same thing. There is no reason why Canon can’t make a lens that protrudes behind the mount itself. Yes, it does seem odd, and unprotected, but I doesn’t have to be.

Really, there’s nothing sacred about the mount being the last thing on the lens. After all, rangefinder lenses have been doing this for many decades. It really solves some problems. Without needing strong retrofocus designs, new high speed wideangles can be made smaller again. Cannons mount is already pretty big. I just looked at mine. There’s a lot of room in there.


----------



## melgross (Aug 4, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Like 5D-series with a vertical grip.


Not possible with a round sensor, unless it’s small, to fit an aps-c lens coverage.


----------



## melgross (Aug 4, 2018)

Quite frankly, at this point in time, I think that super fast lenses, meaning anything faster than 1.4, are an unnecessary waste of R&D funding. I don’t know how old some of you guys are, but I’m 68, and remember quite well when a high quality film barely made 64 ASA. Even HSE was just ASA 120 indoors. We NEEDED high speed lenses then, even if they weren’t all that’s great.

These days, the lowest ISO speed is either 64, 100 or even 200. Normal shooting speeds are more often 200, or higher, with many cameras giving very high quality images at 400. We know that in the future, these ranges of highest quality will be pushed even higher.

Considering that it’s almost impossible to guarantee perfect focus even with an f 1.4, going beyond that seems to be fruitless. Going past 1.2 seems to be just a bragging right thing to me. I don’t think anyone can make a really good case for an f 1 lens. The size of it, the weight of it, and the cost of it means that almost nobody will be buying those lenses.

Remember that all of those parameters for 1.4 lenses has gotten just a bit out of hand these days, with attempts to up each other in IQ. An f 1.2 lens will be just that much more in every way, unless people will be satisfied with 3 stops of vignetting wide open, and 2 stops one stop down. I can’t even imagine what a monster an f 1 lens would be.

Leica barely gets away with a rangefinder (simple mount) 50 f 1.2 for $11,000. How much would someone here be willing to pay for an L 50 f 1?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You are absolutely the king of visual aids (I'm jealous)... but that sure looks weird. The new lens style would have to be narrower to fit past the EF flange and then as wide as the EF flange to seal. I'm not convinced there will be such a hyper-hybrid mount. Then it still really is not beneficial on the tele lengths so it seems like a lot of trouble when a pancake lens will do. Would it be any benefit weight wise? Enough to make a difference?



I secretly love that EF-X idea because if Canon offered it, they wouldn't be stupid enough to make a jillion nested lenses like this. They'd just make the 3-5 of them that really make the size savings pop and then get on with making better EF lenses. 



CanonFanBoy said:


> It is looking more and more like a skinny mirrorless and fatty mirrorless are coming.



One can hope. Presuming thin mount is inevitable, two mounts coming is best for EF's long-term survivorship. EF's not going anywhere for a very long time regardless of the mirrorless mount decision, but a thin-mount only mirrorless system might mean 'a very long time' is only 10-15 years. 'A-Mount is going away' worry will inevitably set in.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

melgross said:


> I completely agree with this. I’ve been saying the same thing. There is no reason why Canon can’t make a lens that protrudes behind the mount itself. Yes, it does seem odd, and unprotected, but I doesn’t have to be.
> 
> Really, there’s nothing sacred about the mount being the last thing on the lens. After all, rangefinder lenses have been doing this for many decades. It really solves some problems. Without needing strong retrofocus designs, new high speed wideangles can be made smaller again. Cannons mount is already pretty big. I just looked at mine. There’s a lot of room in there.



Maybe. See the discussion thread and have a look at the pros and cons and the subsequent discussion.

I think it's a really clever idea to save full EF for the long term, but it has some non-trivial drawbacks / question marks.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

melgross said:


> Quite frankly, at this point in time, I think that super fast lenses, meaning anything faster than 1.4, are an...
> 
> Leica barely gets away with a rangefinder (simple mount) 50 f 1.2 for $11,000. How much would someone here be willing to pay for an L 50 f 1?



Lest we forget, Canon used to sell one: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f1.htm

From Wikipedia:

_"Despite its price and large maximum aperture, the 1.0L was not a particularly sharp lens at any aperture, and the two cheaper 50mm options offered far better sharpness when stopped down beyond about f/2.8. This, combined with the high production cost and low sales volume, led to it being discontinued in 2000 and eventually superseded by the f/1.2 edition."_​
So please forgive my skepticism that Nikon (or anyone else for that matter) looking to f/1 bokeh to win the diminishing ILC market. It's radioactively expensive, the AF is finnicky, and the lens weighs something on the order of an F-150.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 4, 2018)

melgross said:


> How much would someone here be willing to pay for an L 50 f 1?



That's easy to answer, just check prices for a EF 50mm f/1.0L.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=canon+50mm+f/1.0

I also remember the f/0.95 lenses for the Canon Rangefinders. They were Leica Mount, L39 threaded.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1311.R4.TR4.TRC2.A0.H1.Xcanon+50mm+f/0.9.TRS0&_nkw=canon+50mm+f0.95+lens&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=canon+50mm+f/1.0

As to why the f/1.0 was discontinued, it likely did not sell enough copies, and a f/1.2 could be made better for less $$. The f/0.95 was pretty bad, basically a PJ lens for low light with the relatively slow film available then. I remember ASA 5 and 10 being sold.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

snoke said:


> Farce? Because you say it?
> I didn't say sports photographers change, you did. Stop. Twice you try make me say something wrong. You bad at conversation. Very bad.
> 
> Why 1DM good? This possible:
> ...



Forgive me, language leaves words out that take me a moment to understand. If I am reading you correctly, I have equated 1DX2 users _exclusively_ with sports/wildlife users -- and you never said that. Those are not the only people that use these cameras. My apologies, you're absolutely correct there. 

So you are saying Sony has an opportunity to steal 1DX2 business from general photographers with a high fps mirrorless supercamera, or said another way, there's a huge opportunity for a 1DM if Canon made one. Did I get that right? 

If so, I have only one question to ask: *why isn't the Sony A9 the #1 choice of the highest-end photographers in the world today? *I mean: it does everything, right?

My answer: 

20 fps / no shutter blackout / silent shooting are all really good things, but photographers value *other* things more -- like strong AF, handling, ergonomics, build quality, etc.


20 fps -- at least for Sony -- requires the use of a electronic shutter that has been problematic. Consider: the two A7 cameras Sony released after the A9 very prominently advertised that full burst speed was possible through their mechanical shutter. If the A9 e-shutter was such a huge success, why didn't we see a similar high fps e-shutter / low fps mechanical shutter setup with the A7 III and A7R III?


20 fps with tracking AF through liveview -- with no assistance of a standard SLR focusing setup -- will be very hard to pull off at the level of the 1DX2 today
Don't get me wrong, the specs of the A9 may very well win the market someday. But presently that camera is a Ferrari engine sitting on 4 bicycle wheels. It's a weightlifter who only does 'arms day' and he's built like the Hulk upstairs and Steve Urkel downstairs. It needs more supporting infrastructure, better ergonomics/handling, better software interface, less fine print on the highest speed settings, a working electronic shutter, etc. before it can truly fulfill the potential of the things it does well.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

snoke said:


> Farce? Because you say it?
> Why 1DM good? This possible:
> * Frames per second - 20
> * Shutter blackout - no
> ...



Now, getting back to your idea: a 1DM. An interesting one, no doubt, but we have to weigh that against what is possible in 2018.

I contend that such a camera will happen, but not anytime soon. For that camera to happen, Canon needs to develop some tech Sony has but Canon itself (to my knowledge) has never delivered:

A blackout free EVF
Either an electronic or FF-sized mechanical shutter capable of 20 fps
Tracking AF (through DPAF only) that can muster 20 fps
20 fps X 24 MP (rough guess for a next 1-series camera) is higher MP x fps throughput than Canon has ever offered before
Of those 4 things, only the last one is right within Canon's grasp. 400 MP/s stills throughput is (seemingly) becoming standard and Canon will have to follow suit with their next higher end cameras. But the other three are not small things.

So, yes, I see the value in that camera -- but Canon hasn't demonstrated the ability to do this just yet. I still contend putting out something with lower performance requirements and much much much more forgiving users than the 1-series crowd makes 100% more sense than pursuing a 1DM in the near term. Put out a great '6DM' and '5DM' first, develop the tech further, and when Canon is ready a 1DM could arrive.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 4, 2018)

denstore said:


> 1.2 is quite OK with me , even if I always like more light and shallower depth of field.
> But my point is that i don’t see any reason to build a FF camera, and then cripple it with slow lenses, only in the pursuit of making it small. Nikon seem to be aiming for a low light monster with their new FF mirrorless and large aperture (NOCT?) lenses, which would be my choice of path for Canon as well. EF mount would be my preferred choice, but if they do intend to switch mounts, please make it larger, not smaller.



If the rumors are true, Nikon pursuing enormous pickle jar lenses may have nothing to do with mirrorless. One might contend they are only doing this because the door to a new mount has been kicked open for the first time in forever, and they don't want to repeat their small throat diameter errors of the past.

I agree completely that f/0.9 lenses will not endear NIkon to the 'keep it small' crowd. 

It will, however, cleverly draw in some 'keep it seamless' bigger camera devotees. Put another way, if you are only going to go with one mount and you choose the thin one, dangling access to f/0.9 glass is a way to keep the _other_ camp happy and possibly buy in to the system. 

Skeptic of a thin new mount: "Why should I have to sell my glass and move to this new system? I don't care about it being smaller." 

Nikon's answer: "Because this system has f/0.9 lenses."

- A


----------



## TAF (Aug 4, 2018)

There is one very important date to keep in mind - December 15th.

If the new toys aren't in the stores by then (and that's really late), they won't be in the hands of the people who want them for Christmas, and that will never do.

What this means in practice is that the product needs to be on the container ship by October 15th at the latest.

Which means the factory needs to have all the production issues ironed out already, and will be spinning up to full rate production in the next few weeks.

Canon should teach a course in industrial security. They are really good at it.


----------



## snoke (Aug 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Now, getting back to your idea: a 1DM. An interesting one, no doubt, but we have to weigh that against what is possible in 2018.



I never said 1DM in 2018, you make more up!

You said 1DX3, I said no 1DX3, 1DM instead.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 4, 2018)

With a grip and space for f0.9 lens, it will not be small.


----------



## snoke (Aug 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> *why isn't the Sony A9 the #1 choice of the highest-end photographers in the world today?*



Like I already say: divorce bad. You married Canon, yes?



> If the A9 e-shutter was such a huge success, why didn't we see a similar high fps e-shutter / low fps mechanical shutter setup with the A7 III and A7R III?



Why Canon only put some feature in one camera and not another? Maybe same reason.


----------



## chik0240 (Aug 4, 2018)

I am actually thinking as canon said in previous interview they have an interesting solution for EF Mount, why can’t they just go the G7x mk ii built in ND filter style, get an EF Mount with short flange distance, then if an EF lens is detected, an extra lens group will drop in to focus it onto the sensor, if a native lens for mirrorless camera then the extra lens is retracted


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 4, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> In the instance of a new mount, a smaller more compact package.
> 
> In the instance of a mirrorless EF mount, what would it offer that you will not be able to get with a dSLR?
> I can go to live view and shoot without a mirror now.



No lens calibration, IBIS, eyeAF, WYISWYG EVF, faster FPS (not a concern since I shoot wedding),no mirror box to reduce shutter life (time lapse), and lighter camera body. 

Size isn't a concern for me, but any weight saving is welcome. Shooting with 24-70 II, 70-200, 135, new mount won't won't make a difference (see Sony FF mirrorless).


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The new mount must be a "significant upgrade", must be better, etc. are the wrong takes here, IMHO. Canon isn't trying to migrate current users to _only_ use a new mount. That would be madness.
> 
> The new mount unlocks possibility to make a *smaller overall apparatus* and *adapt competitive/old/third-party lenses*, that's all. You may have no interest in that or only shoot big/fast FF glass that won't really benefit from a smaller body. That's fine -- just wait for the FF mirrorless body with a full EF mount.
> 
> ...



I read your proposed hybrid mount camera. That's pretty awesome if true. It would satisfied most users. 

Anyone know if it's possible for new FF mirrorless to have adapter for EF lens at least in theory.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 4, 2018)

melgross said:


> Not possible with a round sensor,


What makes you think so?

Mamiya 6 had a much larger sensor format (56mm x 56mm square), but was even smaller than 5D series without a grip.



melgross said:


> unless it’s small, to fit an aps-c lens coverage.


An APS-C lens coverage round sensor would easily fit a much smaller camera, like A7III without a vertical grip.


----------



## denstore (Aug 4, 2018)

melgross said:


> Quite frankly, at this point in time, I think that super fast lenses, meaning anything faster than 1.4, are an unnecessary waste of R&D funding. I don’t know how old some of you guys are, but I’m 68, and remember quite well when a high quality film barely made 64 ASA. Even HSE was just ASA 120 indoors. We NEEDED high speed lenses then, even if they weren’t all that’s great.



I’m _only_ )) 49, but I still shoot film at times (for the fun, nothing else); and I like things that gives me some extra leverage. That includes large apertures and preferably lots of IS, things that I didn’t have or could afford 30 years ago. But the main difference is that today I can’t blame the equipment, and I like it. But when I shoot digital, my mind doesn’t suddenly change, and say, great, I now have 6 steps of extra ISO, so I can shoot everything at f/5,6 or f/8. Maybe I want to keep that shallow depth of field, and crank down the shutter speed instead? Even the best of f/4 lenses can’t get the background blur I want. 
I’ve so far never felt any great need of buying lighter lenses. Almost all the f/2.8 zooms I’ve owned were heavier than most of my large aperture primes. The f/4 zooms are lighter, but still not much lighter than even the heavier primes I favour. 



melgross said:


> These days, the lowest ISO speed is either 64, 100 or even 200. Normal shooting speeds are more often 200, or higher, with many cameras giving very high quality images at 400. We know that in the future, these ranges of highest quality will be pushed even Leica barely gets away with a rangefinder (simple mount) 50 f 1.2 for $11,000. How much would someone here be willing to pay for an L 50 f 1?



According to ebay, people are paying big bucks for the 50/1.0L, even if it can’t be serviced, and the autofocus is slow and imprecise. I would probably pay a bit more than I should to get a new 50/1.0L. Especially if it comes with IS and faster AF than the old one.


----------



## PerKr (Aug 4, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> No lens calibration, IBIS, eyeAF, WYISWYG EVF, faster FPS (not a concern since I shoot wedding),no mirror box to reduce shutter life (time lapse), and lighter camera body.
> 
> Size isn't a concern for me, but any weight saving is welcome. Shooting with 24-70 II, 70-200, 135, new mount won't won't make a difference (see Sony FF mirrorless).



Would people just stop saying IBIS is mirrorless tech? Minolta. Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha 7D. And a few bridge cameras before that.

Also, non of this requires a mirrorless solution. Sony could have done all this in their SLT series (and almost did).
Unless we are saying that mirrorless just means not having a flapping mirror specifically.

Totally silent shooting is the biggest deal next to size savings (which Sony seem unable to really find any besides some wideangles) of replacing the flippy mirror solution with an EVF based one. I would say this is a must for any high-end mirrorless now. Being able to shoot wedding ceremonies without annoying anyone (other than those priests who would rather people stopped breathing so as to not disturb their work)


----------



## applecider (Aug 5, 2018)

nchoh said:


> You may be right.



Or wrong.....


----------



## applecider (Aug 5, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Now, I'm not an expert in CMOS fabrication by any means, but would it be possible to use the wasted corners of the circle to add some more circuitry for the sensor to use, eg RAM?
> 
> Anyway, I did a thing on the whole circular sensor thing a while back on my blog. http://www.everyothershot.com/whats-better-full-frame-sensor-circular-sensor-course where I go on and on about how wonderful an idea it is.
> 
> Of course it'll never happen.


A wafer made with circles is going to have way more wasted silicon than share or rectangular etching. Since final cost depends on yield and chips per wafer, circles are going to increase cost, does anyone want that?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 5, 2018)

PerKr said:


> Would people just stop saying IBIS is mirrorless tech? Minolta. Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha 7D. And a few bridge cameras before that.
> 
> Also, non of this requires a mirrorless solution. Sony could have done all this in their SLT series (and almost did).
> Unless we are saying that mirrorless just means not having a flapping mirror specifically.
> ...



I don't know the history of camera, but I only see it in Sony & rumored Nikon FF mirrorless. Still, there are other features I would like
No lens calibration, eyeAF, WYISWYG EVF, and silent shutter just giving the previous poster why some people want mirror less tech.

I shoot weddings. I don't see silent as a huge deal compared to other features. Canon 5D IV is good enough for me.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2018)

PerKr said:


> Would people just stop saying IBIS is mirrorless tech? Minolta. Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha 7D. And a few bridge cameras before that.
> 
> Also, non of this requires a mirrorless solution. Sony could have done all this in their SLT series (and almost did).
> Unless we are saying that mirrorless just means not having a flapping mirror specifically.



Yep. Half of what mirrorless offers is what mirrorless truly offers. The other half is a chance for the company to revisit core tech decisions that the current platform doesn't support (or they have resisted supporting). In short, *a new platform is an opportunity to offer something the company has never offered before, and that is super exciting*.

For instance, ask Nikon folks what they are more interested in: having the upsides of mirrorless or access to f/0.9 glass. One does not require the other.

'Non-mirrorless-dependent opportunities of a new platform' includes:

IBIS (as mentioned above)
Big throat diameter in the mount for large aperture glass
Electronic shutter unlocking super fast shutter speeds (1/16000, 1/32000, etc.) -- mirror would be up but could still exist
Leaf shutter lenses with explosively quick flash sync speeds (like 10x faster than what we have on SLRs)
Onboard wireless speedlite control
Opportunity to take on an altogether new control set -- leverage tactile screens, possibly augmented reality in the VF or external viewer, etc.
Embedded Arca (or new company standard) mounting hardware in the body
Very few of these things will happen. But _they might with a new platform_ while they probably never would with an existing one. That is part of the allure of these new systems.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> I don't know the history of camera, but I only see it in Sony & rumored Nikon FF mirrorless. Still, there are other features I would like
> No lens calibration, eyeAF, WYISWYG EVF, and silent shutter just giving the previous poster why some people want mirror less tech.
> 
> I shoot weddings. I don't see silent as a huge deal compared to other features. Canon 5D IV is good enough for me.



The A99 II has a mirror and IBIS. Many Pentax SLRs do as well, I believe. Totally possible.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5855300360/sony-announces-42mp-a99-mark-ii-with-5-axis-stabilization

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-1/feature/02.html

- A


----------



## Rocky (Aug 5, 2018)

Ahsanford, That is a good idea. Just hope that Canon can work out the mechanical stuff. That will give the optical designer a lot more freedom on lenses shorter than 50mm focal length. That should lead to better short focal length lenses. Extra deep rear lense caps have been used by Leica for decades. the rear most lens element can always be protect by the rear lens bellow. Infact, Canon is doing it on the EF-M 14-45 and 11-22 now.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 'Non-mirrorless-dependent opportunities of a new platform' includes:
> 
> IBIS (as mentioned above)
> Big throat diameter in the mount for large aperture glass
> ...



Totally agree. All of these functionalities could have been implemented already in Canon (and Nikon) mirrorslappers. But those stupid, lazy, un-innovative, octogenarian-run corporations just refuse it. Even those functionalities that would be fairly simple to do and not cause significant cost impacts or engineering headaches, like 
* integrated Arca-grooves in the bottom of each camera body and in each collared lens' foot -> end of separate plates 
* integrated Arca-grooves and/or 1/4" threaded insert nut on one vertical side of camera body -> end of separate L-plates 
* modular/integrated Canon RT system wireless flash commander - ideally just an additional tiny [Micro-SD?!] slot, covered by plastic lid - for good radio reach and to easily allow for different firmware/hardware versions if and as mandated by varying legal regulations re. use of radio-frequencies in different markets. It would fit in any size EOS body, right down to EOS M (1st gen) "XS size" -> end of OEM and 3rd party flash-shoe trigger warts
* pinpoint precision laser AF-assistance light [as on Sony F707 many years ago] and distance meter plus display of measured distance in viewfinder/camera LCD
* really right implemented "trigger trap AF" functionality in every Canon EOS camera [purely firmware]
* really right implemented version of A-DEP mode in every Canon EOS camera [purely firmware]
... etc.

Not to mention somewhat more involved functionality like 
* new, "really right" version of Eye Control AF plus fully functional "AI-AF" mode in all Canon EOS cameras
* global shutter sensor with full X-Sync all the way down to shortest time value 
... etc. 

But oh no, "innovative" Canon can't be bothered to deliver *real-life relevant* functionality. All R&D resources are seemingly tied up for new paint jobs on Mk. 99 versions of a few big fat off-white tele lenses. Despite all their [blocking!?] patents, Canon and Nikon are rather "un-innovative" corporations. In a truly competitive industry like cars, smartphones or TV sets they probably would have gone under many years ago.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 5, 2018)

applecider said:


> circles are going to increase cost, does anyone want that?


Quite a lot of people here want to pay extra costs _for extra capabilities_, aren't they?

Besides, the idea was to reuse the otherwise "wasted" space for image processing logic, if feasible.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Or a "compact" FF camera with a lens mount for mediocre lenses.



I am looking forward very much to some "mediocre" FF lenses. 

1.) a few moderate speed, decent IQ, affordable FF primes ... e.g. along the lines of the recent Samyang AF lenses: 
* Samyang AF 24/2.8 [L = 37mm, filter = 49mm, 93 grams, 300€ ) 
* Samyang AF 35/2.8.[L = 33mm, filter = 49mm, 86 grams, 250€ ) 
and similar future mirrorless FF lenses, eg 50/1.8 and 85/2.4

2.) along with a few "mediocre", compact, decent IQ, affordable f/4 zooms ... eg 15-35/4, 24-85/4, 50-150/4

There are more than enough [aging, unwilling to carry and operate heavy, conspicouos, expensive gear] folks interested in exactly this type of setup. 4 or 5 nice and very compact primes, And/or 3 decent, compact zooms. 

Any more specialist, bigger, heavier, expensive lenses: rental, only when really needed: long [white] teles, f/1.2 pickle jars, fast astro-UWA or T/S lenses. If a little adapter is needed to mount them: no problem, we'll rent one of those for an extra buck day as well.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Quite a lot of people here want to pay extra costs _for extra capabilities_, aren't they?



Yes. Especially those "4k in every stills camera"-whiners. I am sure, all of them would be happy to pay a bit extra for good video capabilities.  
Canon should charge them via more expensive "video-enabled" camera versions. 20% surcharge on stills-camera price for HD video recording, 40% surcharge for 4k video.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The A99 II has a mirror and IBIS. Many Pentax SLRs do as well, I believe. Totally possible.
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/5855300360/sony-announces-42mp-a99-mark-ii-with-5-axis-stabilization
> 
> ...


While not unique to mirrorless, a new platform will give them the opportunity to offer something new. For whatever reason, Nikon and Canon isn't offering it in their DSLR. Nikon rumored specs include IBIS. Maybe Canon FF mirrorless will too.


----------



## TAF (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Yes. Especially those "4k in every stills camera"-whiners. I am sure, all of them would be happy to pay a bit extra for good video capabilities.
> Canon should charge them via more expensive "video-enabled" camera versions. 20% surcharge on stills-camera price for HD video recording, 40% surcharge for 4k video.




Remember the rumor about Apple buying Canon? Can you say "In App Purchase" (or in this case, "In Camera Purchase").

That would be one way to find out what people are REALLY willing to pay for.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I am looking forward very much to some "mediocre" FF lenses.


I don't. I have a PowerShot for that.

These days, my pime FF lens is 100-400 II.


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Maybe. See the discussion thread and have a look at the pros and cons and the subsequent discussion.
> 
> I think it's a really clever idea to save full EF for the long term, but it has some non-trivial drawbacks / question marks.
> 
> - A


I don’t see much in the way of cons myself. The only lenses that would really benefit in design are shorter focal lengths below about 85mm. But that’s a major hinge point in lens design, becoming more extreme as focal lengths shorten. But a bigger mount is also stronger, and makes parallelism problems easier to minimize. So for long, heavy teles, a bigger mount on a stronger body is of benefit.


denstore said:


> I’m _only_)) 49, but I still shoot film at times (for the fun, nothing else); and I like things that gives me some extra leverage. That includes large apertures and preferably lots of IS, things that I didn’t have or could afford 30 years ago. But the main difference is that today I can’t blame the equipment, and I like it. But when I shoot digital, my mind doesn’t suddenly change, and say, great, I now have 6 steps of extra ISO, so I can shoot everything at f/5,6 or f/8. Maybe I want to keep that shallow depth of field, and crank down the shutter speed instead? Even the best of f/4 lenses can’t get the background blur I want.
> I’ve so far never felt any great need of buying lighter lenses. Almost all the f/2.8 zooms I’ve owned were heavier than most of my large aperture primes. The f/4 zooms are lighter, but still not much lighter than even the heavier primes I favour.
> 
> 
> ...


i know all bout those,older lenses. I even had an f 0.95 Canon lens.

I’m talking about the usefulness of those lenses on today’s, and future digital,cameras. Sure, some people are going to pay outrageous prices for them. I can’t account for taste. But those film lenses don’t work well on digital anyway.

And by the way, something that most people don’t know is that lenses for roll film cameras were not really flat field, on purpose, despite manufacturers talking about how flat field their lenses were. Not film is flat in the gate in roll film cameras because of the need for enough room in the gate for the film to advance. So,there is enough room between the front rail and the side/rear rales where the pressure plate sits for,that. Then, all films have different thicknesses, so camera manufacturers needed to,make sure the thickest film went through without a problem.

The difficulty is that even with the tension on the film, particularly if the film wasn’t perfectly flat out of the roll or cartridge, the edges of the film would curl forwards in the gate, pressing the center of the roll out. So, the film in the gate more resembled a cylinder than a flat surface. Lenses accounted for this very slight curl. It’s one reason why film lenses on digital cameras, particularly hight resolution models, are soft at the edges and corners.


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

Kit. said:


> What makes you think so?
> 
> Mamiya 6 had a much larger sensor format (56mm x 56mm square), but was even smaller than 5D series without a grip.
> 
> ...


Except that we’re talking about FF here.


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

denstore said:


> I’m _only_)) 49, but I still shoot film at times (for the fun, nothing else); and I like things that gives me some extra leverage. That includes large apertures and preferably lots of IS, things that I didn’t have or could afford 30 years ago. But the main difference is that today I can’t blame the equipment, and I like it. But when I shoot digital, my mind doesn’t suddenly change, and say, great, I now have 6 steps of extra ISO, so I can shoot everything at f/5,6 or f/8. Maybe I want to keep that shallow depth of field, and crank down the shutter speed instead? Even the best of f/4 lenses can’t get the background blur I want.
> I’ve so far never felt any great need of buying lighter lenses. Almost all the f/2.8 zooms I’ve owned were heavier than most of my large aperture primes. The f/4 zooms are lighter, but still not much lighter than even the heavier primes I favour.
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, but you’re talking f 2.8. We’re talking f 1.2 and faster.

F 1.0 is nuts, quite frankly. Those old lenses weren’t very good either. A bit more than you should? How many extra thousands qualifies as “a bit more” in your book? And since extremely fast lenses won’t ever focus accurately unless you want to take the time to look at the big screen directly, how much time are you willing to devote to focus?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2018)

Rocky said:


> Ahsanford, That is a good idea. Just hope that Canon can work out the mechanical stuff. That will give the optical designer a lot more freedom on lenses shorter than 50mm focal length. That should lead to better short focal length lenses. Extra deep rear lense caps have been used by Leica for decades. the rear most lens element can always be protect by the rear lens bellow. Infact, Canon is doing it on the EF-M 14-45 and 11-22 now.



Read the thread on that idea, though:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ef-x-mirrorless-concept.35311/

It's not all good. Some lenses will basically only have a pancake's amount of material sticking out past the EF mount, which means every barrel feature (switches, focus rings, possibly hood attachments, etc.) have to go on a major diet. And if Canon weren't very careful with how to mount these things, it might feel like mounting a lens on to a teleconverter in reverse -- i.e. it may be delicate and painstaking activity.

It would be very brave of Canon to try this. Not sure they are that brave.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Any more specialist, bigger, heavier, expensive lenses: rental, only when really needed: long [white] teles, f/1.2 pickle jars, fast astro-UWA or T/S lenses. If a little adapter is needed to mount them: no problem, we'll rent one of those for an extra buck day as well.



You conspicuously  left out big/heavy f/2.8 zooms, which many pros leave on their cameras all day. Those blow up the 'small and light' platform approach and they are neither niche nor specialist. They will be used on FF mirrorless bodies on day one.

The $64,000 question is how Canon will get folks who love the ergonomics and handling of (say) a 5D to give that up for something smaller. Rather than try to balance the needs of the small vs. the needs of the big into one body that can't possibly please us all, an easy solution would be to just offer a second body with the same ergonomics and mount that they love today. Offer a small body and a bigger body. Easy.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Read the thread on that idea, though:
> https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ef-x-mirrorless-concept.35311/
> 
> It's not all good. Some lenses will basically only have a pancake's amount of material sticking out past the EF mount, which means every barrel feature (switches, focus rings, possibly hood attachments, etc.) have to go on a major diet. And if Canon weren't very careful with how to mount these things, it might feel like mounting a lens on to a teleconverter in reverse -- i.e. it may be delicate and painstaking activity.
> ...



That's why I sold the EF 40mm f/2.8. I'd rather use the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM mkII @ 40mm.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Read the thread on that idea, though:
> It's not all good. Some lenses will basically only have a pancake's amount of material sticking out past the EF mount, which means every barrel feature (switches, focus rings, possibly hood attachments, etc.) have to go on a major diet.




LOL. Indeed. Lenses like e.g. the new Samyang AF 24/2.8 FE with a total physical length of 33mm might not even peek out at the front end of such a "Frankenstein mount" ... bye bye 
focus ring! 

PS: I'd have no problem with no focus rings. I want my AF lenses and cameras to do what I paid for: get me well-focussed images. Automatically.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Offer a small body and a bigger body. Easy.



Yes, easy. But "small body" is only possible with a new, slim mount. Which is why we'll get one.


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Quite a lot of people here want to pay extra costs _for extra capabilities_, aren't they?
> 
> Besides, the idea was to reuse the otherwise "wasted" space for image processing logic, if feasible.


Ah, no. Most people will not be willing to pay for features. Yes, as to how many would in a discussion forum. But not in real life. There, very few would.

We see surveys all the time. 23% say they would buy such and such if it had, or did, such and such. But if the product comes out, only 5% actually buy it. Such are the realities of life.

That’s why discussions, such as this one are so interesting, and complaints about companies not doing the innovations, or adding the features some demand rarely happen. When you look at what some here want, and think should be done, you should start thinking about how much at would add to the price of the product. I doubt most would buy a product that costs $10,000, even with most of those features, if a similar model without most cost $3,000.

Again, some say they would, but, well, whatever.


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> You conspicuously  left out big/heavy f/2.8 zooms, which many pros leave on their cameras all day. Those blow up the 'small and light' platform approach and they are neither niche nor specialist. They will be used on FF mirrorless bodies on day one.
> 
> The $64,000 question is how Canon will get folks who love the ergonomics and handling of (say) a 5D to give that up for something smaller. Rather than try to balance the needs of the small vs. the needs of the big into one body that can't possibly please us all, an easy solution would be to just offer a second body with the same ergonomics and mount that they love today. Offer a small body and a bigger body. Easy.
> 
> - A


Again, exactly!


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

I don't see why in 2018 a camera as big, heavy, clunky and expensive as a 5D IV should not come with all the functionality I suggested in my earlier post. Even more so, as a lot of it are pure firmware items only, which cause a blip in 1-time cost to develop, but almost no variable cost in production.

Especially when video capture is added "free of charge", which causes significant cost on hardware [think alone about cooling requirements for 30 minutes of uninterrupted 4k capture] and software side. Compared to that milling 2 Arca grooves into camera bottom plate - or lens foot on 12.000 buck lenses  - is a piece of cake. Or firmware for "2018-adequate" AI-AF, A-DEP mode, AF trigger trap etc.

It really is just un-innnovative, un-imaginative lazyness and stupidity on CaNikon's part.


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Yes, easy. But "small body" is only possible with a new, slim mount. Which is why we'll get one.


If you look at the smaller DSLRs that Canon has, they’re no bigger than a number of mirrorless models. The depth on a Canon DSLR isn’t bad. I just don’t understand how much of a difference a centimeter, or so, matters. Even two centimeters doesn’t make much difference. If my average lens is maybe, because I’m not going to measure all of them, 14 cm long, I don’t care if the body is what it is now, or a bit thinner.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Offer a small body and a bigger body. Easy.



Said another way, consider the following:

Canon is risk averse with major decisions. 


The mount a major decision. This appears to be one of those 'bet the farm' propositions that has huge stakes: the market is waiting for a decisive platform entry, Canon customers' faith in EF could be shaken by the mount decision, customers could leave if the mount decision isn't the one they were hoping for, etc.


The market is not defining itself clearly enough for the risks to be minimized. All FF mirrorless today (excluding SLRs in LiveView) have thinner than SLR mounts. There is no major product offering to test the market's appetite for a full FF SLR mount mirrorless. So Canon has a very blurry read on how big the 'keep it small' vs. the 'keep it seamless' camps are: the entire market (right now) is 'keep it small'.


Canon has zero trouble proliferating body lines to bracket out the market into creating additional small price premiums (see chart attached below).


Canon is legion. They uniquely have the size and scale to try multiplicity of product platforms that even Nikon and Sony wouldn't dare.

A not-too-brave distillation of all of the above might be that line from _Contact_: "Why build one when you can build two for twice the price?"

I contend that if a 77D can exist, there's a place for a thin mount FF mirrorless _*and*_ a Full EF mount mirrorless to coexist. For the cost of just one more added row on that pipeline chart, it completely eliminates the risk of getting the mount decision wrong. That's a bargain for Canon.

- A


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I don't see why in 2018 a camera as big, heavy, clunky and expensive as a 5D IV should not come with all the functionality I suggested in my earlier post. Even more so, as a lot of it are pure firmware items only, which cause a blip in 1-time cost to develop, but almost no variable cost in production.
> 
> Especially when video capture is added "free of charge", which causes significant cost on hardware [think alone about cooling requirements for 30 minutes of uninterrupted 4k capture] and software side. Compared to that adding 2 Arca grooves to camera bottom plates is a piece of cake. Or firmware for "2018-adequate" AI-AF, A-DEP mode, AF trigger trap etc.
> 
> It really is just un-innnovative, un-imaginative lazyness and stupidity on CaNikon's part.


Well, Sony hasn’t been very successful in selling cameras since they bought Konica-Minolta all those years ago. They’ve been more successful with. Mirrorless because they were the only ones for a while, until Fuji entered. Since Canon entered, Sony’s marketshare in mirrorless has plunged, and Canon doesn’t even have a lot of native lenses for that line, or FF.

While some people complain about lack of innovation, most customers don’t seem to care. Companies do what they think they need to do. Canon has over 51% of the camera market, and their market share keeps going up at the expense of everyone else. They must be doing something right.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

melgross said:


> If you look at the smaller DSLRs that Canon has, they’re no bigger than a number of mirrorless models. The depth on a Canon DSLR isn’t bad. I just don’t understand how much of a difference a centimeter, or so, matters. Even two centimeters doesn’t make much difference. If my average lens is maybe, because I’m not going to measure all of them, 14 cm long, I don’t care if the body is what it is now, or a bit thinner.



For my uses and many other uses overall bulk makes a huge difference. My EOS M 1st gen plus EF-M 22 fits int a LowePro Dashpoint 20 pouch whch I can mount on the left backpack strap on all my mountain/skiing adventures or during city trips or when sailing or para-gliding or whatever. I'd like to get the equivalent with FF sensor [+120% sensor surface and light gathering] with only about about 25% more bulk [e.g. sized like Sony A7 1st gen]. Plus matching compact lenses. Plus ability to use larger lenses from f/2.8 zooms to white teles and TS lenses - when and only when I really need them for a specific photographic task.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Yes, easy. But "small body" is only possible with a new, slim mount. Which is why we'll get one.





melgross said:


> If you look at the smaller DSLRs that Canon has, they’re no bigger than a number of mirrorless models. The depth on a Canon DSLR isn’t bad. I just don’t understand how much of a difference a centimeter, or so, matters. Even two centimeters doesn’t make much difference. If my average lens is maybe, because I’m not going to measure all of them, 14 cm long, I don’t care if the body is what it is now, or a bit thinner.



It's an inch, 20-25 mm or so, etc. It doesn't matter to most of us, but some of us might want to build a smaller rig that we can take more places. In that instance / with that goal in mind, shaving 20mm off of the size is really attractive.

And lest we forget, _it's the only style of camera this FF mirrorless market has ever known_. We can't discount that fact. Canon may feel they simply must offer a thin mount offering as it defines the market segment as much as the sensor size. I'm convinced at this point that a thin mount simply must happen to meet that market's expectations. 

But Canon might be ambitious enough to also placate it's heavy hitters, longer term customers, etc. with a Full EF solution with a bigger body, chunky grip, and familiar controls. That would be the easiest sale for Canon to its own customers, it would bring a lot of bodies into FF mirrorless sooner rather than later, etc.

They should do both.

- A


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> For my uses and many other uses overall bulk makes a huge difference. My EOS M 1st gen plus EF-M 22 fits int a LowePro Dashpoint 20 pouch whch I can mount on the left backpack strap on all my mountain/skiing adventures or during city trips or when sailing or para-gliding or whatever. I'd like to get the equivalent with FF sensor [+120% sensor surface and light gathering] with only about about 25% more bulk [e.g. sized like Sony A7 1st gen]. Plus matching compact lenses. Plus ability to use larger lenses from f/2.8 zooms to white teles and TS lenses - when and only when I really need them for a specific photographic task.


I keep saying that it will be great for some people. I won't discount that. But there are a lot of products out there for carrying cameras and lenses. I’m just saying that, for me, a difference of an inch makes no difference. And I’m sure, if you looked, you’d find a pouch for a slightly bigger camera and lens that’s not much bigger that what you have.

If you like to carry a lot of lenses around, then weight does make a difference - if you’re going to buy into an entirely new lens line, if available. If not, then a few ounces doesn’t matter.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

melgross said:


> . Canon has over 51% of the camera market, and their market share keeps going up at the expense of everyone else. They must be doing something right.



this is primarily caused by competitors' grave mistakes: Nikon: nothing of interest except 2 or 3 mirrorslappers. Sony: way too big and expensive lenses. Fuji: retro-styled hipster crop stuff at FF prices. Not hard for Canon to gain market share. Probably they gained most of that market share with their compact, decent IQ, decent performance and affordable EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses. Exactly what majority of market wants: decent functionality in small packages at palatable prices. crop sensor gear well below 1k. FF mirrorfree stuff above 1k. Really simple to understand the market.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> For my uses and many other uses overall bulk makes a huge difference. My EOS M 1st gen plus EF-M 22 fits int a LowePro Dashpoint 20 pouch whch I can mount on the left backpack strap on all my mountain/skiing adventures or during city trips or when sailing or para-gliding or whatever. I'd like to get the equivalent with FF sensor [+120% sensor surface and light gathering] with only about about 25% more bulk [e.g. sized like Sony A7 1st gen]. Plus matching compact lenses. Plus ability to use larger lenses from f/2.8 zooms to white teles and TS lenses - when and only when I really need them for a specific photographic task.



^^^ This is the 'keep it small' magna carta here. ^^^

For those who do not understand what the fuss over 1" of mount spacing is all about, read the above again.

I don't believe this viewpoint is one you out-logic or debate into pointlessness. It exists, it is a nontrivial slice of the market, and that market will be p---ed if a full EF mount mirrorless is the only thing that is offered.

- A


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> It's an inch, 20-25 mm or so, etc. It doesn't matter to most of us, but some of us might want to build a smaller rig that we can take more places. In that instance / with that goal in mind, shaving 20mm off of the size is really attractive.
> 
> And lest we forget, _it's the only style of camera this FF mirrorless market has ever known_. We can't discount that fact. Canon may feel they simply must offer a thin mount offering as it defines the market segment as much as the sensor size. I'm convinced at this point that a thin mount simply must happen to meet that market's expectations.
> 
> ...


They have to do both. I don't see them as having a choice. Maybe they come out with a smaller one now, and the big one later. But whatever they do, they have to come in to compete with Nikon, not Sony. And Nikon has to compete with Canon, not Sony.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

melgross said:


> And I’m sure, if you looked, you’d find a pouch for a slightly bigger camera and lens that’s not much bigger that what you have.
> matter.



Exactly. I'd like a Canon mirrorfree camera with FF sensor + lens that fits into the slightly larger LowePro Dashpoint 30 pouch.


btw: camera bag makers also very un-innovative. About 10 years after their launch, LowePro Dashpoint pouches are still the only ones in entire market that have both horizontal [belt] and vertical [backpack strap] mounting capability. Plus it is simple, intuitive and inexpensive - or rather dirt cheap - as well!
I'd love to have more choice. But most of the bag makers are stupid or at least "clueless".


----------



## MartinF. (Aug 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I heard Sony has been giving away free t-shirts with their ILCs.


LOL


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

melgross said:


> They have to do both. I don't see them as having a choice. Maybe they come out with a smaller one now, and the big one later. But whatever they do, they have to come in to compete with Nikon, not Sony. And Nikon has to compete with Canon, not Sony.



I agree. Canon will do both small and chunky mirrorfree bodies. But all of them will come with new "slim" mount and new lenses. 
EF glass will anyways be "legacy" the second Canon launches their mirrorfree cameras - totally irrespective of mount - due to AF performance and functionality. AT best, EF glass will have AF performance as in mirrorless mode on a DSLR. Which is not as good as with detached Phase-AF (in mirror mode), which is what they were excleuively designed for [with a few recent exceptions]. Even when most of the "keep EF mount at all cost" folks are not aware of this or try to ignore it.


----------



## melgross (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> this is primarily caused by competitors' grave mistakes: Nikon: nothing of interest except 2 or 3 mirrorslappers. Sony: way too big and expensive lenses. Fuji: retro-styled hipster crop stuff at FF prices. Not hard for Canon to gain market share. Probably they gained most of that market share with their compact, decent IQ, decent performance and affordable EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses. Exactly what majority of market wants: decent functionality in small packages at palatable prices. crop sensor gear well below 1k. FF mirrorfree stuff above 1k. Really simple to understand the market.


I doubt it’s because of “grave mistakes” by others. Everyone talks about how great Sony is, but they’re stuck in sales hell.

Canon is making what people want. It’s really that simple. People here can complain all they want about innovation, but sales tells the story.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Yes. Especially those "4k in every stills camera"-whiners. I am sure, all of them would be happy to pay a bit extra for good video capabilities.
> Canon should charge them via more expensive "video-enabled" camera versions. 20% surcharge on stills-camera price for HD video recording, 40% surcharge for 4k video.



That would be artificial market differentiation. Neeeeeeerf!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2018)

melgross said:


> I doubt it’s because of “grave mistakes” by others. Everyone talks about how great Sony is, but they’re stuck in sales hell.
> 
> Canon is making what people want. It’s really that simple. People here can complain all they want about innovation, but sales tells the story.



All manufacturers have made the 'grave mistake' of not making the specific camera and lenses that AvTvM/fullstop wants.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ^^^ This is the 'keep it small' magna carta here. ^^^
> 
> For those who do not understand what the fuss over 1" of mount spacing is all about, read the above again.
> 
> ...



Where I get hung up in logic land is that, if a non-trivial slice of the market wants a full frame sensor in a body the size of a first gen Sony A7, why don’t they go buy first gen Sony A7 cameras? You can mount small, light APSC lenses to them and I believe it will automatically crop, and when specific photographic tasks require full frame lenses you can mount them too. They’re still available for under $1000, but all the “buzz” is on their bigger, more expensive third gen offering.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Where I get hung up in logic land is that, if a non-trivial slice of the market wants a full frame sensor in a body the size of a first gen Sony A7, why don’t they go buy first gen Sony A7 cameras? You can mount small, light APSC lenses to them and I believe it will automatically crop, and when specific photographic tasks require full frame lenses you can mount them too. They’re still available for under $1000, but all the “buzz” is on their bigger, more expensive third gen offering.



Because Sony A7 1st (and II gen) have serious flaws that make them very unattractive, despite attractive body size. And 3rd gen Sony's have less flaws, but are bigger than necessary. Not to mention the fundamental Sony "E mount forced into FF service"-problem that leads to unattractive Sony FE lenses - too big, way too expensive. It is the main reason why Sony is not able to grow their market share as fast as they should be.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I agree. Canon will do both small and chunky mirrorfree bodies. But all of them will come with new "slim" mount and new lenses.
> EF glass will anyways be "legacy" the second Canon launches their mirrorfree cameras - totally irrespective of mount - due to AF performance and functionality. AT best, EF glass will have AF performance as in mirrorless mode on a DSLR. Which is not as good as with detached Phase-AF (in mirror mode), which is what they were excleuively designed for [with a few recent exceptions]. Even when most of the "keep EF mount at all cost" folks are not aware of this or try to ignore it.



You keep saying this yet no one seems to complain about DPAF focusing with good old fashioned EF ring USM lenses on this forum. I'm sure it's not quite the same as a proper SLR AF setup, but it's not so terrible as folks wanting to ditch the EF mount for a small AF improvement.

Perhaps someone could prove what you're saying with a demonstration? Is there a system of lenses that was designed for DPAF use -- EF-M glass comes to mind -- that might show better AF speed/accuracy than L lenses on DPAF? Does such a video / comparison exist to prove your point? I'd honestly love to see that.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Because Sony A7 1st (and II gen) have serious flaws that make them very unattractive, despite attractive body size. And 3rd gen Sony's have less flaws, but are bigger than necessary. Not to mention the fundamental Sony "E mount forced into FF service"-problem that leads to unattractive Sony FE lenses - too big, way too expensive. It is the main reason why Sony is not able to grow their market share as fast as they should be.



A7 I - II - III - A7R3 in order:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#487,579,777,724,ha,t

The third gen is too big?! These are almost identical cameras form-factor wise.

That's an extreme position, even for a 'keep it small' person!

- A


----------



## neonlight (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EF glass will anyways be "legacy" the second Canon launches their mirrorfree cameras - totally irrespective of mount - due to AF performance and functionality. AT best, EF glass will have AF performance as in mirrorless mode on a DSLR. Which is not as good as with detached Phase-AF (in mirror mode), which is what they were excleuively designed for [with a few recent exceptions]. Even when most of the "keep EF mount at all cost" folks are not aware of this or try to ignore it.


What is it in the lens which makes it designed for phase AF? Phase AF is in the body and works on a split of the light, which isn't necessary for MILC.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

there was a significant increase in bulk from Sony A7 1st gen to II and then another, smaller increase to gen III.

Only upside from my perspective is higher capacity battery in Mk. III. However, it may also have fit into 1st gen body size; along with 2 Micro SD slots.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

neonlight said:


> What is it in the lens which makes it designed for phase AF? Phase AF is in the body and works on a split of the light, which isn't necessary for MILC.



Same principle is also used and necessary in all MILCs with (on-sensor) phase AF (including Canon DP-AF) or Hybrid AF (PD + Contrast-Detect).

Nature of the AF drive in lens and its control makes the difference. On-sensor Phase-Af like Canon DP-AF gives a different signal compared to separate DSLR Phase AF sensor. Modern lenses designed for mirrorfree camera systems with on-sensor AF typically are focus-by-wire and have linear electromagnetic drives, rather than rotational AF drives plus mechanically coupled manual focussing gear as in almost all EF / L lenses.

I have not yet looked for videos, but I'd expect there are some showing difference in AF performance for an EF L lens when used on a Canon DSLR (eg 5D IV) in A.) mirror-mode and B) DP-AF liveview mode. There may be less of a difference or none at all for EF lens with Nano-USM drive [70-300 IS II] or EF lenses with STM drive [eg 40/2.8, 50/1.8 STM]. And maybe focus-by-wire EF 85/1.2 L II also has equally (slow) AF performance in DSLR mirror mode and DP-AF liveview. But again, not checked yet.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Because Sony A7 1st (and II gen) have serious flaws that make them very unattractive, despite attractive body size.



Like what (genuinely curious)? The only thing I remember was shutter shock, but that was an A7R issue.



fullstop said:


> unattractive Sony FE lenses - too big, way too expensive



But it was stipulated in the “magma carta” that small lenses would be used mostly, with large lenses for specific tasks. There are a host of small lenses that will mount to E. When a specific task calls for full format quality or long or fast glass, then take the weight/size penalty.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> On-sensor Phase-Af like Canon DP-AF gives a different signal compared to separate DSLR Phase AF sensor.



If that were true, AF would not work with SLR lenses in live view. The main difference may be how frequently focus commands are given. Presumably they come more often from sensor-based AF, and older lens motors aren’t designed to work that way.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

yes, some difference/s in the signal causing lower AF performance with (most?) EF lenses in liveview operation. Maybe frequency only, maybe other differences. Unknown, since Canon keeps it highly proprietary/confidential/intransparent.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 5, 2018)

There are certainly protocol differences, but when it comes to the electrical interface, since old lenses react to DPAF, we must conclude that the same commands are used.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 5, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> There are certainly protocol differences, but when it comes to the electrical interface, since old lenses react to DPAF, we must conclude that the same commands are used.



yes, af works. but performance is better in mirror-mode (separate af sensor) than in liveview mode (dp-af and previous on-sensor AF implementations).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes, af works. but performance is better in mirror-mode (separate af sensor) than in liveview mode (dp-af and previous on-sensor AF implementations).


What evidence do you have that the performance difference results from the lens' AF motor/etc., as opposed resulting from intrinsic differences in the body AF systems (on-sensor vs. dedicated AF sensor)?


----------



## denstore (Aug 5, 2018)

melgross said:


> Ok, but you’re talking f 2.8. We’re talking f 1.2 and faster.



Yes, I’m talking about 1,2. They might be large, but not much larger than most 2.8 zooms. I don’t see people having much trouble toting them around. My guess would be that the 70-200/2.8L is a quite common ingredient in many photographers kit bags. The 50/1.0L is almost identical in size to the 85/1.2L. I don’t hear that many owners of the 85 complaining about its size.




melgross said:


> F 1.0 is nuts, quite frankly. Those old lenses weren’t very good either. A bit more than you should? How many extra thousands qualifies as “a bit more” in your book? And since extremely fast lenses won’t ever focus accurately unless you want to take the time to look at the big screen directly, how much time are you willing to devote to focus?



They weren’t that bad either. I’ve not had the opportunity to try the 50/1.0, but from what I’ve heard, it isn’t worse than the first version 85/1.2, which I have owned. It was a bit slow, and not spot on in every picture, but it worked when you got used to it. And I really hope that some things have evolved, and that AF will be better on a lens of 2019 than one from 1989.
Is it worth it? Isn’t that something each my answer for themselves? My guess is that a new 50/1.0L would probably cost something like $2500-3000. Would I find it hard to get that kind of cash together? Probably. But not impossible. And I’m sure I would use it a lot more than, as an example, a $6000 300/2.8 IS, a lens that isn’t that uncommon among pros and enthusiasts, and that probably costs 2x more than a new 50/1.0L would.

What is this discussion really about? If Canon would loose to much from changing from EF to something else, isn’t it? Who would Canon worry about losing? Most users wouldn’t be that troubled about a new mount. Two or three lenses to sell, and then investing in a couple of new lenses. Acceptable. No problem. What Canon probably do worry about is how the pros and enthusiasts would react to a new mount. Many have lots of money invested in the EF system, and for them to consider changing, there need to be incitement for doing so. Super fast primes might do it. Significantly better Image quality might do it as well. In body stabilisation? A step or two of dynamic range? I doubt it. Smaller size? Not a chance in h*ll.
So, are the pros worth it? Canon probably sells a lot more to low and mid end users anyway. But for the brand, the pros mean a lot. Canon want people to know that all (or most, at least) those white lenses at sports events are Canon. They want the pros to be happy, because it boosts sales in the lower segments as well.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 6, 2018)

melgross said:


> Except that we’re talking about FF here.


Actually, we were talking about round sensor format there.



melgross said:


> Ah, no. Most people will not be willing to pay for features. Yes, as to how many would in a discussion forum. But not in real life. There, very few would.


Do you remember how much EOS 5 costed just 20 years ago?



melgross said:


> I doubt most would buy a product that costs $10,000, even with most of those features, if a similar model without most cost $3,000.


But the only reason why it _would_ cost $10,000 would be because people would be buying it at this price. Purely marketing reason.

Sensor manufacturing by itself doesn't cost that much of the difference (it's actually almost negligible in the long run). The cost of manufacturing for one wafer of sensors is below $1000. The rest is R&D, marketing, top management pay, and profit.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> MF assist in the age of disappearing manual focus screens
> Elimination of mirror slap
> Ability to use AF in a much larger part of the frame
> Unlocking mroe affordable f/6.3 max aperture lenses (e.g. 150-600 f/6.3 IS STM for $1500, anyone?)
> ...


I would like to see some way of mounting FD lenses on a Canon FF mirrorless. I can now on the M5 but on a FF would be most excellent without a piece of glass.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 6, 2018)

Kit. said:


> The cost of manufacturing for one wafer of sensors is below $1000.



I’ve never seen good numbers for fab cost.

At what level of production does one expect $1000/wafer? Does it include amortizing capital expenses on equipment, or is it labor, raw material, and overhead (recurring)?


----------



## cayenne (Aug 6, 2018)

melgross said:


> If true, it makes sense to me. I would prefer a model with the current physical mount that allows all current lenses to give their full performance and use the entire feature set. At the same time, I’d like to see the mount incorporate new connections for a newer lens line for the future.
> 
> For those wanting the smaller camera, a different mount would be called for. After all, all camera manufacturers that have two sensor sizes have two lens mounts. It’s not impossible. Supposedly the M mount isn’t suited for FF. Too bad. But a third mount isn’t without reason. Sony has, what five mounts now? Of course, they throw everything against the wall to see what sticks, and most of them haven’t.



I might posit that selling 2x cameras with different mounts to allow for different sizing MIGHT actually help double sales to pros.

I mean, you have people that shoot at concerts, for example with 2 full sized cameras...they might opt later for one big and one small, or even add the small as a 3rd camera...etc.

Just a thought....

cayenne


----------



## melgross (Aug 6, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> All manufacturers have made the 'grave mistake' of not making the specific camera and lenses that AvTvM/fullstop wants.


Eh! They do what they think is best. They’re not always right. It’s only a grave mistake if it means they take extended losses, or go out of business because of it.


----------



## melgross (Aug 6, 2018)

denstore said:


> Yes, I’m talking about 1,2. They might be large, but not much larger than most 2.8 zooms. I don’t see people having much trouble toting them around. My guess would be that the 70-200/2.8L is a quite common ingredient in many photographers kit bags. The 50/1.0L is almost identical in size to the 85/1.2L. I don’t hear that many owners of the 85 complaining about its size.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And what purpose would that extra half stop serve? Focus would be poor. Even now, auto focus struggles with f 1.4. Manual focus these days is a joke.


----------



## melgross (Aug 6, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Actually, we were talking about round sensor format there.
> 
> 
> Do you remember how much EOS 5 costed just 20 years ago?
> ...


Well, round sensors isn’t the discussion. It’s an abberent post. I replied because it’s just not practical.

The main reason why digital cameras with large sensors cost what they do is because of the cost of the sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 6, 2018)

melgross said:


> Eh! They do what they think is best. They’re not always right. It’s only a grave mistake if it means they take extended losses, or go out of business because of it.


Obviously. I guess I need to go back to the old forum and find the /sarcasm/ tags that I inadvertently left behind.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 6, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I’ve never seen good numbers for fab cost.
> 
> At what level of production does one expect $1000/wafer? Does it include amortizing capital expenses on equipment, or is it labor, raw material, and overhead (recurring)?


Honestly, I haven't seen the hard numbers, but my understanding that it is the kind of price you can expect from foundries that do CMOS sensors for you. R&D and having a luxury of running your own fab grossly under its capacity are extra, but once the sensor technology matures, they won't be a big deal either.



melgross said:


> Well, round sensors isn’t the discussion. It’s an abberent post. I replied because it’s just not practical.


You claimed (or at least suggested) that the cameras for such sensors (using EF optics) must be too big, too heavy and too expensive. Which is not the case.



melgross said:


> The main reason why digital cameras with large sensors cost what they do is because of the cost of the sensor.


No, they are generally harder to sell, in particular, because of a very small choice of compatible modern lenses, which are also very heavy and expensive, and _that's_ what makes the sensor expensive (R&D and fab setup costs split between a tiny amount of sensors).

If a sensor flawlessly works with almost all big (and small; at least everything that accepts a teleconverter) whites, that would not be a problem.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2018)

melgross said:


> The main reason why digital cameras with large sensors cost what they do is because of the cost of the sensor.



Sure, the component cost of the sensor is much higher with FF than crop, but the decision to use a FF sensor means that you need:

Larger pentaprism / OVF
Larger, potentially more robust/complicated mirrorbox assembly
Larger, potentially more robust/complicated shutter
(possibly) A larger, more complicated / expensive AF setup, though it may be that it may not be that different between a 5-series and (say) a 7-series for that; a 7-series covers more of the frame than a 5-series, so it may just be a similar setup covering more of a crop sensor's real estate than a FF sensor's real estate. I defer to the AF scholars here.
So yes, the sensor figures prominently in cost, but it brings in a lot of additional cost along for the ride to make use of that larger sensor.

- A


----------



## melgross (Aug 6, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Honestly, I haven't seen the hard numbers, but my understanding that it is the kind of price you can expect from foundries that do CMOS sensors for you. R&D and having a luxury of running your own fab grossly under its capacity are extra, but once the sensor technology matures, they won't be a big deal either.
> 
> 
> You claimed (or at least suggested) that the cameras for such sensors (using EF optics) must be too big, too heavy and too expensive. Which is not the case.
> ...


And you’re making the statement that they’re not, which is not the case. fF sensors are about the largest chips made. So few are on a wafer, and that brings the cost up. There are still millions of cameras, for several years of sales. So it’s not a tiny number of sensors. Intel sells many different chips. Many of them only sell in the high hundreds of thousands. Millions isn’t a small number.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 6, 2018)

This is interesting to me because the reason for buying a Sony camera I was told was that IBIS meant that you didn’t have to pay for IS every time you bought a lens. So Sony lenses would be smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Sounds like it didn’t turn out that way.


----------



## melgross (Aug 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, the component cost of the sensor is much higher with FF than crop, but the decision to use a FF sensor means that you need:
> 
> Larger pentaprism / OVF
> Larger, potentially more robust/complicated mirrorbox assembly
> ...


Well, we just need to compare the top DSLR price to what the price of the top SLR. Yes, they stopped making them. But when they were making both, for years, the top DSLR model was over twice the price of the SLR model. Much of the mechanical shutter system was the same, and a much less complex system for sensor mounting and memory cards vs. a mechanical film wind system, etc.

The aps-c model cost as much as the top mechanical model.

At one point, I read that the sensor was well over half the cost of the camera. That ratio has come down no doubt, but it’s still pretty high.


----------



## denstore (Aug 6, 2018)

melgross said:


> And what purpose would that extra half stop serve? Focus would be poor. Even now, auto focus struggles with f 1.4. Manual focus these days is a joke.



Strange, I rarely have had problem with focus at f/1.4. Not with f/1.2 either when I took time to micro adjust the cameras. But maybe I’m not as picky. But I do like nice background blur, and I do find the 50/1.2 to be nicer than the 50/1.4. Is it worth the 2.5x higher price? It is to me, but your mileage may vary.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2018)

stevelee said:


> This is interesting to me because the reason for buying a Sony camera I was told was that IBIS meant that you didn’t have to pay for IS every time you bought a lens. So Sony lenses would be smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Sounds like it didn’t turn out that way.



Not smaller. Not at all. Physics is a cruel mistress this way.

Somewhat lighter is possible without IS, but (a) mount differences can mask some weight differences and (b) Lens IS is more effective than IBIS for longer focal lengths so Sony may put lens IS on a lens anyway (70-200 GM as one example). It's only if a company has both an IS and non-IS version of the same lens that you can appreciate how little the IS weighs, but if you compared a Nikon 24-70 IS and Sony 24-70, there's certainly going to be more going on than just the presence of IS or not.

Cheaper is again possible but not at Sony's paltry marketshare, which lower production volumes raise cost compared to Canon.

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. IBIS can deliver _some_ of what it promises.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 6, 2018)

melgross said:


> Well, we just need to compare the top DSLR price to what the price of the top SLR. Yes, they stopped making them. But when they were making both, for years, the top DSLR model was over twice the price of the SLR model. Much of the mechanical shutter system was the same, and a much less complex system for sensor mounting and memory cards vs. a mechanical film wind system, etc.
> 
> The aps-c model cost as much as the top mechanical model.
> 
> At one point, I read that the sensor was well over half the cost of the camera. That ratio has come down no doubt, but it’s still pretty high.



I expect that is very much an “it depends” situation. If you’re buying sensors from a semicon powerhouse by the hundreds of thousands, you probably stand to see them cost less than if you’re developing and producing your own sensors for small production run cameras, and maintaining a line for the purpose. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sensor cost in a d850 is lower than in a 5Div, for example.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I expect that is very much an “it depends” situation. If you’re buying sensors from a semicon powerhouse by the hundreds of thousands, you probably stand to see them cost less than if you’re developing and producing your own sensors for small production run cameras, and maintaining a line for the purpose. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sensor cost in a d850 is lower than in a 5Div, for example.



I would be a little surprised, actually.

5D4 volumes are higher than D850 volumes (presumed based on market share).

Further, the 5D4 sensor is designed and made in-house while the D850 sensor is made by Sony. Unless Sony has some economies of scale from other sensor fab that makes all sensors cheaper in their shop to produce, Nikon is likely paying more than if they did what Canon did and made those sensors themselves. Sony may be hitting them with licensing fees for using Sony IP in their sensor design, or possibly Nikon outsourced the design of the entire sensor itself to Sony (which would cost quite a bit).

We'll never know, but my guess is that relying on a competitor to make your sensors is not cheaper than doing it yourself unless making sensors fundamentally isn't your core competency and learning how to do that might cost too much. But as we know, Nikon still makes its own sensors, so I don't think that's a consideration here. My guess is that Nikon is paying more than they need to in order to get access to those lovely high-DXO-score sensors.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Unless Sony has some economies of scale from other sensor fab that makes all sensors cheaper in their shop to produce



Right, that’s something I postulate may be. Sony Semicon makes a tremendous volume of sensors. Not these ones, of course, but they may have processes and equipment which give them a competitive advantage in fab.


ahsanford said:


> We'll never know, but my guess is that relying on a competitor to make your sensors is not cheaper than doing it yourself unless making sensors fundamentally isn't your core competency and learning how to do that might cost too much. But as we know, Nikon still makes its own sensors, so I don't think that's a consideration here.
> 
> - A



They do (still make sensors)?

Maybe they went to Sony for scale, similar to Samsung on the galaxy phones (where Samsung fabbed some and Sony fabbed some). Regarding my business (airborne C4ISR electronics), in few situations are we able to beat supplier costs in house even with their margins. Our labor is too expensive. Perhaps my experience non-applicable to this industry.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 6, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> They do (still make sensors)?



Believe so, esp. for their highest end sensors for sports rigs, but even that is changing. Of late, 'designed by Nikon and produced by Sony' is apparently becoming common for them:

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/17/yes-nikon-designs-its-own-sensors/

Meanwhile, PP also claimed that the D5, D500 and D850 were all made by Sony.

- A


----------



## BillB (Aug 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Believe so, esp. for their highest end sensors for sports rigs, but even that is changing. Of late, 'designed by Nikon and produced by Sony' is apparently becoming common for them:
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2018/07/17/yes-nikon-designs-its-own-sensors/
> 
> ...



Now and then, I wonder whether Nikon is on a trajectory to end up as part of Sony. Of course, that would depend on Sony being willing to work out a deal with Nikon to take over their photography operation.


----------



## neonlight (Aug 6, 2018)

> Nature of the AF drive in lens and its control makes the difference. On-sensor Phase-Af like Canon DP-AF gives a different signal compared to separate DSLR Phase AF sensor. Modern lenses designed for mirrorfree camera systems with on-sensor AF typically are focus-by-wire and have linear electromagnetic drives, rather than rotational AF drives plus mechanically coupled manual focussing gear as in almost all EF / L lenses.



I was really thinking of the optics. Canon changes its drive electronics all the time. The phase AF and DPAF are derived from diferent chips but the control processor DIGIC xxx will presumably talk to these and send commands down the same wires (I assume) therefore EF lens will autofocus with whatever motor it has. You have not said anything which rules out EF on FF MILC, but EF might work faster with different motors in future - but it seems Canon will ensure older EF's will still work with at least one of their FF MILC bodies.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Believe so, esp. for their highest end sensors for sports rigs, but even that is changing. Of late, 'designed by Nikon and produced by Sony' is apparently becoming common for them:
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2018/07/17/yes-nikon-designs-its-own-sensors/
> 
> ...



I can’t find any indication Nikon owns any fab capacity (not that my web search skills are authoritative ).

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/p/image-sensor-companies-list.html

I believe nikon does sensor design work, though they likely leverage much of the IP from the fab (e.g. the BSI process from Sony). Fabricating in-house at this point would require a huge capital expense that would ripple into the unit sensor costs.

But indeed maybe I muddied the waters too much comparing canon fab to Sony fab rather than hypothetical nikon fab to Sony fab.


----------



## ken (Aug 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I would be a little surprised, actually.
> 
> ...<snip>... My guess is that Nikon is paying more than they need to in order to get access to those lovely high-DXO-score sensors.
> 
> - A



Or perhaps they've cross-licensed some of their own camera / lens patents to Sony as part of the compensation.


----------



## melgross (Aug 7, 2018)

denstore said:


> Strange, I rarely have had problem with focus at f/1.4. Not with f/1.2 either when I took time to micro adjust the cameras. But maybe I’m not as picky. But I do like nice background blur, and I do find the 50/1.2 to be nicer than the 50/1.4. Is it worth the 2.5x higher price? It is to me, but your mileage may vary.


Autofocus for high speed lenses is a known problem. All of the tolerances in a camera make the razor thin focus zone extremely difficult to hit, and the slightest movement can knock it out. My main problem starts with f 1.2, but really it’s the call for f 1, and even faster, lenses that has me shaking my head.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I can't speak for that poster, but some folks see mirrorless as a chance to smash the limits/orthodoxy/constraints we live with in our current systems.  Some folk look to mirrorless not for size or the potential upsides of mirrorless, but because it's their company's one chance in 20-30 years to try something new: f/0.95 lenses, medium format mirrorless, etc. comes to mind.
> 
> In short, while the mount / sensor size / etc. are unknown, anything could be possible. Some people are off the races with that notion. Let them dream -- no harm there.
> 
> - A





denstore said:


> No, but I want lenses as fast or faster than the ones available for EF today. It’s a part of lens development as important as ever.
> If Nikon brings out a new system, with really fast glass available and good ergonomics, and Canon at the same time decides to make small bodies, with few and mostly slow lenses, I will probably go with the Nikon. I’m not that bound to any specific brand. But I do dislike the trend of small cameras, with retro style flat and angular bodies.



Well if the Canon mirrorless camera is native EF, then it already has native f/1.2 lenses (and indeed, although discontinued, a native f/1.0 lens). If they choose a new mount, I'd be astonished if one of the first lenses to be released was an ultrawide aperture - and that goes for Nikon as well - even if the new mount theoretically supports it. While everyone is motivated by different features, I'd contend that the market for lenses wider than f/1.2 is vanishingly small.

Edit: sorry, I replied before catching up on the thread, I see many good points have been made and mine are a bit superluous now.


----------



## melgross (Aug 7, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I expect that is very much an “it depends” situation. If you’re buying sensors from a semicon powerhouse by the hundreds of thousands, you probably stand to see them cost less than if you’re developing and producing your own sensors for small production run cameras, and maintaining a line for the purpose. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sensor cost in a d850 is lower than in a 5Div, for example.


I wouldn’t be, because it’s very likely that the 5 sells in substantially higher numbers. A lot of companies go in-house because of lowered costs. Tesla is doing that with their computer, dropping Nvidia for their own in-house developed unit, though they aren’t actually making them. We’re just talking about a very few hundred thousand.

Canon has a large chip manufacturing business, and have for many years. They aren’t a regular foundry, but also make their own camera processing chips in the millions, as well as others. They also make chips for LEDs, etc.


----------



## melgross (Aug 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Believe so, esp. for their highest end sensors for sports rigs, but even that is changing. Of late, 'designed by Nikon and produced by Sony' is apparently becoming common for them:
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2018/07/17/yes-nikon-designs-its-own-sensors/
> 
> ...


It’s believed that Nikon has a licensing deal with Sony that allows Nikon to modify their sensors. Nikon claims, publicly, that they design their own sensors. That Nikon modified Sony sensor is probably the reality.

I haven’t heard anything about Sony making cameras for them. That would shock me!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2018)

melgross said:


> Autofocus for high speed lenses is a known problem. All of the tolerances in a camera make the razor thin focus zone extremely difficult to hit, and the slightest movement can knock it out.



"A known problem." Seems like I need to pull out my handy-dandy academic publication translator. 

"It is known...," really means, "I think."

"It is widely known...," really means, "Me and a few of my friends think..."

You're referring to motion. Yes, the DoF at, for example 85mm f/1.2, is razor thin. But if you or the subject move after AF is locked, that's not an AF problem. Have you tried AI Servo? FYI, Canon specifies AF precision as either within one depth of focus at max aperture for f/5.6 AF points, or within 1/3 of the depth of focus for f/2.8 AF points, at the lens' max aperture regardless of that f/number. Relative to their max aperture, fast lenses are no less precise than slow ones (and can be more precise with f/2.8 AF points).


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 7, 2018)

melgross said:


> Autofocus for high speed lenses is a known problem.





neuroanatomist said:


> "A known problem..."



I can't call it a known problem, but I personally have had night and day difference in AF accuracy/consistency from the 50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.4L IS on my 5D3.

I think it's more fair to say that 'autofocus for *some *large aperture lenses can be problematic on the wide open end'.

The 50L has been a finnicky diva for me over the span of two rentals. Even after AFMA, with ruthless technique (stationary subjects, 1/60 or faster shutter speed, no focus and recompose, single AF point etc.), the lens seemed to simply whiff with the AF 10-20% of the time unless I was stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower. It drove me nuts, if I'm honest.

The 85 f/1.4L IS, on the other hand, was so so so much better with the same careful shooting approach. The AF was simply automatic for me -- it was a joy to use and not have to worry about the gear letting me down. I shot that thing wide open without fear and without disappointment.

I rarely blame my tools as much more often than not I am the reason something didn't go as planned. But I believe in this case I was doing everything humanly possible to succeed with a wide aperture lens and the 50L let me down while the 85 f/1.4L IS was lights out.

So as much as I agree with Neuro that the lens itself is no more/less precise with AF than slower lenses, the actual consistency of nailing the focus in practice does seem to vary with certain lenses. LensTip and others who have attempted to publish AF hit rates would tend to agree with this, but they don't publish all their methods, the test cameras change over time (making lens AF comparisons challenging), etc. so it's hard to rely on them as a truly useful source of information on the subject.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2018)

melgross said:


> And you’re making the statement that they’re not, which is not the case.


That's not true. You asked me how big and expensive I would want a camera with such a sensor to be. I referred you to a pretty big and a pretty expensive camera line, $1500 more expensive than another camera of the same manufacturer with the same sensor format.

I am not asking for a small or a cheap camera.



melgross said:


> fF sensors are about the largest chips made. So few are on a wafer, and that brings the cost up.


The MF sensors are bigger (Sony, for example, produces IMX211 sensor, which is bigger by area than the square for the supposed round sensor would be). Still, it's not the cost of silicon that drives their price up. Silicon is not that expensive.



melgross said:


> There are still millions of cameras, for several years of sales. So it’s not a tiny number of sensors.


Are they selling millions of FF sensors of the same model?

They definitely are not selling millions of MF sensors of the same model.



melgross said:


> Intel sells many different chips. Many of them only sell in the high hundreds of thousands. Millions isn’t a small number.


If you are about Itaniums, they are very expensive. More expensive than some FF cameras, despite a smaller die size than an FF sensor has.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2018)

melgross said:


> I wouldn’t be, because it’s very likely that the 5 sells in substantially higher numbers. A lot of companies go in-house because of lowered costs.


For a multi-billion dollar fab to pay off its investment costs, you need to run tens of millions wafers through it. The costs of process upgrades then will be in hundreds of millions of dollars as well.

Maybe that's why 6D mark II still has an off-die ADC.



melgross said:


> Tesla is doing that with their computer, dropping Nvidia for their own in-house developed unit, though they aren’t actually making them.


Nvidia is not "actually making them" either - they are fabless, they use TSMC plants.

In the self-driving computer at the moment, cost is less important than power efficiency of low-precision operations and minimization of memory transfers for particular neural network designs.


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 7, 2018)

What if Canon will come out with a FF MILC with native EF mount for specially designed new lenses? And what if you can mount all EF lenses with an EF- 25 II extension tube? That would be sexy enough?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> I would like to see some way of mounting FD lenses on a Canon FF mirrorless. I can now on the M5 but on a FF would be most excellent without a piece of glass.



No problem, if Canon FF mirrorfree system comes with a new "slim" mount with shorter Flange Focal Distance. Then FD glass can be mounted via simple adapter, similar to FD/EF-M ones. I doubt Canon themselves will launch an OEM adapter for legacy FD glass. But there will be no shortage of 3rd party offers.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, the component cost of the sensor is much higher with FF than crop, but the decision to use a FF sensor means that you need:
> 
> Larger pentaprism / OVF
> Larger, potentially more robust/complicated mirrorbox assembly
> ...



Luckily, all of the above points apply only to mirrorslappers. On mirrorfree cameras with global electronic shutter they can all be spared. have no impact. Life will be so much easier once slapping mirrors, mech shutters, separate AF sensor units and other 19/20th century contraptions are finally removed from digital photon-to-electron-converters. 

And while I don't have any information re. sensor cost in the quantities Canon uses ... until somebody shows me credible information on this, I go with the assumption, that difference sensor for any "same-generation, same tech, same features" APS-C and FF CMOS imaging sensor is max. 500 USD/€. e.g. DP-AF sensors in Canon EOS 80D / EOS M50 sensor vs. 5D IV. Probably this is already a "rather generous" assumption, real cost difference might be a lot smaller smaller. Probably 35 bucks vs. 350 bucks or so.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> What if Canon will come out with a FF MILC with native EF mount for specially designed new lenses? And what if you can mount all EF lenses with an EF- 25 II extension tube? That would be sexy enough?




No, not sexy, because only camera bodies as large as mirrorslappers would be possible. With new, slim mount, all that's needed to mount EF glass is a simple adapter, very similar to a little extension tube. EF glass will be fully functional - within any limitations re. AF performance or other possible future advances requiring better/different body-lens communication.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Well if the Canon mirrorless camera is native EF, then it already has native f/1.2 lenses (and indeed, although discontinued, a native f/1.0 lens). If they choose a new mount, I'd be astonished if one of the first lenses to be released was an ultrawide aperture - and that goes for Nikon as well - even if the new mount theoretically supports it. While everyone is motivated by different features, I'd contend that the market for lenses wider than f/1.2 is vanishingly small.



fully agree! f/1.4 lenses are niche already, only 50mm/1.4 historically got some more sales, because they were "relatively inexpensive" in the past (that has changed with today's 50/1.4 pickle jars). f/1.2 lenses are definitely only a "micro-niche" in the overall lens market.

re. Nikon Z-mount mirrorfree FF lenses: current rumors are - very unsurprisingly! 


> 24-70mm f/4 (you can see the 24mm mark on the lens)
> 35mm and 50mm prime lenses (I think the 35mm and 50mm will be f/1.4 but I am not sure).
> read more: https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/27/nikon-mirrorless-camera-rumors-the-big-recap.aspx/#ixzz5NTouIygQ


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Luckily, all of the above points apply only to mirrorslappers. On mirrorfree cameras with global electronic shutter they can all be spared. have no impact. Life will be so much easier once slapping mirrors, mech shutters, separate AF sensor units and other 19/20th century contraptions are finally removed from digital photon-to-electron-converters.
> 
> And while I don't have any information re. sensor cost in the quantities Canon uses ... until somebody shows me credible information on this, I go with the assumption, that difference sensor for any "same-generation, same tech, same features" APS-C and FF CMOS imaging sensor is max. 500 USD/€. e.g. DP-AF sensors in Canon EOS 80D / EOS M50 sensor vs. 6D II or 5D IV. Probably this is already a "rather generous" assumption, real cost difference might be a lot smaller smaller. Probably 35 bucks vs. 350 bucks or so.



You are also forgetting an important marketing factor - the profit a company defines it needs to continue a product line. It then decides how those profits are shared among the different products. So the more competitive nature of the 'consumer end' of the market (xxxxD and xxxD) will drive prices down. Any shortfall in profit needs to be made up by the higher end models and it is this that drives price as much as raw materials. And all this needs to be done with consideration of that the market will pay. The company has to balance these factors not only when selling the lines but also when designing them. And falling sales puts even more pressure on those prices because they have the same infrastructure with fewer sales to support it
Your simple assumptions on what it costs to make a sensor is almost irrelevant to the final cost of the camera.

I am not saying that Canon cannot make a FF for $1,000 simply by putting a FF sensor into a xxxD body but it would drag sales from their xxD and xD
models. And in a market where cameraphones are good enough for most people, sales are falling and producing that $1,000 FF may drive them out of business.
Cameras are now a commodity and as such prices so I would expect market forces to be particularly strong.


----------



## lightthief (Aug 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, the component cost of the sensor is much higher with FF than crop, but the decision to use a FF sensor means that you need:
> 
> Larger pentaprism / OVF
> Larger, potentially more robust/complicated mirrorbox assembly
> ...



I think all those points doesn't matter, when i think of a mirrorless camera mith EVF.
The sensor and the EVF brings the cost alone.

But i think, rotating the camera to portrait oriantation will still be cheaper than a round sensor...

Lightthief


----------



## lightthief (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> No, not sexy, because only camera bodies as large as mirrorslappers would be possible. With new, slim mount, all that's needed to mount EF glass is a simple adapter, very similar to a little extension tube. EF glass will be fully functional - within any limitations re. AF performance or other possible future advances requiring better/different body-lens communication.



I think, Jester74 suggested an EF Mount but not the EF flange distance. Instead, he asked, wouldn't it be sexy, if the adapter would be the already available extension tube 25 II.

I like this idea. It would be a customer friendly solution.

Lightthief


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I am not saying that Canon cannot make a FF for $1,000 simply by putting a FF sensor into a xxxD body



Yes, that was the only point i was trying to get across. And I am aware of and largely agree with all your other points as well.  

I am not asking Canon (or other camera manufacturers) to launch ALL of their FF cameras at USD/€ 999. No problem, if they see fit to also make (and sell) cameras for 9,999 or even 99,999 USD/€. I do believe however, given the current market situation they SHOULD offer less expensive option also for FF sensored cameras and lenses. 

EOS M50 [or similarly spec'ed Fuji X-T100] can be sold retail including 20% VAT for € 559 - and I refuse to believe that Canon [or Fuji] are NOT making a solid profit even at that price, then a 999 USD/€ mirrorfree FF camera specced somewhere between 6D 2 and 5D 4 should not only be "economically possible" - but in my opinion - could bring a much needed "system boost", very similar to what happened exactly 15 years ago when Canon brought "the first digital SLR *for less than a grand*" to market: EOS 300D followed by EOS 350D. Many existing (film) Canon customers and even more new Canon customers purchased one and entered the system, even when many never purchased even a second lens. Many other did buy more lenses.  

EOS 300D / Digital Rebel and 350D because it was 
* decent IQ (at the time), 
* decent functionality (at the time), 
* decent size/weight (at the time) 
* AND "affordably priced".

Of course there were also more capable offerings available at higher price points. But "mass movement / a DSLR in (almost) every household" really started with the Digital Rebel AT LESS THAN A GRAND. And ... it got Canon market leadership in digital cameras. 

If believe, Canon, Nikon and Sony would be very well advised to offer at least 1 "entry-level" APS-C mirrorfree camera for USD/€ 499 retail (body only) and 1 "entry-level" FF MILC for 999. 

While Fuji and Sony may have "satisfactory margins" with their current camera and lens pricing, those high prices (and some functional impediments) also make it difficult [Sony] or quite impossible [Fuji - also thanks to decision to offer crop only and pseudo-MF] to *reach critical mass / gain market share fast enough*.


----------



## BillB (Aug 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I can't call it a known problem, but I personally have had night and day difference in AF accuracy/consistency from the 50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.4L IS on my 5D3.
> 
> I think it's more fair to say that 'autofocus for *some *large aperture lenses can be problematic on the wide open end'.
> 
> ...



In the summer of 2012, Roger Cicala had a series of blog posts in Lensrental on Canon AF. Much to his surprise he discovered that Canon had started using a new iterative AF capability in new lenses and cameras that provided much more consistent focussing when both the camera and the lens had the feature. The 5d3 has the feature, and presumably the 85 f1.4 does as well, while the older 50mm f1.2 would not have it.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

lightthief said:


> I think, Jester74 suggested an EF Mount but not the EF flange distance. Instead, he asked, wouldn't it be sexy, if the adapter would be the already available extension tube 25 II.
> I like this idea. It would be a customer friendly solution.



Yes ... until some Canon customers would mount their existing EF lenses on "new EF mount camera" without extension tube ... because it works like that too (!) ... and then complain ... "help, I can't get any sharp images with my brand spanking new, fancy mirrorfree Canon camera". 

Land of confusion ... "why are there 2 different EF mounts" and "how do i tell them apart?" "When do I need to use extension tube?", "Will I get better results if I stack 2 or 3 extension tubes between lens and camera?" etc. etc. 

Maybe not so customer-friendly at second glance?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

BillB said:


> In the summer of 2012, Roger Cicala had a series of blog posts in Lensrental on Canon AF. Much to his surprise he discovered that Canon had started using a new iterative AF capability in new lenses and cameras that provided much more consistent focussing when both the camera and the lens had the feature. The 5d3 has the feature, and presumably the 85 f1.4 does as well, while the older 50mm f1.4 would not have it.



Yes. Most existing EF lenses will be "legacy" when used on mirrorfree, on-sensor AF (eg DP-AF) system. "legacy" in terms of AF performance and any other (future) functionality that also requires specific firmware and communications capability in lens. I suspect all pre-2012 EF lenses to not be fit for firmware upgrades to the required level.


----------



## BillB (Aug 7, 2018)

BillB said:


> In the summer of 2012, Roger Cicala had a series of blog posts in Lensrental on Canon AF. Much to his surprise he discovered that Canon had started using a new iterative AF capability in new lenses and cameras that provided much more consistent focussing when both the camera and the lens had the feature. The 5d3 has the feature, and presumably the 85 f1.4 does as well, while the older 50mm f1.2 would not have it.



See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras/


----------



## lightthief (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Maybe not so customer-friendly at second glance?


You are right. But in general, people should use their mind when they do more than breathing. I will try my best, too.



fullstop said:


> "Will I get better results if I stack 2 or 3 extension tubes behind between lens and camera?" etc. etc.


Yes, yes, yes. Every inch counts.


----------



## BillB (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Yes. Most existing EF lenses will be "legacy" when used on mirrorfree, on-sensor AF (eg DP-AF) system. "legacy" in terms of AF performance and any other (future) functionality that also requires specific firmware and communications capability in lens. I suspect all pre-2012 EF lenses to not be fit for firmware upgrades to the required level.



See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/


fullstop said:


> Luckily, all of the above points apply only to mirrorslappers. On mirrorfree cameras with global electronic shutter they can all be spared. have no impact. Life will be so much easier once slapping mirrors, mech shutters, separate AF sensor units and other 19/20th century contraptions are finally removed from digital photon-to-electron-converters.
> 
> And while I don't have any information re. sensor cost in the quantities Canon uses ... until somebody shows me credible information on this, I go with the assumption, that difference sensor for any "same-generation, same tech, same features" APS-C and FF CMOS imaging sensor is max. 500 USD/€. e.g. DP-AF sensors in Canon EOS 80D / EOS M50 sensor vs. 5D IV. Probably this is already a "rather generous" assumption, real cost difference might be a lot smaller smaller. Probably 35 bucks vs. 350 bucks or so.



On a marginal production cost basis, you might or might not be in the ballpark, but marginal production costs may not be the critical cost issue when comparing a high volume low margin aps-c sensor in use across the EOS M line with the much lower volumes of fullframe cameras. Especially a fullframe camera that would compete in price with the M50. Might be hard to generate volume in that competitive environment.


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 7, 2018)

lightthief said:


> I think, Jester74 suggested an EF Mount but not the EF flange distance. Instead, he asked, wouldn't it be sexy, if the adapter would be the already available extension tube 25 II.
> 
> I like this idea. It would be a customer friendly solution.
> 
> Lightthief



Yep, you got that right! I forgot to mention the shorter flange distance, instead I mentioned specially designed lenses. Right now the EF flange distance is somewhere forty-something millimetres. Forty-something minus 25 is around 18 maybe, which is a decent flange distance for a FF MILC. This solution is sexy and professional. And I am a genius. According to my Mommy....


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Yes ... until some Canon customers would mount their existing EF lenses on "new EF mount camera" without extension tube ... because it works like that too (!) ... and then complain ... "help, I can't get any sharp images with my brand spanking new, fancy mirrorfree Canon camera".
> 
> Land of confusion ... "why are there 2 different EF mounts" and "how do i tell them apart?" "When do I need to use extension tube?", "Will I get better results if I stack 2 or 3 extension tubes between lens and camera?" etc. etc.
> 
> Maybe not so customer-friendly at second glance?



Nothing would happen. Maybe an error message? Something like 'Photog error. Replace photog. RTFM!!!!!!!' BTW if you put an EF-S lens on a full frame camera, well that's different story....


----------



## BillB (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Yes, that was the only point i was trying to get across. And I am aware of and largely agree with all your other points as well.
> 
> I am not asking Canon (or other camera manufacturers) to launch ALL of their FF cameras at USD/€ 999. No problem, if they see fit to also make (and sell) cameras for 9,999 or even 99,999 USD/€. I do believe however, given the current market situation they SHOULD offer less expensive option also for FF sensored cameras and lenses.
> 
> ...



Well, if Canon wanted to keep costs down in a FF mirrorless Super M50 fullframe, they could use the 6DII sensor. Might have trouble generating volume though.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Yes, that was the only point i was trying to get across. And I am aware of and largely agree with all your other points as well.
> 
> I am not asking Canon (or other camera manufacturers) to launch ALL of their FF cameras at USD/€ 999. No problem, if they see fit to also make (and sell) cameras for 9,999 or even 99,999 USD/€. I do believe however, given the current market situation they SHOULD offer less expensive option also for FF sensored cameras and lenses.



Why 'SHOULD' they offer that? 
If you accept my comments on pricing options then you only need look at how many people bought into the 6D as a way to get FF at a good price and hang the functionality - people then buy the new FF mirrorless instead of the 6D2 and put the whole costing chain in jeopardy. So the only way they could limit this is reducing the functionality to that of the xxxxD models and we have already seen whining from people (including you) as to why Canon cripple their lower end models with crap functionality when they have already done the legwork to get it and after all it is only programming and costs nothing to put in the camera. 
Lo and behold the 6D2 suddenly costs 1,000 USD and slashes Canon's profits.


----------



## Azathoth (Aug 7, 2018)

Just an idea:

Canon releases a new mount for a medium format camera and that can accept also EF lenses via a simple adaptor or some tweak built in the camera. This new camera line will be the new 5D and 5Ds, the top of the line high megapixels and general purposes camera for pros. Obviously they need to release new medium format lenses so that you won't get a crop. This will be the perfect tool for studio and landscape work. It will basically be a GFX and X1D killer.
Besides that they release also a ff mirrorless line, one for pro sports, the new 1D line, a A9 killer but with a big grip, which accepts native EF lenses, the big primes that already exists. And also a entry level mirrorless camera, the new 6D line, aimed for street photography and travel, a A7iii killer.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

Why SHOULD Canon (and Nikon And Sony) offer a t least ONE really well-priced base model ? To lure as many people - existing customers and even more so, younger, new customers - into their new mirrorfree systems - both APS-C and FF.

If they want to save some unnecessary costs, Canon and Nikon could immediately stop making and marketing about 10 different APS-C mirrorslappers and consolidate to only 1 - "7D / D500" class.


----------



## BillB (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Why SHOULD Canon (and Nikon And Sony) offer a t least ONE really well-priced base model ? To lure as many people - existing customers and even more so, younger, new customers - into their new mirrorfree systems - both APS-C and FF.
> 
> If they want to safe some unnecessary costs, Canon and Nikon could immediately stop making and marketing about 10 different APS-C mirrorslappers and consolidate to only 1 - "500D / 7D" class.



Canon has very successfully used a low cost high volume strategy for marketing aps-c cameras, starting with the digital rebels. Sensors and other basics have been standardized across the aps-c lines, minimizing the cost of model differentiation.

Can this low cost high volume strategy used for a full frame camera? Full frame cameras will always be more expensive than aps-c cameras. So how do you convince enough people to pay the extra money for a full frame camera? Minimizing costs and minimizing the difference from aps-c models in features would be one way, but that strategy requires a lot of volume to work. Is the potential for volume really there? Anyway, I don't think Canon will use this strategy for its first fullframe mirrorless models.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

I think FF is the ONLY chance for camera manufacturer(s) to survive after the next 5 years. They would be well advised to get as many users into their system as possible. 

And yes, I believe a lot of folks would be willing to spend 999 on an decent, compact FF MILC and reasonable amounts on a few lenses to go with it. After all, it is still DOUBLE the price of a similar APS-C camera [eg M50).


----------



## BillB (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I think FF is the ONLY chance for camera manufacturer(s) to survive after the next 5 years. They would be well advised to get as many users into their system as possible.
> 
> And yes, I believe a lot of folks would be willing to spend 999 on an decent, compact FF MILC and reasonable amounts on a few lenses to go with it. After all, it is still DOUBLE the price of a similar APS-C camera [eg M50).



The 350 D was competing with film cameras, not with an M50 at half the price.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I think FF is the ONLY chance for camera manufacturer(s) to survive after the next 5 years. They would be well advised to get as many users into their system as possible.
> 
> And yes, I believe a lot of folks would be willing to spend 999 on an decent, compact FF MILC and reasonable amounts on a few lenses to go with it. After all, it is still DOUBLE the price of a similar APS-C camera [eg M50).



Yes, I am sure a lot of people would be willing to spend 1,000 USD on a FF MILC. Undoubtedly. And there will be even more willing to pay $500 - once you look at raw material costs it would be possible. But that was not the point under consideration: no company is in the business of giving people everything they would like as cheap as possible (not even Sony. Shock! Horror!). 
Sell a FF at $1,000 and your profits drop and you then need to sell more to maintain profits and you enter a cycle of increasing costs - all at a time when camera sales are falling and once you do that and others join the pricing race you are in trouble. Is this what you are advocating - it won't work because as soon as Canon does that so will everyone else to compete and you are back to square one with lower profits. If Canon's intention was to drive out one of the other competitors then yes, it is a viable strategy - but it is very high risk and in those sorts of battles no-one wins.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

sell a middle class camera at 3k and each and every lens at > 1k ... and limit yourself to a narrow niche.

Or sell ONE decent camera at 999. Not ALL of them. And a FEW decent lenses at less than 500. Not ALL of them. What is shard to understand? 

Rest of lineup can be any price, sky's the limit.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I think FF is the ONLY chance for camera manufacturer(s) to survive after the next 5 years.


I think big glass is the only chance for camera manufacturers to survive after the next 5 years.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 7, 2018)

I think people who like to hold, manipulate, and use cameras - purpose built devices with well-thought out tactile controls, focus and zoom rings, viewfinders, etc. - are *why* camera companies will survive after the next five years. Maybe not all of them, mind you.

Phones may be making some plays with multiple sensors and lenses and mathematics to approximate larger lenses, but that doesn’t make them a good platform for taking photos.

And no, I don’t believe canon is making an APS-C phone.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> sell a middle class camera at 3k and each and every lens at > 1k ... and limit yourself to a narrow niche.
> 
> Or sell ONE decent camera at 999. Not ALL of them. And a FEW decent lenses at less than 500. Not ALL of them. What is shard to understand?
> 
> Rest of lineup can be any price, sky's the limit.



I understand totally what you mean. My opinion is that it is an unsupportable strategy in the long term.


----------



## denstore (Aug 7, 2018)

Kit. said:


> I think big glass is the only chance for camera manufacturers to survive after the next 5 years.



I believe you are right. Even today, lots of the younger people see few if any advantages of dedicated cameras compared to the smart phone cameras. In a few years, integrated cameras will have improved to levels that will rival entry bodies with kit zooms.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

Digital Rebel has fully proven that strategy. Scores and scores of people bought it, because it was "affordable". Canon could have easily also sold a lot of them at 1299 or 1499 back in 2013. But launching it at 999 really caused "the psychological big bang".

Many current Canon customers started out back then with a Digital Rebel/300D, 350D, 400D and "a very sizeable minority" subsequently bought "newer, better, more expensive" APS-C Canon DSLRs bodies plus lenses ... and a smaller but still "sizeable minority" switched to more expensive FF lineup.

Canon should and needs to do both:
1. attack at "hi end" mirrorfree ... 1DX class, all-in vs. Sony A9 and future Nikon MILC (the higher one)
2. provide an attractive entry point into their new mirrorfree FF system: camera body + a few "non-L class" lenses to combat Sony A7 III and upcoming Nikon MILC system (lower end)

Given the advantage Canon has [over Nikon F] with regards to backwards compatibility with EF lenses and their massive resources they should be able to do both and do it well. But .. let's see.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 7, 2018)

The 350D proved nothing of the sort - your claim of sales at 1300 or 1500 is nothing short of fanciful with numbers pulled out of the air for no other reason than they (you think) support your fanciful claims regarding the viability of a 1,000 FF camera. Its price was competitive with the Nikon D40 and there were very few alternatives and it was premium technology - nowadays there is far more competition and the technology is a commodity. I bought the 350D in 2005 because I was due to replace my camera and I could not be arsed with film anymore. And despite what you think, digital was still in competition with premium film cameras so they could not price it the same bracket as a premium SLR.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> The 350D proved nothing of the sort - your claim of sales at 1300 or 1500 is nothing short of fanciful with numbers pulled out of the air



If only they’d priced it as $1M, they’d be bigger than amazon!


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

> The 350D proved nothing of the sort - your claim of sales at 1300 or 1500 is nothing short of fanciful with numbers pulled out of the air for no other reason than they (you think) support your fanciful claims regarding the viability of a 1,000 FF camera. Its price was competitive with the Nikon D40 and there were very few alternatives and it was premium technology - nowadays there is far more competition and the technology is a commodity. I bought the 350D in 2005 because I was due to replace my camera and I could not be arsed with film anymore. And despite what you think, digital was still in competition with premium film cameras so they could not price it the same bracket as a premium SLR.



I thought you guys preferred fact-based discussion?  So shall we agree on the [historical ] facts?

*Canon EOS 300D / Digital Rebel* was launched August 20, 2003 at body only USD 900 [I thought 999 ;-) ] and € 1,100
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1556848431/canoneos300d

First competitive *Nikon model was D70*. It only launched AFTER Canon had dropped their "900 USD bomb". Announced Jan 28, 2004, USD 999 body only.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5079505569/nikond70

At the time of Canon Digital Rebel/300D, the least expensive other DSLR options were either
a) Canon EOS 10D [Feb 27, 2003 - USD 1999] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4530157862/canoneos10d
b) or Nikon D100 [announced Feb 23, 2002 - USD 1,999] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7416817206/nikond100

As I wrote earlier, there was significant pricing room for Canon's Digital Rebel. Instead of only USD 900 Canon could have easily launched at USD 1,299 or USD 1,499 and would still have received a very positive response back then.

PS: *Nikon D40* only appeared "ages later". November 16, 2006. After D100, D70, D200 and D80. D40 really was gen III of the Nikon consumer DSLRs and launched at USD 599 as new, rock-bottom Nikon entry model ... it had no AF motor = no backwards compatibility with legacy F-mount glass with screwdriver AF. Much to the chagrin of some Nikon old-skoolers.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 7, 2018)

Jeez, gang, I leave for a little while and this turned into a $999 FF camera thread. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> If they want to save some unnecessary costs, Canon and Nikon could immediately stop making and marketing about 10 different APS-C mirrorslappers and consolidate to only 1 - "7D / D500" class.


Sure, Canon and Nikon should just stop selling the cameras that comprise the majority of the ILC market.

Note to all: it’s best not to rely on the business degree that you pulled out of the box of Cracker Jacks.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, Canon and Nikon should just stop selling the cameras that comprise the majority of the ILC market.
> 
> Note to all: it’s best not to rely on the business degree that you pulled out of the box of Cracker Jacks.



Well, he _really_ wants that $999 FF camera, and without anything else around that price point in the pipeline -- it could work!

See, the whole 'a $999 FF camera would set the crops on fire' is a moot point _if you've already torched your own fields_. We're such dummies, Neuro.




- A


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

sure, stuffing shelves and online shops with
EOS 4000D, 2000D, 1200D, 1300D, 200D, 750D, 760D, 800D, 77D, 80D
and all the logistics + marketing efforts behind it make a lot of sense. 
Same for Nikon. Equally ... stupid.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

Oh yes, I do want a decent little 999 FF MILC. Slightly larger body EOS M50 with FF sensor would do fine for me. 
And I bet, a few other people would buy it as well. 
I am even confident, it would be a large enough number of sales to yield the usual, oligopolistic profitability for Canon. 
Based on my market knowledge and some simple logic.


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 7, 2018)

Azathoth said:


> Just an idea:
> Canon releases a new mount for a medium format camera and that can accept also EF lenses via a simple adaptor or some tweak built in the camera. This new camera line will be the new 5D and 5Ds, the top of the line high megapixels and general purposes camera for pros. Obviously they need to release new medium format lenses so that you won't get a crop. *This will be the perfect tool for studio and landscape work. It will basically be a GFX* and X1D killer.
> Besides that they release also a ff mirrorless line, one for pro sports, the new 1D line, a A9 killer but with a big grip, which accepts native EF lenses, the big primes that already exists. And also a entry level mirrorless camera, the new 6D line, aimed for street photography and travel, a A7iii killer.


*I agree! What a wonderful concept...*
I am *so* close to going with the GFX from my 6D and 20 year old Canon glass. 

Waiting for Canon to give us a FF MILC has driven me crazy but my _Leica Q_ has ruined me for mirrored cameras & it stopped me from buying the 5D-IV -- I want an EVF that is truly WYSIWYG. But I want the best image quality paired with a photographer's UI, not layers of menus.

The GFX provides all the pro features such as amazing image quality, dual cards, weatherproofing, real EVF, tilt LCD, both MF & 35mm modes, all with a photographer's user interface.

So I'm waiting for Canon's announcement. If the FF is for the pro (let's say a 5D-IV level), I stay Canon.
If the announcement is short on pro features, I shall order the GFX, Canon EF adapter, Fuji 110 f/2, and Fuji mid range zoom.


----------



## melgross (Aug 7, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I can't call it a known problem, but I personally have had night and day difference in AF accuracy/consistency from the 50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.4L IS on my 5D3.
> 
> I think it's more fair to say that 'autofocus for *some *large aperture lenses can be problematic on the wide open end'.
> 
> ...


This is something that’s pretty much regularly reported. Well known experts in photography talk about it. Thom Hogan, Loyd Chambers, the late Micheal Reichmann as well as many others speak about this. It’s not a made up issue. It’s a matter of tolerances. The theory is great, but the reality is that razor focus isn’t really possible without looking directly at the focus in the screen. Handheld, where most of these super fast lenses are mostly used, presents an almost impossible situation.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Oh yes, I do want a decent little 999 FF MILC. Slightly larger body EOS M50 with FF sensor would do fine for me.



Sony A7 for $798


----------



## melgross (Aug 7, 2018)

Kit. said:


> For a multi-billion dollar fab to pay off its investment costs, you need to run tens of millions wafers through it. The costs of process upgrades then will be in hundreds of millions of dollars as well.
> 
> Maybe that's why 6D mark II still has an off-die ADC.
> 
> ...


By “making” i was obviously referring to the R&D and design process. I think we all know that Nvidia is a fabless design house. Tesla will be the same.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 7, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Sony A7 for $798



I love how Canon is singlehandedly responsible for a wretched business idea not becoming industry standard when it's clear that everyone else is kinda doing the same thing (albeit far less effectively).

Why won't the entire FF ILC market get in a stripped down knife fight for price so that I can get what I want? _Stupid Canon. _

- A


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I thought you guys preferred fact-based discussion?  So shall we agree on the [historical ] facts?
> 
> *Canon EOS 300D / Digital Rebel* was launched August 20, 2003 at body only USD 900


Lolwhat?

You yourself were using a film camera that was introduced _after that_. If this Digital Rebel was good and cheap, why were you shooting _film_?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 7, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Lolwhat?



what lol? Want to dispute even the most basic facts? I'd have to call you Canapologist then! 



Kit. said:


> You yourself were using a film camera that was introduced _after that_. If this Digital Rebel was good and cheap, why were you shooting _film_?



Oh, you mean my Canon EOS 30/Elan 7E [release Oct. 2000 https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film224.html  ] ... purchased it 2nd hand on ebay about 2 years ago for exactly 40 €. I'd happily exchange it for a Sony A7 .. even 1st gen.  Or use it as "turn-in camera" for a 999 USD Canon FF MILC akin to EOS M50. 

PS: I found, it does not make any sense at all to shoot film, unless you are also developing it yourself. Not prepared to do the latter, so Elan 7E was a classical "mis-purchase". Maybe collector's value will make it a nice "attic find" for my great-grandchildren some day (if I manage to have any).

Also did some comparison shoots with 5D3 vs. Elan 7 ... in B&W film had no cigar vs. Raw. ;-)
But mostly I was just interested to see for myself, if/how well Eye Control AF works for me.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> what lol? Want to dispute even the most basic facts?


Which facts? Did you want to provide some facts, but forgot to do it?



fullstop said:


> Oh, you mean my Canon EOS 30i/Elan 7E ... purchased it 2nd hand on ebay about 2 years ago for exactly 40 €. I'd happily exchange it for a Sony A7 .. even 1st gen.


You can buy EOS 300D on ebay just for just slightly more.



fullstop said:


> PS: I found, it does not make any sense at all to shoot film, unless you are also developing it yourself.


Actually, just normally processed Astia 100F had higher dynamic range, much better color separation, much nicer skin tones and better equivalent resolution than EOS 300D.


----------



## ken (Aug 8, 2018)

Reading this thread, it feels like we could all use a fresh, new Canon mirrorless rumor.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 8, 2018)

ken said:


> Reading this thread, it feels like we could all use a fresh, new Canon mirrorless rumor.



We could title it "The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill"! ... oh wait.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Luckily, all of the above points apply only to mirrorslappers. On mirrorfree cameras with global electronic shutter they can all be spared. have no impact. Life will be so much easier once slapping mirrors, mech shutters, separate AF sensor units and other 19/20th century contraptions are finally removed from digital photon-to-electron-converters.
> 
> And while I don't have any information re. sensor cost in the quantities Canon uses ... until somebody shows me credible information on this, I go with the assumption, that difference sensor for any "same-generation, same tech, same features" APS-C and FF CMOS imaging sensor is max. 500 USD/€. e.g. DP-AF sensors in Canon EOS 80D / EOS M50 sensor vs. 5D IV. Probably this is already a "rather generous" assumption, real cost difference might be a lot smaller smaller. Probably 35 bucks vs. 350 bucks or so.



Do you really believe that all of that added together is still not cheaper to produce than the cost of an EVF good enough to make most photographers give up their OVF? Or that the additional cost of a CMOS sensor capable of global electronic shutter doesn't dwarf the savings from not having a mechanical shutter?


----------



## BillB (Aug 9, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Do you really believe that all of that added together is still not cheaper to produce than the cost of an EVF good enough to make most photographers give up their OVF? Or that the additional cost of a CMOS sensor capable of global electronic shutter doesn't dwarf the savings from not having a mechanical shutter?



Well, lacking information to the contrary, why shouldn't you believe what you want to believe?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 9, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Do you really believe that all of that added together is still not cheaper to produce than the cost of an EVF good enough to make most photographers give up their OVF? Or that the additional cost of a CMOS sensor capable of global electronic shutter doesn't dwarf the savings from not having a mechanical shutter?



no solid data available.

but ... "typically" solid state electronics are more cost-effective than electro-mechanical solutions. Especially when production, assembly, calibration and quality control measures all need to be to minimal tolerances and require significant amounts of skilled labour. 

plus all the additional advantages, like better and "more flexible" functionality and better "scalability", etc.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 9, 2018)

fullstop said:


> but ... "typically" solid state electronics are more cost-effective than electro-mechanical solutions.


Don't you also want to apply it to SSDs vs. HDDs?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 9, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Don't you also want to apply it to SSDs vs. HDDs?



yes, absolutely. Just take the time saved every time you write 500 GB to the SSD and - depending on your hourly rate - the price delta HDD vs. SSD will be soon amortized.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes, absolutely. Just take the time saved every time you write 500 GB to the SSD and - depending on your hourly rate - the price delta HDD vs. SSD will be soon amortized.


Spin it how you like, wrong is wrong. But, nice for you that you have time to sit and wait doing nothing while your data writes to storage. Do you also sit and do nothing while watching teapots boil, paint dry and grass grow?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 9, 2018)

fullstop said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Spin it
> ...


----------



## Kit. (Aug 9, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Just take the time saved every time you write 500 GB to the SSD and - depending on your hourly rate -


Why would you need to babysit your computer or NAS? They are pretty capable of doing the copy work by themselves.

Do you also babysit your cloud backups?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 10, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Why would you need to babysit your computer or NAS? They are pretty capable of doing the copy work by themselves.
> 
> Do you also babysit your cloud backups?



i generally don't do anything "cloud". and to backup my images plus lightroom catalogue to cloud would likely take weeks. so backup my images and lightroom catalogue to a NAS and second external hard disk and while i wait for even an incremental update to take place, i do not work on or with my images to exclude any data integrity risks. your personal practice may be different, you may trust "the cloud" and you may enjoy waiting, but speed/bandwidth is always a relevant factor in comparing electronic devices vs. electro-mechanical ones. apples vs apples.

so, i am looking forward to fast, large capaciity and affordable solid state memory media without any moving mechanical parts in them. just as i am looking forward to mirrorfree, mechanics-free, compact, functionally decent and affordable solid state digital cameras.

if you prefer electro-mechanical devices, that's your preference ... and your problem.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i generally don't do anything "cloud".


So, how do you handle your offsite backup?



fullstop said:


> and to backup my images plus lightroom catalogue to cloud would likely take weeks.


So, you _do_ need to babysit your computer or NAS ?



fullstop said:


> so backup my images and lightroom catalogue to a NAS and second external hard disk and while i wait for even an incremental update to take place, i do not work on or with my images to exclude any data integrity risks.


Do you erase images from CF/SD as soon as you downloaded them?
Why don't you keep your master image files readonly?
Why don't you have versioned backups of your Lightroom catalog?
Why don't you use snapshots?



fullstop said:


> if you prefer electro-mechanical devices, that's your preference ... and your problem.


So, do you fill your NAS and "second external hard disk" with SSDs, because '"typically" solid state electronics are more cost-effective than electro-mechanical solutions'?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2018)

Kit. said:


> So, you _do_ need to babysit your computer or NAS ?


Yes, he does. By building his own computer, he was able to realize his dream of a fully solid-state device with no moving parts. He has to sit there during backups, batch processing of images, etc. and frequently pause the process to allow the internal temperature to drop. Unfortunately for him, you see, a fan is a moving part. He hates those.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 10, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, he does. By building his own computer, he was able to realize his dream of a fully solid-state device with no moving parts. He has to sit there during backups, batch processing of images, etc. and frequently pause the process to allow the internal temperature to drop. Unfortunately for him, you see, a fan is a moving part. He hates those.


But it's all Canon's fault!

The best solid-state heatsink material is pure diamond (5 times more thermally conductive than copper), but stupid Canon refuses to produce inexpensive heatsink-sized diamonds. Surely there will be _a lot_ of buyers for those!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2018)

Kit. said:


> But it's all Canon's fault!
> 
> The best solid-state heatsink material is pure diamond (5 times more thermally conductive than copper), but stupid Canon refuses to produce inexpensive heatsink-sized diamonds. Surely there will be _a lot_ of buyers for those!


Yes, millions of people would surely buy a $999 solid state FF MILC with a diamond heatsink.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> No problem, if Canon FF mirrorfree system comes with a new "slim" mount with shorter Flange Focal Distance. Then FD glass can be mounted via simple adapter, similar to FD/EF-M ones. I doubt Canon themselves will launch an OEM adapter for legacy FD glass. But there will be no shortage of 3rd party offers.



I realize it would need to be a slim mount. But if they want to mount legacy EF lenses then the slim mount is most likely out. Not a major problem but just a dream to use a digital Canon body with my FD etc. lenses without glass in the adapter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> I realize it would need to be a slim mount. *But if they want to mount legacy EF lenses then the slim mount is most likely out.* Not a major problem but just a dream to use a digital Canon body with my FD etc. lenses without glass in the adapter.


For direct mounting, sure. But with a shorter FFD, Canon would provide an adapter for EF lenses, just as they do for the EF-M mount.

Of course, at issue is just how short they make that FFD. *If* they use a new FF mount that’s not EF-M, it’s manifestly in Canon’s best interest that those new ‘EF-X’ lenses can be mounted on EOS M bodies – in fact, I am sure Canon must ensure that possibility to provide an upgrade path for APS-C to FF analogous to DSLRs (EF mounts on APS-C). Custom EdMika-type adapters aren’t ergonomically feasible, so Canon likely needs to have at least ~12mm (like the EF12 extension tube) longer than the EF-M’s FFD for that adapter solution to work, meaning an FFD of >30mm. That means the ‘thin mount’ really only saves ~13mm from the current EF mount. I’d question whether that’s ‘worth it’. Also, that path means EOS M series users may need to carry two adapters, one for EF/EF-S to EF-M, and one for EF-X to EF-M.


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 11, 2018)

As I said before:

What if Canon will come out with a FF MILC with native EF mount for specially designed new lenses? And what if you can mount all EF lenses with an EF- 25 II extension tube? That would be sexy enough?

And then:



lightthief said:


> I think, Jester74 suggested an EF Mount but not the EF flange distance. Instead, he asked, wouldn't it be sexy, if the adapter would be the already available extension tube 25 II.
> 
> I like this idea. It would be a customer friendly solution.
> 
> Lightthief



Yep, you got that right! I forgot to mention the shorter flange distance, instead I mentioned specially designed lenses. Right now the EF flange distance is somewhere forty-something millimetres. Forty-something minus 25 is around 18 maybe, which is a decent flange distance for a FF MILC. This solution is sexy and professional. And I am a genius. According to my Mommy....




neuroanatomist said:


> For direct mounting, sure. But with a shorter FFD, Canon would provide an adapter for EF lenses, just as they do for the EF-M mount.
> 
> Of course, at issue is just how short they make that FFD. *If* they use a new FF mount that’s not EF-M, it’s manifestly in Canon’s best interest that those new ‘EF-X’ lenses can be mounted on EOS M bodies – in fact, I am sure Canon must ensure that possibility to provide an upgrade path for APS-C to FF analogous to DSLRs (EF mounts on APS-C). Custom EdMika-type adapters aren’t ergonomically feasible, so Canon likely needs to have at least ~12mm (like the EF12 extension tube) longer than the EF-M’s FFD for that adapter solution to work, meaning an FFD of >30mm. That means the ‘thin mount’ really only saves ~13mm from the current EF mount. I’d question whether that’s ‘worth it’. Also, that path means EOS M series users may need to carry two adapters, one for EF/EF-S to EF-M, and one for EF-X to EF-M.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 11, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> As I said before:
> 
> What if Canon will come out with a FF MILC with native EF mount for specially designed new lenses? And what if you can mount all EF lenses with an EF- 25 II extension tube? That would be sexy enough?
> 
> ...



Ohhh... I hope not.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 11, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> What if Canon will come out with a FF MILC with native EF mount for specially designed new lenses? And what if you can mount all EF lenses with an EF- 25 II extension tube? That would be sexy enough?


Let's put it this way: there would be a lot of f-words said about it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> As I said before:
> 
> What if Canon will come out with a FF MILC with native EF mount for specially designed new lenses? And what if you can mount all EF lenses with an EF- 25 II extension tube? That would be sexy enough?
> 
> I forgot to mention the shorter flange distance, instead I mentioned specially designed lenses. Right now the EF flange distance is somewhere forty-something millimetres. Forty-something minus 25 is around 18 maybe, which is a decent flange distance for a FF MILC. This solution is sexy and professional. And I am a genius. According to my Mommy....



Your Mommy lied. It's not a feasible solution. If the current EF25 II tube can mount directly to the camera, so can any EF lens. They could mount, but not focus an image on the sensor. Sorry, that's neither sexy nor professional…it's the opposite of genius.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 12, 2018)

Just copying my thoughts from another thread, here they may be a better fit.

What if the Canon's 'sexy' solution is a EF-compatible *medium format *camera. Imagine that the rumored EF-X mount is actually a medium format mount. EF-X lenses will work as medium format lenses covering the whole sensor (say 50Mp), EF lenses will produce slightly cropped images (say 36Mp) and EF-S lenses will only use 22Mp. Actually some EF lenses may work ok at the full size.


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your Mommy lied. It's not a feasible solution. If the current EF25 II tube can mount directly to the camera, so can any EF lens. They could mount, but not focus an image on the sensor. Sorry, that's neither sexy nor professional…it's the opposite of genius.



Well what I told about my Mommy was just a sort of irony, but since she died please don't call her a liar.

EF-S lenses can be mounted on EF cameras. Press the shutter button for funny sound. You can mount a 2X extender on your 1DX alone without a lens. And you get an error message when you press the shutter button. Or remove the battery from your 1DX and you can't even focus your lenses manually. 'Sorry, that's neither sexy nor professional…' I completely agree. But no, Canon won't ever do that again. Not with FF MILC, because... Because what? Because we all have our excuses for not reading manuals?


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 12, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ohhh... I hope not.




Don't forget that we are talking about Canon. They don't innovate, just recycle....


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 12, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Let's put it this way: there would be a lot of f-words said about it.



Those who have the cojones are already jumped ship. And use a lot of f-words about their new gear....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 12, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> EF-S lenses can be mounted on EF cameras.


No, they can't – not unless you physically modify them. Point being, Canon uses structural design to prevent inappropriate lenses from mounting.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 12, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Just copying my thoughts from another thread, here they may be a better fit.
> 
> What if the Canon's 'sexy' solution is a EF-compatible *medium format *camera. Imagine that the rumored EF-X mount is actually a medium format mount. EF-X lenses will work as medium format lenses covering the whole sensor (say 50Mp), EF lenses will produce slightly cropped images (say 36Mp) and EF-S lenses will only use 22Mp. Actually some EF lenses may work ok at the full size.


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, they can't – not unless you physically modify them. Point being, Canon uses structural design to prevent inappropriate lenses from mounting.


I expected something different, but I don't know why.... You skipped a few things I mentioned. But I'm really proud that I could tell you new things about your camera....


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> Well what I told about my Mommy was just a sort of irony, but since she died please don't call her a liar.
> 
> EF-S lenses can be mounted on EF cameras. Press the shutter button for funny sound. You can mount a 2X extender on your 1DX alone without a lens. And you get an error message when you press the shutter button. Or remove the battery from your 1DX and you can't even focus your lenses manually. 'Sorry, that's neither sexy nor professional…' I completely agree. But no, Canon won't ever do that again. Not with FF MILC, because... Because what? Because we all have our excuses for not reading manuals?



If you manage to defeat the extra tab on the EF-S lens, you can mount them on FF cameras. You'd get severe vignetting, to be sure. But the majority of EF-S lenses do not take advantage of the _design capability_ to protrude further into the light box than lenses for FF cameras can. The only time you would have mirror clearance issues with _some _EF-S lenses is when the wide angle lenses are at less than about 12-13mm focal length.


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 13, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> If you manage to defeat the extra tab on the EF-S lens, you can mount them on FF cameras. You'd get severe vignetting, to be sure. But the majority of EF-S lenses do not take advantage of the _design capability_ to protrude further into the light box than lenses for FF cameras can. The only time you would have mirror clearance issues with _some _EF-S lenses is when the wide angle lenses are at less than about 12-13mm focal length.


Thanks for the clarification! I never tried, only heard about this... but don't plan to try. Hacking non-compatible lenses may not be a good idea...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> I expected something different, but I don't know why.... You skipped a few things I mentioned. But I'm really proud that I could tell you new things about your camera....


You didn't, but thanks anyway. Your idea is severely flawed, but like most people you seem to have difficulty admitting your mistakes.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, they can't – not unless you physically modify them. Point being, Canon uses structural design to prevent inappropriate lenses from mounting.



Canon does, but there are a number of third party lenses that will mount on a FF camera....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Canon does, but there are a number of third party lenses that will mount on a FF camera....


But that’s not what he stated...


Jester74 said:


> EF-S lenses can be mounted on EF cameras.


Unless I’ve missed the launch of third party *EF-S* lenses?

Nor do 3rd party lenses really have a bearing on what mount Canon will use on a future FF MILC. But I can guarantee that if that mount has a flange focal distance shorter than the EF mount, EF lenses will not natively mount on it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> Does that 'most people' include you too? Cos you called my Mother a liar which was quite unfriendly and made your point worthless.



I’m quite able to admit when I am wrong. Still, perhaps I shouldn’t have said she lied. Maybe she was honestly wrong, or more likely, she just wanted you to feel good about yourself. Why don’t you run to your Mommy and tell her that people on the internet are being mean to you. She can give you a nice hug and some milk and cookies and make you all better, mmmkay?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> I'm pretty sensitive about this, cos she died as I mentioned before. I hope you enjoyed dancing on her grave. Shame on you idiot.


Apparently so sensitive that you can joke about her. 


Jester74 said:


> And I am a genius. According to my Mommy....


I’m sorry for your loss, but personally I think what you’re _really_ sensitive about here is having your argument shown to be asinine.


----------



## Jester74 (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apparently so sensitive that you can joke about her.


People may think that you read what I wrote, but actually you didn't. I mentioned that I was joking. And yes, I can joke about her. And no, you can't. And finish this here.


neuroanatomist said:


> I’m sorry for your loss, but personally I think what you’re _really_ sensitive about here is having your argument shown to be asinine.


Asinine? Can we switch back to normal, polite language? No need for nukes, we ain't enemies.
Yeah, I may be wrong. Nobody, except a very few knows what Canon will bring out. One thing is sure; it will fit into their existing system, and might be tempting for those who still like to hear the mirror slapping... I actually do. How about you?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Oh, I like the sound of a mirror for sure. I think many people do, which is why even smartphones make a fake electronic shutter sound when used to take a picture.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, I like the sound of a mirror for sure. I think many people do, which is why even smartphones make a fake electronic shutter sound when used to take a picture.



Anti Perv prevention. To stop up skirting there was a big push to require cell phones to make a clicking noise.

I do not know if they were able to get any laws enacted but there was a big push.
The Camera Phone Predator Alert Act. This was back in 2009.

Perverts ruin it for everyone.
I find the clicking noise annoying in general.

On the iPhone mine doesn't make a click if I am sending a message but I have found no way to disable the click if I just want a picture. I guess Apple doesn't think a perv would text a picture to someone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> On the iPhone mine doesn't make a click if I am sending a message but I have found no way to disable the click if I just want a picture. I guess Apple doesn't think a perv would text a picture to someone.


Just setting it to Silent (switch on the side) eliminates the fake shutter sound, at least for me.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 13, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Anti Perv prevention. To stop up skirting there was a big push to require cell phones to make a clicking noise.
> 
> I do not know if they were able to get any laws enacted but there was a big push.
> The Camera Phone Predator Alert Act. This was back in 2009.
> ...



And I thought it was the fresh red snapper making that noise.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2018)

Jester74 said:


> EF-S lenses can be mounted on EF cameras.



Strictly speaking, CANON EF-S lenses can not be mounted on a FF camera as there is an obstruction in the mount, but there are a number of third party EF-S comparable lenses that do not have this obstruction and can be used of a FF Canon camera, although it does involve vignetting problems. As long as there is no protrusion into the body, the mirror will clear the back of the lens


----------



## Kit. (Aug 14, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Anti Perv prevention. To stop up skirting there was a big push to require cell phones to make a clicking noise.


Pervs can always shoot video.


----------



## sfeinsmith (Sep 18, 2018)

In the past, Canon released EF lenses into the market. Then Canon killed all 42mm flange focal length lenses, R/FL/FD and FDn completed. All professional photographers had to sell their priceless lenses and pulled extra money from their pockets to purchase EF lenses for EOS cameras. There were very angry photographers at that time.
Then Canon provided a special kit, 1.26x four elements adapters to allow work with ONLY to long telephoto lenses. It remains incompatible with a fisheye to short telephoto. The kit sold from Canon only not through any retail stores. It was short-lived because the pictures degraded by the kit.
Now, Canon repeated the same behavior with new RF lenses. Now, Canon will kill all EF lenses and force everyone to use RF lenses someday.
The problem with Canon was greedy and made a windfall profit from victims. Kudos to Nikon for effort compatible with their F lenses.
I do not trust Canon for their manipulate the schemes as they did in 1989 incident. The best way for everyone not to buy any Canon mirrorless cameras and RF lenses until Canon realize this situation and will correct themselves remain with EF and find a way to make compatible with FD or previous lenses.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 18, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> In the past, Canon released EF lenses into the market. Then Canon killed all 42mm flange focal length lenses, R/FL/FD and FDn completed. All professional photographers had to sell their priceless lenses and pulled extra money from their pockets to purchase EF lenses for EOS cameras. There were very angry photographers at that time.
> Then Canon provided a special kit, 1.26x four elements adapters to allow work with ONLY to long telephoto lenses. It remains incompatible with a fisheye to short telephoto. The kit sold from Canon only not through any retail stores. It was short-lived because the pictures degraded by the kit.
> Now, Canon repeated the same behavior with new RF lenses. Now, Canon will kill all EF lenses and force everyone to use RF lenses someday.
> The problem with Canon was greedy and made a windfall profit from victims. Kudos to Nikon for effort compatible with their F lenses.
> I do not trust Canon for their manipulate the schemes as they did in 1989 incident. The best way for everyone not to buy any Canon mirrorless cameras and RF lenses until Canon realize this situation and will correct themselves remain with EF and find a way to make compatible with FD or previous lenses.




EVIL CANON!!!!
We should sell all our Canon gear and boycott them immediately!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> The best way for everyone not to buy any Canon mirrorless cameras and RF lenses until Canon realize this situation and will correct themselves remain with EF and find a way to make compatible with FD or previous lenses.


I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for that to happen, but if you really want to...go ahead.


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for that to happen, but if you really want to...go ahead.


Whaaat? You mean this trick will not work???


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 18, 2018)

Funny, it didn't bother me selling my F1 and FD lenses a couple years ago for $150.  I really felt I got my money's worth. Now if it were a cell phone being replaced almost every year ... then I'd be disgruntled!

Jack


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 18, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> In the past, Canon released EF lenses into the market. Then Canon killed all 42mm flange focal length lenses, R/FL/FD and FDn completed. All professional photographers had to sell their priceless lenses and pulled extra money from their pockets to purchase EF lenses for EOS cameras. There were very angry photographers at that time.
> Then Canon provided a special kit, 1.26x four elements adapters to allow work with ONLY to long telephoto lenses. It remains incompatible with a fisheye to short telephoto. The kit sold from Canon only not through any retail stores. It was short-lived because the pictures degraded by the kit.
> Now, Canon repeated the same behavior with new RF lenses. Now, Canon will kill all EF lenses and force everyone to use RF lenses someday.
> The problem with Canon was greedy and made a windfall profit from victims. Kudos to Nikon for effort compatible with their F lenses.
> I do not trust Canon for their manipulate the schemes as they did in 1989 incident. The best way for everyone not to buy any Canon mirrorless cameras and RF lenses until Canon realize this situation and will correct themselves remain with EF and find a way to make compatible with FD or previous lenses.


Actually, there are adapters available that do not use glass and allow infinity focusing on many of the better quality FL & FD lenses. Long Time CR user Ed Mika manufacturers and sells them. 

https://edmika.com/


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 19, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> Kudos to Nikon for effort compatible with their F lenses.



Please explain.

Canon and Nikon both offer adapters to use EF and F lenses, respectively, on their mirrorless bodies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Please explain.
> 
> Canon and Nikon both offer adapters to use EF and F lenses, respectively, on their mirrorless bodies.


I think he meant using really old lenses on their DLSRs. Of course, for Nikon 'compatible' has an asterisk with a laundry list of footnotes.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 19, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> Kudos to Nikon for effort compatible with their F lenses..



Hah!

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

Nikon has made an industry of pissing off "legacy lens" users - I suffered myself, back in the day, when they stopped putting lens drive motors in their bodies - meaning that at a stroke the lenses I had which needed to be driven from the body, no longer focused.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think he meant using really old lenses on their DLSRs.



Ah


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 19, 2018)

Just imagine being Canon trying to satisfy every Tom, Dick and Harry! While I believe they could do better, often the requested features require trade offs. We know there are trade offs but we want our camera to satisfy our perceived needs. 20 MPs did not thrill me but I accepted it as a trade-off against speed and video and I could be happy or whining. Now why would I choose to grumble when I'm using a fantastic camera and getting good performance consistently. And, why should I try to interfere with someone's right to be unhappy. For those who choose to be constantly agitated, may you enjoy your agitation to the utmost. 

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 19, 2018)

Canon "screwed" their existing customers by adding functionality with the drop in filter adapter and the "control ring" adapter. They are *******!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Canon "screwed" their existing customers by adding functionality with the drop in filter adapter and the "control ring" adapter. They are *******!



That's right. Now someone else can do what I can't unless I drop a filter into the back of my lens. How immoral of Canon to allow some well heeled person to gain an advantage on me by buying an R! It's not fair!!

Jack


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Canon "screwed" their existing customers by adding functionality with the drop in filter adapter and the "control ring" adapter. They are *******!




Wait, are you telling us that now EF lenses have more functionality with the release of the R?

This is not what I have been reading elsewhere on this forum. Are you trying to miss lead us?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 19, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Wait, are you telling us that now EF lenses have more functionality with the release of the R?
> 
> This is not what I have been reading elsewhere on this forum. Are you trying to miss lead us?



No, EF lenses don’t have more functionality.

A rig consisting of an EF lens mounted to a camera body using particular adapters has additional functionality over the a rig consisting of the same EF lens mounted to the same camera body using a “vanilla” adapter (i.e. mount converter).


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 19, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Wait, are you telling us that now EF lenses have more functionality with the release of the R?
> 
> This is not what I have been reading elsewhere on this forum. Are you trying to miss lead us?


What I am saying is that Canon deliberately added functionality with the R mount.

With native R mount lenses, you have a control ring that can be programmed. EF mount cameras do not have this ring. 

When you use a EF mount lens on an R mount camera, you can use all the previous functionality of that lens, PLUS, you can use the adapter with the drop in filter OR the adapter with the control ring to get extra functionality out of your camera/lens combo than you could before on a mirrored Canon..... PLUS, you can also use EF-S lenses in a crop mode.

In essence, you can take an R camera, mount an EF lens on the adapter, and have new features that you did not have before when using that EF lens on a Canon camera


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 19, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> No, EF lenses don’t have more functionality.
> 
> A rig consisting of an EF lens mounted to a camera body using particular adapters has additional functionality over the a rig consisting of the same EF lens mounted to the same camera body using a “vanilla” adapter (i.e. mount converter).




Any given lens can now mount to an R mirror-less body with the use of an adapter. Can they not perform that function?
That is something it couldn't do a few months ago.
But there is more, now I can put a CPL or ND filter behind the lens by using one of these adapters, and I can adjust the aperture with the hand holding the lens body.
It seems to me that my old obsolete EF lenses can now be more useful.
Nothing has changed though when I put it on my old obsolete DSLR's.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> What I am saying is that Canon deliberately added functionality with the R mount.
> 
> With native R mount lenses, you have a control ring that can be programmed. EF mount cameras do not have this ring.
> 
> ...





Maybe it isn't as bad as some would have us believe.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 19, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Any given lens can now mount to an R mirror-less body with the use of an adapter. Can they not perform that function?



Presumably it has to do with the adapter and the body. Your question was scoped to the lens. EF lenses don’t gain functionality. The adapter enables body functionality.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 19, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Presumably it has to do with the adapter and the body. Your question was scoped to the lens. EF lenses don’t gain functionality. The adapter enables body functionality.



I am sure we could debate semantics. Is the adapter part of the lens body? Part of the camera? Or a third component all together?
Since it emulates a function the RF lenses have on their bodies, I would say it is an extension of the EF lens body.

But since it is 5:00 somewhere, I think I will head home for work and leave it with your explanation.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 20, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> But since it is 5:00 somewhere, I think I will head home for work and leave it with your explanation.



I'm talking about the lenses as part of a system, that are now part of a new system.....

and.....

It's always 5:00 in Margaritaville


----------



## epiieq1 (Mar 4, 2019)

hmatthes said:


> *I agree! What a wonderful concept...*
> I am *so* close to going with the GFX from my 6D and 20 year old Canon glass.
> 
> Waiting for Canon to give us a FF MILC has driven me crazy but my _Leica Q_ has ruined me for mirrored cameras & it stopped me from buying the 5D-IV -- I want an EVF that is truly WYSIWYG. But I want the best image quality paired with a photographer's UI, not layers of menus.
> ...



Did you end up getting the GFX and adapter along with those lenses? If so, what are your thoughts?


----------



## hmatthes (Mar 4, 2019)

epiieq1 said:


> Did you end up getting the GFX and adapter along with those lenses? If so, what are your thoughts?


I am very happy with my EOS R. The images are phenomenal and I have all the glass I need (some being replaced with RF glass).


----------

