# could the new EF-M mount support FF sensors too?



## Canon-F1 (Jul 23, 2012)

maybe a stupid question but could the new mount be used for FF sensor mirrorless cameras too?

i guess with current lenses the image circle fits only for aps-c.
but could it possible to use it for other lenses and a FF sensor.

i only wonder if canon thinks about the future here.
or if a future mirrorless FF camera would have a new lens mount again.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Jul 23, 2012)

I can see no reason that it wouldn't support a FF sensor. After all, the mount is a full EF mount diameter. If anything, it's massively oversized for the camera.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 23, 2012)

If you look at the position of the contact pins, the new M lens mount will not be able to support a FF sensor.

And if you consider that this is a brand new mount - and Canon did not make it FF compatible - it is very safe to say that Canon is not planning to put a FF sensor in the M series ... ever.

The M-series is obviously meant as a bridge camera between compacts and DSLRs. 
If Canon ever makes a compact FF camera, it will surely user the EF mount.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jul 23, 2012)

x-vision said:


> If you look at the position of the contact pins, the new M lens mount will not be able to support a FF sensor.




but what has the contact pin layout to do with the sensor size?

edit:

you mean there is not enough room for a FF sensor?
mhm.. yes it looks that way.

im really no expert when it comes to mounts.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 23, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> you mean there is not enough room for a FF sensor?



Yes. Take a look - a FF sensor will covered/obscured by the pin base:


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jul 23, 2012)

so no leica killer with an EF-M mount


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 23, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> so no leica killer with an EF-M mount



Eh, you've already got that, basically. Slap a Shorty McForty to a 5DIII and you're pretty much there. As far as image / camera quality, it blows the Leica out of the water, though, granted, it's a little bit bigger. As a bonus, you can mount pretty much any lens ever made to it, too, including all that sweet sweet Canon glass (like the TS-E 24 II or the 400 f/2.8 II) as well as all the legendary Leica and Zeiss lenses.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jul 23, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Eh, you've already got that, basically. Slap a Shorty McForty to a 5DIII and you're pretty much there. As far as image / camera quality, it blows the Leica out of the water, though, granted, it's a little bit  bigger.



remove the "little bit" and i agree. 

but still the leica is way better for street photography.


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8t5zxkUtf1qccbcn.jpg


----------



## Nassen0f (Jul 23, 2012)

x-vision said:


> If you look at the position of the contact pins, the new M lens mount will not be able to support a FF sensor.
> 
> And if you consider that this is a brand new mount - and Canon did not make it FF compatible - it is very safe to say that Canon is not planning to put a FF sensor in the M series ... ever.
> 
> ...



Im guessing/hoping thats why we have the 40mm STM pancake already..


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 23, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Eh, you've already got that, basically. Slap a Shorty McForty to a 5DIII and you're pretty much there. As far as image / camera quality, it blows the Leica out of the water, though, granted, it's a little bit  bigger.
> ...



Well, that picture is hardly a fair comparison.

Take the longish zoom off the Canon and put on the Shorty McForty instead, and now the Canon actually sticks out less far from the tip of your nose than the Leica. The Canon is still a bit taller, but the only part of the body that's thicker is the handgrip.

The only reason the 5D series has a reputation for being substantially bigger than a rangefinder is because all the comparisons are made with a normal slow prime on the rangefinder and a fast wide-to-telephoto zoom on the 5D. Mount similar lenses on each, and the size difference is more of a shape difference than anything else -- and the shape of the 5D makes it fit the hand better. (What, you don't think Canon could remove the right-side grip if they thought that was a problem?)

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jul 23, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Take the longish zoom off the Canon and put on the Shorty McForty instead....
> ....
> The only reason the 5D series has a reputation for being substantially bigger than a rangefinder is because all the comparisons are made with a normal slow prime on the rangefinder and a fast wide-to-telephoto zoom on the 5D. Mount similar lenses on each, and the size difference is more of a shape difference than anything else -- and the shape of the 5D makes it fit the hand better.



it´s a 35mm f2 on the leica and a 35mm f1.4 on the 5d mk2.
no longish zoom. 

a 35mm f2 would make things look a bit better for the 5D MK2 sure.. but not much.
walk a day with a leica and a day with a 5D MK2 through a city. 

it´s not only size.
the leica is less obtrusive (at least to the normal non-photographer crowd).


----------



## funkboy (Jul 23, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> maybe a stupid question but could the new mount be used for FF sensor mirrorless cameras too?



(answered the same question earlier today)
From http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/:








> The EF-M mount is 58mm in diameter, with a flange distance of 18mm from the bayonet to the sensor. As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen.



Sorry to rain on your parade...

OTOH, the EF-M flange-back distance is the same as Sony E mount, so there'll be a whole slew of adapters to mount all kinds of tasty old-school lenses to it.

Now that I revisit this topic, there are a few reasons they've done it this way:


They needed to make the camera, mount, & lenses as small & light as possible.
They want all of these cameras to work with EF & EF-S lenses.
The kind of photogs that want FF also tend to want top-notch AF, and mirrorless systems seem to be a long way from delivering that right now (though it looks like EF-M should be quite good for a mirrorless).
When Leica made a full-frame camera (the M9) with such a short flange-back distance, they had to get Kodak to design a sensor for them with incrementally offset microlens positioning towards the edges in order to properly capture the photons that are hitting the sensor at an extreme angle towards the edge of the frame. I don't think Canon wants to go there (although admittedly they could probably buy the patent off Kodak for peanuts at the moment...).


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 23, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Take the longish zoom off the Canon and put on the Shorty McForty instead....
> ...



Eh, sorry. Looked like a 24-105 at first.

But, again. An f/1.4 lens has an aperture twice the size as an f/2 lens, so is it any surprise that it's also substantially bigger? 

Canon's own 35 f/2 is certainly no bigger than the Leica version, and looks to be a bit smaller. Of course, Canon's f/2 is a cheapie consumer lens while the f/1.4 is their no-holds-barred lens...but, if you want no-holds-barred quality in a small, light, cheap package, then that's what the Shorty McForty is all about.



> a 35mm f2 would make things look a bit better for the 5D MK2 sure.. but not much.
> walk a day with a leica and a day with a 5D MK2 through a city.
> 
> it´s not only size.
> the leica is less obtrusive (at least to the normal non-photographer crowd).



You do know that that type of distinction exists solely in your own head, don't you? Anything that isn't instantly recognizable as a P&S zoom or a camera phone is going to identify you as a photographer, and something that looks like a retro antique (the Leica) is going to make you stand out every bit at much as something big with a red ring that you hold up to your eye.

The 5DIII with the Shorty McForty, on the other hand, just looks like a slightly oversized PowerShot G-series-style camera, especially if you use Live View. It'll only draw attention from other photographers, not the general public.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Ricku (Jul 23, 2012)

x-vision said:


> If you look at the position of the contact pins, the new M lens mount will not be able to support a FF sensor.


Well thats it then. All hope is lost.

If what you say is true, Canon F**ked up big time. They closed the door on all who wants an affordable full frame mirrorless. Well, at least more affordable than the Leica M9.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jul 23, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Eh, sorry. Looked like a 24-105 at first.



nope it does not 



> But, again. An f/1.4 lens has an aperture twice the size as an f/2 lens, so is it any surprise that it's also substantially bigger?



he wrote that a EF 35mm f2 would make it look a bit better for the 5D.
but the body is still larger.

and the 35mm f1.4 summilux is not that much bigger then the f2 summicron mounted on the leica in the picture.




> You do know that that type of distinction exists solely in your own head, don't you?



i guess that´s why so many professionell photographers LOVE the leicas for street portraiture.
they all don´t know what they are doing. 

have you ever used a leica?


----------



## mitchell3417 (Jul 24, 2012)

*M Lens Mount Full Frame?*

One question. Can a full frame sensor fit within the M-mount? I don't care if their going to make a camera with FF anytime soon. I just want to know if it's even possible to have a mirrorless FF camera from canon.

To me it looks like a FF sensor won't fit in the mount because of where the electrical contacts are located. Not enough circumference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: M Lens Mount Full Frame?*

Based on the images, I think you're right - a FF sensor isn't compatible with the EF-M mount.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 24, 2012)

People! You are getting two very different things confused.

First, on the EOS-M, the size of a full frame sensor is larger than the ROUND hole that the light has to enter the camera through. As long as a round hole is used, you will vignette the corners of a full frame sensor. you might be able to get away with making a rectangular hole, but this is not the way they have chosen to go with the EOS-M mount. This camera is designed to be small and to constrain it with a full frame sensor would be to negate that criteria.

Second, you can not say that this means that Canon will not design a FF mirrorless. This is the first try at mirrorless, not the final answer. You can bet that at some point in the future there will be far more capable mirrorless Canons out there, ones with tilt screens, viewfinders, and advanced wireless features that will make the current crop of FF's seem primitive by comparison... and yes, they will operate on the big glass.... why do you think Canon continues to put so much effort into thier prime lenses?

A digital camera is not a film camera. They have different strenghts and different weaknesses. To think that digital cameras should be designed like a film camera is to cheat yourself out of the future.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 24, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Eh, sorry. Looked like a 24-105 at first.
> ...



The one is 3.3" x 4.2" with a red ring, a wide focus ring at the front, a focus distance window, and uses a petal hood. The other is 3.1" x 3.4" with a red ring, a wide focus ring at the front, a focus distance window, and uses a petal hood. And one is the kit lens for the camera. And the picture of the lens is all of a few hundred pixels tall. Yes, at quick glance it's really not that hard to mistrake the one for the other in such circumstances.



> > But, again. An f/1.4 lens has an aperture twice the size as an f/2 lens, so is it any surprise that it's also substantially bigger?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## EchoLocation (Jul 24, 2012)

*No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *

"The EF-M mount is 58mm in diameter, with a flange distance of 18mm from the bayonet to the sensor. As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen."
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m

Haven't seen much discussion of this, but for me this is a huge let down.....
Why would Canon wait so long to enter the game, make a new mount(EOS-M) and then restrict that to only one sensor size, with no hope for future upgrades to the line?
Is DPreview wrong?
The APS-C sensor gave me hope for a FF Leica killer coming someday soon, but now, it seems that this hope is dashed forever. I am a serious traveler and always travel as light as possible(and hopefully without $10k worth of Leica gear,) so I have been eagerly awaiting a smaller than DSLR full frame option....
Who will be the first to make a Full Frame Mirrorless, Sony, Fuji, Nikon? 
Whoever does it, I will seriously look in to pre ordering.... but at the moment, all I have to look forward to is the new entry level FF DSLR(D600, or whatever Canon is making.) I really don't want to carry around a 24-70 and DSLR all the way from Asia to Africa(my next trip.)
ugh....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *

Read some of the other EOS M threads. its been discussed already, and DPR is not wrong.


----------



## mitchell3417 (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: M Lens Mount Full Frame?*

a whopping one reply. no one disagrees then. good.


----------



## EchoLocation (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Read some of the other EOS M threads. its been discussed already, and DPR is not wrong.


i've read all the other threads.... but no one seemed to care very much...
I was considering pre ordering this one and upgrading later to the FF model. But this totally killed it for me. I love Canon and want to be their customer, but they are either pricing me out of the market(5DIII, 24-70 II) or just disappointing me lately. I don't understand how you can create a whole new system and lens mount with no room for upgrading the sensor at all. APS-C is great, but it isn't the pinnacle of photography.
I am really disheartened as it seems that Canon expects anyone who wants top quality images to be willing to spend 5k on gear.
I don't think is a reasonable price in this day and age. If I was a professional photgrapher i'm sure i'd feel different.
I will wait and hopefully the NEX system will drop a FF soon.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 24, 2012)

I'll preface this by saying I have no idea what I'm talking about, but....

The image size only has to be FF in size at the sensor. The image could come out in a pyramidal shape from the lens (ie very narrow at the base of the lens and then expand to cover the FF sensor). Most lenses work this way. It's pretty easy from a design perspective and I'd like to think EF-M lenses work this way, too.

Existing EF lenses might have their images come out in a different way (they might be "fatter" at the point of the mount - leading to loss of image / vignetting at the edges. They might not be 100% compatible with a FF EF-M mount. But they would still work in crop mode.

I learnt all of this in wishful thinking 101.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *



EchoLocation said:


> I will wait and hopefully the NEX system will drop a FF soon.



Don't hold your breath. E-mount lenses for the NEX series are all APS-C image circle lenses. Alpha lenses have too big a flange focal distance to be attractive on mirrorless. Sony is coming out with several more APS-C sized E-mount lenses, but for a FF NEX they'd have to create yet another whole series of lenses. Unlikely.


----------



## Ricku (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *

I'm with you.

This is downright depressing. I already knew that Canons first mirrorless would be non FF _(in the growing sea of non FF mirrorless)_, but I still had high hopes for a future model with FF - something to rival the Leica M9 and the upcoming M10.

But no, instead Canon goes all out to please the soccer moms and casual hikers.

Yet another boring step by Canon.


----------



## preppyak (Jul 24, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Existing EF lenses might have their images come out in a different way (they might be "fatter" at the point of the mount - leading to loss of image / vignetting at the edges. They might not be 100% compatible with a FF EF-M mount. But they would still work in crop mode.


Except you've now destroyed the point of a full-frame mirrorless camera. Who is spending $1500-2000 (or more) on a camera that can't even work with their existing EF lenses with an adapter? Where they can still only get APS-C quality out of their L lenses.

It would require Canon to create at least a dozen L quality EF-M lenses, comparable to the EF versions, releasing before or at the same time as the full frame mirrorless...and customers that wantt to spend the extra money for all new lenses as well. By that point, it might not even be genuinely cheaper than a Leica system, because it'd be such a niche product they'd have to charge a premium.

It's why I'm not sure I see a full-frame mirrorless anytime soon. The current systems don't quite match DSLR usability, and the only way Canon could really pull it off would be to make it EF mount, which means the size advantage would be fairly limited as well.


----------



## preppyak (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *



neuroanatomist said:


> Sony is coming out with several more APS-C sized E-mount lenses, but for a FF NEX they'd have to create yet another whole series of lenses. Unlikely.


Yep, like I said in one of the other threads, to pull off a full-frame mirrorless, companies either would have to use their DSLR mounts (meaning the camera's aren't much smaller, negating size advantages), or they'd have to release an entire system of lenses that can match the current DSLR offerings. And since it's taken decades for Canon and Nikon to do that DSLR wise, I can't see anyone nailing that side of things in the immediate future.

I do think Sony would be the first to make a full-frame mirrorless, because they have a reason to innovate that Canon/Nikon don't, but they'd have some really tough choices to make to get there


----------



## Ricku (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *

^ I guess you are right. Now that both Nikon and Canon screwed up their mirrorless debutes, I too think that Sony will be the first to go head to head with Leica. If they can pull it off..

Anyway, whoever makes the next sub-$4000 FF-mirrorless camera, gets my money.


----------



## EchoLocation (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *

depressing is right.... 
If Sony needs a whole new lens system for a FF NEX, why are there so many rumors about Pro Nex 9 or Nex11? I guess there's just a lot of uninformed people out there.
Perhaps Fuji is the best bet. Any chance of a FF Xpro? or would that need a new mount too? 
I just don't understand the point of creating a whole new mount/system which will be constrained by one sensor size for eternity.


----------



## ronderick (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: M Lens Mount Full Frame?*

Specs aside, my gut feeling is that the EVIL bodies will be the future home of APS-C sensors.

The next era's "split" will be APS-C EOS EVIL/FF EOS DSLR (especially considering that there's
the rumored entry level FF coming soon...)


----------



## ronderick (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *

My 2 cents:

Well, assuming that Canon does come out with a FF-sensor-embedded body the size of the M9 or Xpro1... I wonder how much that's going to cost? (Even the XPro1's body price is a bit on the high end, and that's only with the APS-C sensor).

Then there comes the economical sense of making FF lenses for these EVIL full-frames ... I don't think people can stand a camera with the body size of Xpro1 combined with a 24-105L. If Canon indeed have the skill of making a EF-M lens comparable to the quality of it's current L line, you'd see DSLR being deserted as people pick up the lighter body yielding the same FF quality as the 5D3 and 1DX in droves... and they can probably kiss goodbye to the L lenses and face the fury of those photographers who are heavily invested in the current lineup. That's not a venture to be taken likely.

My original guess about which company would have invested in a EVIL FF body was Fuji, but they settled with the APS-C sensor in their Xpro1. Even a company w/o existing lens burden decided on the APS-C, I doubt any of the other company would risk it.

Well, in conclusion, coming up with something that soccer moms can easily use make a lot more economic sense than starting a EVIL FF system from scratch and targeting the high end market which is already been partially claimed by Leica and (to some extent) Fuji.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *

This arguement actually seems backwards to me, the real disadvanatge of the Canon M mount being ASPC only is that should they introduce a FF mirrorless its lenses will not be backwards compatable. Any M mount lenses they release arent going to be compatable with FF anyway due to the smaller image circle.

Personally my feeling has always been that if Canon do produce a larger sensor mirrorless its actually more likely to be medium format than FF. That would impact on there existing FF SLR business far less, offer greater size saving than the MF SLR alternatives and service a market that doesnt need as diverse a range of lenses.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 24, 2012)

The enigmatic individuals who'd prefer to spend their money on a FF mirrorless rather than a 5Diii would only want small, high quality primes specifically designed for the body. They're not concerned with DSLR usability. Their driving desire would be unparalleled image quality. They'd see some form of EF compatibility as a bonus, but not the be all and end all. They would accept that mirrorless models are a new camera system and wouldn't take full compatibility for granted.

In the past, there have been camera systems designed around only a few lenses that have sold in sufficient quantities to make it worthwhile. My Mamiya 6 is one. It only comes with a 50mm, 75mm and 150mm. (Essentially 30mm, 45mm and 90mm in FF equivalents). The Mamiya 7 only has six lenses. I'd see a Canon FF mirrorless as the modern day equivalent. It would only need a few top quality lenses to gain a lot of interest.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 24, 2012)

> The enigmatic individuals who'd prefer to spend their money on a FF mirrorless rather than a 5Diii would only want small, high quality primes specifically designed for the body. They're not concerned with DSLR usability. Their driving desire would be unparalleled image quality. They'd see some form of EF compatibility as a bonus, but not the be all and end all. They would accept that mirrorless models are a new camera system and wouldn't take full compatibility for granted.
> 
> In the past, there have been camera systems designed around only a few lenses that have sold in sufficient quantities to make it worthwhile. My Mamiya 6 is one. It only comes with a 50mm, 75mm and 150mm. (Essentially 30mm, 45mm and 90mm in FF equivalents). The Mamiya 7 only has six lenses. I'd see a Canon FF mirrorless as the modern day equivalent. It would only need a few top quality lenses to gain a lot of interest.



I'd potentially take the comparison further and say that if Canon were to look at a larger sensor mirrorless it might well be a medium format system aimed as you say at those who want the highest possible IQ in a compact hand holdable package(Samsung have already built such a system so its hardly pie in the sky). Like the Mamiya 6 and 7 as the format gets larger cutting out the mirror naturally saves more space and the userbase don't generally demand the same large range of lenses than FF DSLR users expect.

The lenses for such a system would really be too expensive for there to be much of a market for them on an ASPC sized system anyway so backwards compatability doesnt seem like a big issue to me. Being able to use EF lenses on a mirrorless is I'd say a bigger issue since its questionable how large the market for dedicated quality mirrorless lenses is, you look somewhere like amazon and sales of everything but 1-2 pancakes and budget telezooms are very very low indeed compaired to SLR lenses.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *

And I believe we'll see mirrorless FF from Canon sooner or later with it's dedicated lens line. Why?

Because:
1. Hybrid AF (or whatever not requiring a mirror, maybe automatic rangefinder or back to eye controlled focus  ) in some time will be quick and accurate
2. One day another competitive company will market such a solution 
3. People usualy won't the gear smaller, lighter and more convenient in use

It may have EVF, good quality short focal lenses, alternative EF compatible mount and finally automatic crop mode. I think that no later than in 2015. We should observe upcoming lens patents for FF with short flange.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 24, 2012)

I'd agree. It would have to be a very high MP sensor or medium format. For a serious photographer looking at investing a lot of money into a system, why else would you give up the speed and autofocus advantages of a DSLR? Outstanding image quality is the only answer I keep coming back to.


----------



## Ricku (Jul 24, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> I'd agree. It would have to be a very high MP sensor or medium format. For a serious photographer looking at investing a lot of money into a system, why else would you give up the speed and autofocus advantages of a DSLR? Outstanding image quality is the only answer I keep coming back to.


True.

Also, speed + AF is not important to everyone.

I'd be more than happy with only 2 FPS and turtle slow AF, as long as the camera can deliver in the IQ department. (Resolution, great dynamic range, e.t.c). And i'd prefer if it is a mirrorless body!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: M Lens Mount Full Frame?*



mitchell3417 said:


> a whopping one reply. no one disagrees then. good.



Probably due to oversaturation. There are about 4 threads just like this one...


----------



## preppyak (Jul 24, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> The enigmatic individuals who'd prefer to spend their money on a FF mirrorless rather than a 5Diii would only want small, high quality primes specifically designed for the body. They're not concerned with DSLR usability. Their driving desire would be unparalleled image quality.


This is a fair point, but, it begs the question of how many people like this their truly are. Because to get that IQ, you'd be talking a new body design, a new sensor, all new lens designs, and those costs have to be spread out among all potential buyers. Would Canon see it as worth it, making a system that's gonna cost as much as their 1-series cameras and cost nearly as much as Leica? Or is that more the role of niche companies to fill, especially if compatibility with EF/Canon equipment isn't crucial. Then again, it's probably not even as small a market as the $20k cine camera market that Canon just entered with the C300 and that series, so who knows.




moreorless said:


> Being able to use EF lenses on a mirrorless is I'd say a bigger issue since its questionable how large the market for dedicated quality mirrorless lenses is, you look somewhere like amazon and sales of everything but 1-2 pancakes and budget telezooms are very very low indeed compaired to SLR lenses.


To this, I'd agree that that audience isn't as large as say, the wedding photographer audience, etc. But, there are a lot of adventure photographers (think extreme sports, Nat Geo, etc) who would eat up the size of a mirrorless camera if it could match the performance of even the current 5dIII. Much easier to carry an NEX-7 and a pancake in the pocket of your ski jacket, or back of your kayak, then it is to carry a DSLR. 

Of course, the demands of those activities are exactly where mirrorless is falling short at the moment (AF performance, handling of difficult light, etc). But when they figure it out, thats a target audience that won't turn back to DSLR's, because size and weight are critical on multi-day, and the only reason they are using DSLR's now is because its what works.

Again, this is a niche market though, so I'm not sure I'll see Canon as the first company to fill that need. Especially when Sony seems to be about 5 years ahead of them in that market


----------



## unfocused (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *

Be careful what you wish for.

A full frame mirrorless camera won't be released by Canon or Nikon until the SLR form factor is dead. Personally, I'm not looking forward to that.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *



unfocused said:


> Be careful what you wish for.
> 
> A full frame mirrorless camera won't be released by Canon or Nikon until the SLR form factor is dead. Personally, I'm not looking forward to that.



It will be rather a 5-10 years lasting transition. They will not stand up and say: "ok, here you have the FF mirrorless from Canon. Oh, and BTW, there are no more DSLRs planned in the future". The Iphone generation will kill 'em all, so I think DSLRs are dead in such a form we know them today no earlier than in a few years. But when will/did it start?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 24, 2012)

*Re: No Full Frame EOS-M EVER? *



marekjoz said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Be careful what you wish for.
> ...



No disagreement here. Of course it won't happen overnight. My point is simply that those who dream of a full frame Canon version of a Leica are delusional. We won't get a full frame Canon mirrorless until the DSLR form factor is on its deathbed. Whether it takes five, 10 or 20 years for that to happen, who knows?


----------



## dvsDave (Jul 24, 2012)

funkboy said:


> Sorry to rain on your parade...
> 
> Now that I revisit this topic, there are a few reasons they've done it this way:
> 
> ...



This is the same reasons that Nikon made their 1 series the way they did. The smaller sensor means that the lens can be porportional to the size of the body, unlike the Sony NEX series, which are just HUGE lenses hanging off tiny bodies. I was very pleased to see the size of the EOS M. Still not sure about the touch-screen..


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 24, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> it´s a 35mm f2 on the leica and a 35mm f1.4 on the 5d mk2.
> no longish zoom.
> 
> a 35mm f2 would make things look a bit better for the 5D MK2 sure.. but not much.
> walk a day with a leica and a day with a 5D MK2 through a city.




The 35/2 is *much* smaller than the 35/1.4


----------



## vuilang (Jul 24, 2012)

yes, the EF-M mount probably wont fit a FF sensor in.. BUT.
Why Can An EF mount camera be mirrorless?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 24, 2012)

vuilang said:


> yes, the EF-M mount probably wont fit a FF sensor in.. BUT.
> Why Can An EF mount camera be mirrorless?


It can. However, the point of a mirrorless camera is "SMALL" A EF lens has a long focus distance to the sensor in order to clear the mirror as it swings up.
Lockup the mirror on your FF DSLR using liveview and you have a mirrorless FF camera with no viewfinder. The size could be reduced somewhat, but not to a small factor as long as EF lenses are used.
Yet another series of lenses would be needed if a small FF mirrorless body were to be produced, and they would still have a fairly large adapter. 
Of course, a FF point and shoot could also be made. Just take a look at any of the old 35mm film P&S bodies. A FF P&S is very possible, but the cost might scare buyers away.
I tend to concur, Canon should have made it FF if they wanted to sell to enthusiasts, but its very obvious that this is a bridge camera between P&S and a Rebel DSLR. 
It might be that many will never see the need to move to a DSLR, once you invest in a few lenses, you tend to be locked in. Thats why a G1X is attractive to existing DSLR users, no need to buy a bunch of duplicate lenses.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 24, 2012)

according to dpreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/



> As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen.



guys, this is no Leica. the mount is too small and for good reason. If it supported full frame it would be so huge that you wouldn't end up with a compact body.


----------



## Chicorob (Jul 24, 2012)

I am not entirely sure why so many are complaining about a $800 camera that is APS-C. While I certainly think there is a market for $3000 FF Mirrorless camera, this is a great first start for Canon to test the waters. I think the lack of a EVF is probably a bigger issue than the lack of FF. Other than that, this entry is about 1000 times better than the Nikon V1. While I think a FF mirrorless would be great as a secondary or travel camera, most (note...I said most, not all) pros will continue to buy DSLR only because of the ergonomics and quick setting changes allowed by that form factor.

If I were to go back to Canon with a semi-pro version I would ask for these items:
-An integrated EVF
-Lose some resolution for increases in ISO performance (12MP would be fine with me if I could get clean ISO 3200-6400 images). I am sure this cameras performance is good, but avoiding a large flash for a small camera like this seems more valuable that high MP. If I could get consistent low noise ISO 6400 images like I can with my 5DIII, I would gladly lose 6MP. 
-Direct aperture/shutter speed control knobs
-Direct ISO adjust button

The simple changes above would allow me to comfortably leave the 5DIII at home when I dont want to lug around the larger camera and not feel like I am missing much (street, travel, dangerous areas where I dont want a professional looking camera around my neck, etc.). Without the features above, I would be more inclined to buy the G1X with a similar form factor and image quality. It adds a few of the features above. In fact, and interchangable lens APS-C G1X with a EVF instead of the optical viewfinder would be almost perfect!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 25, 2012)

Chicorob said:


> If I were to go back to Canon with a semi-pro version I would ask for these items:



Don't worry. All that will come, and more.

This is just the very first EOS-M camera. The line will grow and continue to expand in both directions, until it has subsumed and replaced the entire PowerShot G line as well as the entire Rebel line.

(Oh -- and the rest of the PowerShot line's days are numbered, too; it won't be all that long before anybody who might buy one already has a cell phone that's "good enough," plus the phone will automatically post the pictures to FaceSpace. EOS-M will have a long life, though, as will the ##D and #D lines, which won't go mirorrless for a very, very, very long time.)

Cheers,

b&


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 25, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Chicorob said:
> 
> 
> > If I were to go back to Canon with a semi-pro version I would ask for these items:
> ...



BTW - I don't see any reason, why next EOS M couln't have a SIM socket and replace an Iphone  Why walking with two devices if this is small as well, has a good LCD touchscreen and enough computing power. Maybe this is the future!
It could be somehow inconvenient to hold it with 70-200 at the ear, but you could always have earphones for this. What new possibilities - photos online in a second, live streaming, social media with you....


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 25, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Don't worry. All that will come, and more....
> 
> This is just the very first EOS-M camera.



I'd like to think so too. But given that this type of cameras has evolved a lot over the last couple of years, it was a calculated decision by Canon not to include the things that many would like to have seen - in my case, an electronic viewfinder and in-body IS (oh...and decent camera strap lugs).

I see two possible reasons: 

1. They're just not on Canon's radar; or
2. The second version will feature all of this. And because the Mk ii model will correct the problems with Mk i, then Mk i buyers will buy a Mk ii. They will effectively double sales.

Either way, I don't think the new model is so enticing that I'll rush out for one. Instead, I'll wait to see what's next.


----------



## funkboy (Jul 25, 2012)

I'm surprised no one has asked if EF-M could support an APS-H sensor.

Where are all the die-hard fanboien?

<grin>


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 25, 2012)

funkboy said:


> I'm surprised no one has asked if EF-M could support an APS-H sensor.
> 
> Where are all the die-hard fanboien?
> 
> <grin>



They simply know it couldn't (or could) ;D


----------



## Eddie (Jul 26, 2012)

*APS-C is the sweet spot for a compact system camera*

I will say that I do not believe this is a marketing ploy by Canon. 

Clearly based on the limits of physical lens size, a mirrorless "full frame" system would use such large lenses that it would largely defeat the benefits of what is supposed to be a "compact" system. 

Leica's awesome and expensive form factor - which provides full frame in a smallish body - works only because the lenses are small *(because they are not autofocus and because of the short distance between the sensor and the rear element of the lens.)* That photo posted earlier in the thread is a perfectly fair apples to apples FF vs FF 35/1.4 comparison. 

In theory canon could easily recreate the leica system and of course it would be less expensive. However, they do not see enough demand for a system that, in order to be small and full frame, that would require the use of manual lenses (i suppose they could do something like contax g did with in-body autofocus motors - but that in-body autofocus approach seems to have enough downside that it never has had much traction elsewhere)

So throw out the possibility of leica or contax g type system (in order to keep modern autofocus,) and even cost no object, you then back into determining what is the best sensor to use based on the desired system size (including lens size.) 

APS-C seems to offer as high ISO performance as the best 36x24 and medium format systems. So unless you have very specific depth of field requirements, or you are printing something gigantic, even with cost no object again - you would want your *compact *system camera to use APS-C. You create a new lens mount to provide a size advantage over comparable dslr lenses that require a shorter flange distance.

Comparing APS-C to g1x or nikon cx (1") or m43 - i just don't see those lenses and systems being small enough to justify the performance hit you do take by going smaller sensor. If I am going to start compromising to that degree i am probably willing to have a collapsible lens.

Suddenly, canon's offering makes perfect sense:

1" / micro43 / g1x size high quality compact (although perhaps best represented by the Sony RX100 at the very moment)

ef-m (bring on an optional model with some pro features like an evf, perhaps some external nobs for the people who want that all of course - i'm perfectly happy to omit them and save size and money. Fuji's x pro system is awesome but has some other downsides (for me body cost and autofocus speed) - and of course we canon fans feel security about the ability to attach our ef glass to the system - as for me i plan on having the 22/2 and the 85/1.8 in my eos m bag. ) *most importantly, bring on the ef-m glass - a nice fast, prime 35/1.4 like the fuji.*

ef-s (i could see this system dying off some day as the cost of full frame dslr continues to move downward - while a ef-s is a nice, compact size people will gravitate to the ef-m if the small size is the important factor and torward the ef if body cost becomes less a factor.) 

ef (eventually all of their dslrs will be full frame - certainly their lens offering reflects this As the younger generation of non-viewfinder users grows - i could see a mirrorless ef for the benefit of primarily cost and perhaps some size and weight benefit. ) 

Perhaps a niche mount which is full frame and completely ef compatible would be created someday for landscape photographers?


----------



## gmrza (Jul 26, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> The enigmatic individuals who'd prefer to spend their money on a FF mirrorless rather than a 5Diii would only want small, high quality primes specifically designed for the body. They're not concerned with DSLR usability. Their driving desire would be unparalleled image quality. They'd see some form of EF compatibility as a bonus, but not the be all and end all. They would accept that mirrorless models are a new camera system and wouldn't take full compatibility for granted.
> 
> In the past, there have been camera systems designed around only a few lenses that have sold in sufficient quantities to make it worthwhile. My Mamiya 6 is one. It only comes with a 50mm, 75mm and 150mm. (Essentially 30mm, 45mm and 90mm in FF equivalents). The Mamiya 7 only has six lenses. I'd see a Canon FF mirrorless as the modern day equivalent. It would only need a few top quality lenses to gain a lot of interest.



The problem I see with a proposition like that is that Canon's logistics, marketing and supply chain is geared around volumes. I would suspect that Canon would have difficulty trying on Leica's business model - the organisational change would be too much. I don't think Canon would be able to make a profit on small production runs, even if it is for an ultra-premium product. The issues probably run through their entire business, not least of which is their brand, which does not have the same cachet as Leica.


----------



## Eddie (Jul 27, 2012)

gmrza said:


> The problem I see with a proposition like that is that Canon's logistics, marketing and supply chain is geared around volumes. I would suspect that Canon would have difficulty trying on Leica's business model - the organisational change would be too much. I don't think Canon would be able to make a profit on small production runs, even if it is for an ultra-premium product. The issues probably run through their entire business, not least of which is their brand, which does not have the same cachet as Leica.



Aren't the 5d and 1d and the "L" lenses ultra-premium?


----------



## gmrza (Jul 27, 2012)

Eddie said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I see with a proposition like that is that Canon's logistics, marketing and supply chain is geared around volumes. I would suspect that Canon would have difficulty trying on Leica's business model - the organisational change would be too much. I don't think Canon would be able to make a profit on small production runs, even if it is for an ultra-premium product. The issues probably run through their entire business, not least of which is their brand, which does not have the same cachet as Leica.
> ...



They are at the higher end of the market, but in many cases - look at lenses, come nowhere near Leica pricing. Regardless if the nominal price points, the 5D and 1D series cameras and L series lenses are mass produced relative to the M9.


----------

