# What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 22, 2018)

```
Beyond Canon’s stellar brand loyalty and brand power, there are a few things that a full frame Canon mirrorless absolutely needs to be successful.</p>
<p><a href="https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-canons-full-frame-mirrorless-system-needs-be-successful-213001">Fstoppers</a> posted an article today outlining what they think it needs, and it pretty much mirrors (doh) what I’ve been saying for the last year or so.</p>
<p><strong>A native EF mount</strong>

The Canon EF lens lineup is the best in the business. No other camera manufacturer has the breadth and depth of lenses, nor the manufacturing power to churn out amazing glass time and time again. This is Canon’s biggest advantage over other manufacturers and will ensure they take the #1 spot in mirrorless camera sales without much marketing effort.</p>
<p>This is where I think Nikon is going to make a massive mistake if they really do require you to need an adapter to fit F mount glass.</p>
<p><strong>No adapters!</strong>

I hate adapters, and I even hate teleconverters. Any extra thingy I have to worry about to use gear is a non starter for me. If I think I have to add a teleconverter to a 500mm lens, then I’ll buy a 600mm lens. Thanks to Canon for the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x.</p>
<p>Lens adapters are to solve a unique problem, and I don’t mind them if I really have a need to use an FD lens or a Nikon lens on my Canon camera. But if I’m using a modern Canon lens, it better fit without an adapter on my modern Canon camera.</p>
<p>Adapters are lazy.</p>

<p><strong>Size and weight?</strong>

Is this really why we want mirrorless cameras? I’d argue going too small is actually bad for usability when attaching larger, heavy lenses. Attach a Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II to a Sony A7R with an adapter. It’s all sorts of awkward to shoot with and you get odd fatigue in your hands, wrist and forearms. If you’re adding a battery grip to your mirroless camera, then you’re already admitting you don’t care about size and to some degree, weight.</p>
<p>If you remove the mirror and shutter assembly, you’re going to naturally reduce weight.</p>
<p>Here’s something for you, a Canon EOS Rebel SL2 weighs less than a Sony A7R with a mirror and shutter assembly.  Yes, the build quality is different, but I’m sure Canon can come up with something to make a camera with their great durability and amazing weather sealing.</p>
<p><strong>EVF</strong>

The EVF has to be the best in the business. Period. No skimping on parts and manufacturing here Canon.</p>
<p>It’s rare I give my opinion on gear, but I’m actually quite opinionated on what Canon needs to do with a full frame professional mirrorless camera.</p>
<p>Head over to <a href="https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-canons-full-frame-mirrorless-system-needs-be-successful-213001">FStoppers to read their take</a>, as well as <a href="https://www.canonnews.com/fstoppers-what-canons-full-frame-mirrorless-system-needs-to-be-successful">Canon News for their take</a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## slclick (Jan 22, 2018)

I am with you on all counts. Weight over size. I want controls which are not cramped. Canon is known for their ergonomics and if there is anything I learned from my short lived Olympus mirrorless experience it's (besides the atrocious menu system) if your dials and buttons are not well placed you accidentally change a setting and it dooms your shot. The Canon joystick is a marvelous thing and I hope to see it on the FF ML. I am pretty happy with the EVF in the M5, it's not perfect but it is very useable and with a few minor improvements it could be ready for Prosumer use. I think it all comes down to flange, a topic well discussed here and elsewhere. Abandoning the 130 million lenses would be a travesty and I just don't see it happening. Good article Craig.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 22, 2018)

That's all well and good, but does it _have_ to look like a Q?


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 22, 2018)

If Canon is smart, they will offer to glue the "adapter" permanently into camera lens mount at their service outlets. After that, camera will mount all EF lenses "natively" ... and no parts to loose. Adapter-angst ridden buyers will also never have to purchase expensive, new, mirrorless-optimized glass. 8) ;D

Size/Weight: if Canon is NOT stupid, they'll make one ultra-expensive 1D-sized, big, bulky mirrorless body, one-mid-sized one like Sony A9 and one super-compact (Sony 1RX-R II sized, but with mount), non-nerfed, affordable one for me ... and for the few others who are sick and tired of carrying around big, heavy gear. And same lineup for lenses ... XXXL - M - XS. 

EVF: fully agree ... very the best is just about "good enough" on that end. 

PS: "professional" camera does not equal "use of big tele lenses" or "shooting outdoors in sub-zero blizzard conditions". Wedding/Event photogs, studio work, fashion, portraiture, etc. etc. generally dont need 400mm lenses or wheather sealing (at least most of the time).


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 22, 2018)

brad-man said:


> That's all well and good, but does it _have_ to look like a Q?



Nah, that's just my mockup. The Q is also my favourite camera ever.


----------



## slclick (Jan 22, 2018)

brad-man said:


> That's all well and good, but does it _have_ to look like a Q?



I'd prefer an SL style body. I think the Q look is used to convey mirrorless and not a mockup as to what Canon will go after.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 22, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> PS: "professional" camera does not equal "use of big tele lenses" or "shooting outdoors in sub-zero blizzard conditions".


+1. I see no need for every top tiered camera to be either big or weather-sealed.




AvTvM said:


> Wedding/Event photogs, studio work, fashion, portraiture, etc. etc. generally dont need 400mm lenses or wheather sealing (at least most of the time).



Well... as to weddings, I’ve not been to a single wedding where the photog didn’t have to shoot in either some rain or snow. Of course that’s not representative of all weddings, but if I we’re doing weddings I would very much like to have a sealed body.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 23, 2018)

While I agree with CR Guy's comments and priorities, it does sort of beg the question: why do we need a mirrorless full-frame camera anyway?


----------



## slclick (Jan 23, 2018)

unfocused said:


> While I agree with CR Guy's comments and priorities, it does sort of beg the question: why do we need a mirrorless full-frame camera anyway?



WYSIWYG for one, fps for another. However I know what you mean and I see them as a want rather than a need.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 23, 2018)

unfocused said:


> While I agree with CR Guy's comments and priorities, it does sort of beg the question: why do we need a mirrorless full-frame camera anyway?



Goal #1 .. to literally shut people up about it
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Goal #2 ... because there's features there that are needed...it's also a better video and stills hybrid solution than a DSLR.


----------



## makistza (Jan 23, 2018)

1. Convert 5D series to mirorless
2. Convert 1D series to mirorless
3. Same mount.
4. Same body.
5. Same buttons (lighted , like nikons)

Done.


----------



## hmatthes (Jan 23, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> Nah, that's just my mockup. The Q is also my favourite camera ever.


The Q is also my favorite camera and is always with me. The Q is for the minimalist, manual thinking, kind of guy like me -- not for everyone.
*Canon is my main system.* The Canon UI is perfect for almost everything --- I dearly hope that it is unchanged. 
I will write a check right now for a 5D-IV (without mirror and prism) which has an EVF matching or even exceeding the Leica Q & SL systems.

*The key point: What you see is what you get! * I have learned on the Q that seeing exactly what will get onto the SD is vital. You can actually see the exposure compensation as you adjust it. You can see focus peaking when touching up the focus! No mirror camera can do that.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 23, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > While I agree with CR Guy's comments and priorities, it does sort of beg the question: why do we need a mirrorless full-frame camera anyway?
> ...



In other words, Goal #2 is 4K video.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> You can actually see the exposure compensation as you adjust it. You can see focus peaking when touching up the focus! No mirror camera can do that.



Except in Live View. Just sayin'.


----------



## Neutron_K (Jan 23, 2018)

2 things I'd like to see:

1) removal of AA filter
2) thin sensor glass.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 23, 2018)

from the original post:

"Size and weight?
Is this really why we want mirrorless cameras?"

Uhhhh...yes?!

(for starters, and it's complicated)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 23, 2018)

I have zero interest in a camera that requires a adapter. For consumers, who only get a kit lens, a new lens mount won't matter.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 23, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> If I think I have to add a teleconverter to a 500mm lens, then I’ll buy a 600mm lens.



I know this is beside the point of the thread, but...

Each to their own, but that only works if money is no object. The 500L II is £8k while the 600L II is £10.5k. That's a hell of a difference for 100mm, when the 1.4x TC gives you 200mm extra for £300.

I would much rather see a native EF mount mirrorless camera, of course.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 23, 2018)

josephandrews222 said:


> from the original post:
> 
> "Size and weight?
> Is this really why we want mirrorless cameras?"
> ...



The point I was making is mirrorless doesn't mean it's automatically lighter and a smaller body can be too small and make ergonomics terrible. There's a reason the 1d is the size that it is and why people use battery grips in large numbers on both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 23, 2018)

The real question here is whether a camera without the mirror will lead to better photographs? In my specific case, I don't think so but I'd like to have more information on this.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 23, 2018)

josephandrews222 said:


> from the original post:
> 
> "Size and weight?
> Is this really why we want mirrorless cameras?"
> ...



is it?

would you choose a SL2 against a 7D Mark II if they had the same specs? if so why or why not?


----------



## Aaron D (Jan 23, 2018)

That EF mount is just a passing fad. I'll buy Canon again when they bring back the FD mount. OH WAIT... photography is just a passing fad. Nothing but paintings on MY walls. Oils, of course none of that acrylic rubbish--passing fad.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Each to their own, but that only works if money is no object. The 500L II is £8k while the 600L II is £10.5k. That's a hell of a difference for 100mm, when the 1.4x TC gives you 200mm extra for £300.



Sure, but the TC also costs you a stop of light, and spending an extra £2,5k does not.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 23, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> josephandrews222 said:
> 
> 
> > from the original post:
> ...



And as I've prattled about, removing the mirror also gives the option to use a multi-sensor design, either RGB; or. alternately, two standard Bayer arrays, but one with an ND filter in front to give single-shot HDR. You could also use a slightly larger sensor to capture a square covering both portrait and landscape orientations simultaneously. (edit: not ND filter, but partial mirror to one of them)

Reducing size is definitely not the only reason to go mirrorless.


----------



## In-The-Dark (Jan 23, 2018)

- native EF lens mount - great EF lens lineup already.
- weight & size - lighter weight is welcome. as for size, Canon doesn't need to go on a diet.
- good AF


mirrorless eliminates the need for AFMA (am i correct?)


----------



## Dima 135 (Jan 23, 2018)

Just make a normal sensor there, at least as in 5d4. Canon inclined to fulfill desires ? No ! 
Maybe canon, like some other manufacturers, try so hard, and making each new camera so good as far as possible today , that it seems, even touches the upstream segment cameras ? NO !

Therefore, the only thing that I want from canon is that the sensor be better than in 6d2.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 23, 2018)

IglooEater said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > PS: "professional" camera does not equal "use of big tele lenses" or "shooting outdoors in sub-zero blizzard conditions".
> ...



I read CR for the humour.

Why would anyone not want weather sealing when it could be the difference between a functional and non-functional camera in a critical situation. I suppose it needs dual cards in case of memory failure but not sealing in case of weather. 

Jack


----------



## -pekr- (Jan 23, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> PS: "professional" camera does not equal "use of big tele lenses" or "shooting outdoors in sub-zero blizzard conditions". Wedding/Event photogs, studio work, fashion, portraiture, etc. etc. generally dont need 400mm lenses or wheather sealing (at least most of the time).



We are probably not professionals, but we do weddings. And what we use is the 70-200/2.8 II IS, and next month we get 5DIV along with 24-70/2.8 II. And then we've already got Sigma ART 35/1.4. All pretty heavy lens imo, which I would not like to have attached to my cell phone size/proportion camera


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 23, 2018)

In-The-Dark said:


> mirrorless eliminates the need for AFMA (am i correct?)



Apparently when the Olympus E-M1 came out and incorporated phase detect AF to supplement the contrast detect, they started having AFMA issues.


----------



## Talys (Jan 23, 2018)

First, I 100% agree with everything that CR guy said.

I won't buy a Canon mirrorless FF, at least not any time soon, that isn't EF, ergonomically comfortable for the stuff I like to shoot, and has a superb EVF. I cannot imagine any set of features they could pack into a FF MILC that would compensate for a shortfall in any of those categories.



IglooEater said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > PS: "professional" camera does not equal "use of big tele lenses" or "shooting outdoors in sub-zero blizzard conditions".
> ...



-1 for me. Every top tiered camera needs to be weather-sealed. 

It's not that everyone who uses a top tiered camera will always need weather-sealing, and it's not that every high end camera needs to be weather-sealed. But if it's not in your top tiered camera, what are you going to do, stick it in your second tiered camera? That just sounds kind of crazy. More likely, you get the Sony thing... where _none_ of your top tiered cameras have competitive weather sealing, and that's a terrible thing.

Even me... almost exclusively fair weather or indoor photographer... If I'm going to spend $4000+ on a camera, it's going to have decent weather sealing.



AvTvM said:


> Wedding/Event photogs, studio work, fashion, portraiture, etc. etc. generally dont need 400mm lenses or wheather sealing (at least most of the time).



I agree that there are lots of professional photography doesn't require a 400mm lens. No argument there. 

But a 70-200/2.8 is an ultra-popular lens for all those things you're talking about, and that's not a light lens in any system. It's almost the same size and weight as Canon's 100-400LII. Also, it's not like 16-35 and 24-70/2.8's are small lenses.

And if we're talking big aperture super telephotos, one might argue that these are likely to be used on monopods/tripods, and the ergonomics equation is a little different. But I don't think current generation mirrorless in these use cases will be a hot seller anyways, because EVF just blows through batteries too quickly when you have to keep the EVF running for hours.


----------



## LDS (Jan 23, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> PS: "professional" camera does not equal "use of big tele lenses" or "shooting outdoors in sub-zero blizzard conditions". Wedding/Event photogs, studio work, fashion, portraiture, etc. etc. generally dont need 400mm lenses or wheather sealing (at least most of the time).



Just Canon won't make separated and dedicated professional camera models for studio work or weddings. They'll make one model for each tier, and each model will have to cover many different needs. It's cheaper to add weather sealing to a single model than to have to make more models with only a few differences like weather sealing and align production to demand - after all those features won't be a disadvantage for those not needing it every day.

Moreover, I think a lot of studio work today is also made with higher megapixel cameras like the 5DS, the top-of-the-line camera is less an all-round camera today than it was a few years ago.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 23, 2018)

I will buy a FF mirrorless only WITH the possibility to use
- FD lenses
- maybe a tilt adapter for EF lenses
- to be open to adapt other (scientific) optics
The adapter has to be designed to stay well in place (e.g. optional 4 M3 screws) for
those who want use the EF lens line-up, delivered with the camera and
shaped to support ergonomics well.
The EF-XYZ mount of the camera body could have a larger diameter to avoid
mirror box bokeh and other side effects. A shutter window of 27 x 39mm would
help too.

Mirrorless with EVF is well suited for video - I think it will be a hybrid cam.
A unique feature (as far as I know) would be a global shutter mode for
video in a well priced FF mirrorless. The announced Super 8 camera from Kodak
is a strange being but it has global shutter and the videos - while having
bad resolution - showed very natural motion. Most video cameras do not
due to rolling shutter. The effects are sublime if the camera/objects move slowly,
they cannot exactly be seen but there is always some feeling of unnatural motion.

As videographer I would hope for a camera which is as innovative like the 5D mark ii
for the video section of the camera.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Jan 23, 2018)

If you are not reducing the weight and size of the lenses and the body - why going mirrorless in the first place? Just to have an EVF instead of an OVF? 

In order for this to make sense they must come up with a new mount and new lenses. Otherwise why bother.


----------



## RJ_4000 (Jan 23, 2018)

Hi
I strongly disagree about a Mirrorless with EF mount.

What is the difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless ?
The names says it: The mirror.
Which has a few consequences:
- You need another way to view at the scene. Electronic viewfinder
- You need an AF that uses the main sensor itself, instead of a separate sensor
- You may decrease flange distance

I think we may all agree that Sensor improvements - which are certainly needed - make sense for DSLR as well as for mirrorless. So let's keep that outside of the discussion for now.

Today, a DSLR is able to do almost everything a mirrorless can do.
Add an electronic viewfinder, either internal -which Canon is working on with several patents to allow switching between reflex and electronic viewfinder- or external -think of the EV-DC2 attached to a DSLR- and you have it.
Then you have best of both worlds, don't you ?
Take a 1DXII with an EV-DC2 or - better - an internal switch to a secondary EVF, and you get best of both worlds.
I'd love to see that, by the way.
No improvement in size and weight for sure. But a beast of a camera.

So what do you MISS ? Why do you want a mirrorless, except for the EVF ?
A shorter flange distance.
That's a key reason why mirrorless makes a difference.
And what difference does it make ?
You may mount ALL other (older or not) lenses -including Leica M- and you may seriously reduce size of lenses with short focal length.
Because if flange distance makes no difference in terms of size for lenses with, say, 60mm focal length or more, it may make a HUGE difference in size, weight, price (not to say quality) for shorter lenses.
Because you won't need that huge retro-focus.
Think of the 11-24mm with a 18mm flange distance mount. It could be 3 times smaller !

So, in my opinion, Canon should
- Work on sensor technology for sure (Dynamic range. Instant Electronic shutter. IBIS. ...They have DPAF already.) that would benefit both DSLR and Mirrorless
- Allow EVF on big pro DSLR, with full EF mount, to extend possibilities for Pros (and keep their investment)
- Add a true Mirrorless with Full frame sensor AND SMALLER MOUNT with serious EF adapter
- Do the last without compromising on ergonomic and reliability - 2 area where Sony obviously is nowhere close to Canon and that makes a huge difference for Pros and serious enthusiasts. I speak from experience.

Just my 2€cents...


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jan 23, 2018)

I'm not an expert and I am especially ignorant with reference to other brands' gear.
My question is: are there _Non-EF_ lenses that a Canon user should want to use and that are not available with a Canon EF Mount?
If the answer is Yes, than a different mount + adapter should be the right choice.
If Canon glass is unmatched / unmatchable, who needs an adapter to use inferior glass?


_________________________


Another strategic option:
i. Canon will deliver in 2018 (and in the following years) more than one FF Mirrorless, both with EF Mount *and* with "short flange", compatible with adaptor (let's call it "EF-MFF")
ii. Canon will deliver, in the next months/years, the EF-MFF _native_ version of all its existing EF lenses.
iii. Canon will eventually (2030?) stop selling EF Mount and EF Lenses.

=> 
a. Canon users with EF-MFF mount will be able to use other _shorter flange_ lenses via specific adapters (and EF lenses with the native adaptor, of course)
b. The investment needed to develop the EF-MFF lenses will be lower than starting from scratch
c. Canon users with EF Lenses or EF bodies won't be hurt
____________________________


If you like my idea, feel free to recommend me as a future member of Canon's Board of Directors.


----------



## LDS (Jan 23, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> I will buy a FF mirrorless only WITH the possibility to use
> - FD lenses



Why Canon should be interested in lenses it stopped to make thirty years ago (and which needs mechanical couplings to transfer settings from/to the camera), while making its actual remunerative line more cumbersome to use? Companies follow a business logic - not only a technical or nostalgic one. A new camera has to sell itself and its related products - lenses especially.

And I write this owning several FD lenses which I still happily use on my FD cameras.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Except in Live View. Just sayin'.



Good luck trying to use live view handheld using the 100-400


----------



## 3dit0r (Jan 23, 2018)

I agree with most of this. However, as a user who has years of first hand experience with various mirrorless cameras from different manufacturers, I'd say there are a couple of things missing which most mirrorless users will expect, or pass the camera by -

- First and foremost, Canon must get 4K video _at least_ on par with, if not significantly better than, their main rivals. They need to start taking this seriously again, because the people buying a mirrorless camera expect it. This requires _no_ R&D, they already have the technology. This should be an obvious slam-dunk. The sensor should be designed with in mind this from the ground up. No significant crop and at least 10-bit 4:2:2 internal with a decent bitrate. And low rolling shutter.
- As a component of the above, they need focus peaking, zebras and LUT previews as a minimum. Scopes, etc. would put them ahead of Sony's Full Frame offerings.
- Eye-AF. Almost every prosumer level mirrorless has had this for at least 2 generations now. For someone of Canon's stature, it needs to be at least as good as the Sony A9/A7riii. Sony is killing it with this. Canon's Dual Pixel AF is probably inherently better than Sony's overall system. It just needs to be fast enough to compete with the competition on a full-on mirrorless model, with the subject's eye priority included. This needs to be for video too, then the system will be the best in the world.
- Weather sealing. One of the big advantages Canon has for pros is that the L-series lenses are nearly all weather/dust sealed (the competition lag a little currently in this area) so the body must be too to take advantage of this.
- Same compatibility with flash and other accessories as the current top of the range EOS line. Again, this is a huge advantage to Canon. Some, like Fuji and Sony are still struggling to get full flash compatibility.
- Must be speedy and responsive all round.
- IBIS is starting to be almost a universal standard in mirrorless. Fuji are about to release it, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic have had it for years. Again, Canon should go in right from the start and not play catch up. And not digital IBIS, that's BS. It needs a sensor which actually moves, like the competition.

With the lens mount, I think it needs to be fully EF _compatible_ with no compromises in performance or image quality. That said, I think it would be OK if it were somehow adapted - not in a clunky way, but fully integrated, weather sealed, etc. Or some kind of 'dual mount'. The reason being, a lot of mirrorless guys like the ability to adapt lenses. Personally, having been there/done that, I'm not so keen with a modern sensor for all sorts of reasons, _but_ I can't deny a percentage of the market does love that aspect. Combine with the benefits of EVF like focus peaking or electronic split view (like Fuji) for actually using old MF lenses fully and you have a winner. That said, personally, I'd be happy with EF mount - like you say, the huge advantage is the massive selection of great lenses already there.

Size/weight - Somewhere between the M5 and 5D would be perfect, I think. Weight is more important than size I think. Style-wise, I think an upsized M5 would be just dandy - very nice design, somewhere between retro and modern, and I speak as a Fuji fan, but I think gradually the move will be away from full-on retro and towards a subtle blend. Canon already nailed this with the M5. Looks are important in the mirrorless market, like it or not.

And for those who wonder why do this at all - that's clearly the view of someone who has not extensively used a well-designed mirrorless camera. There are many, many reasons which is why the market has grown so fast and I have no doubt whatsoever is the future of ILC photography, but the one I now find it hard to live without is purely technical - I get sharper handheld pictures due to lack of mirror slap. Oh, and some photographers who like to use ND filters love them because they can still see what they're doing and even shoot portraits with flash and AF/see their subject.


----------



## bod (Jan 23, 2018)

Your comments in the initial post align well with my own views. 

+++1 regarding your comments on the EVF. A fully featured EVF on a FF body is key. Over half my EF lenses are MF and I use manual focus more often than not. An EVF with features that assisted MF, for example being able to zoom in on the EVF image to nail focus would be really useful. The M5 EVF is an encouraging step by Canon in this respect.

I also agree about your statements on size/weight. Sure I like lighter gear - I use the 6D presently and would be happy for a FF mirrorless to be a similar or lighter weight. However I also value Canon ergonomics and reducing the body size too far is likely to be counter productive as regards controlling and holding the camera with many existing EF lenses. A body in the weight/size zone of current lighter DSLRs offers flexibility either to handle relatively larger lenses (e.g a fast prime or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom) but can also be a relatively compact and light setup if used with one of the smaller lighter EF lenses currently available (eg 40 f/2.8 or 24 f/2.8 IS).

As has been observed on multiple occasions on CR, Canon will not be able to keep everyone happy with one FF mirrorless body and it will be interesting to see how their mirrorless range unfolds going forward.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 23, 2018)

Keep it the same size....keep the EF mount.....so, what's the point?

I try to think about what a mirrorless camera could provide that I do not already have and all I come up with is spread of AF points and seeing exposure through an EVF. It would be nice to be able to look through a viewfinder and be able AF on close to the entire frame and see a representation of the image I am about to take. 

Otherwise, I really do not read much of anything here that cannot also be applied to a dslr. As neuro has already said, switch to live view and our current bodies are mirrorless, even for my AF spread. I also like the talk about a modified hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder. That would be interesting. And by projecting information on the OVF screen, we already are starting to trend toward that hybrid situation.

So, very basic questions to ask, but "Why does removing the mirror make this better?" If you take size off the table, keep the EF mount, then I am not reading anything that necessitates removing the mirror. And I agree, I like the ergonomics of the current dslrs and I'd prefer an EF mount. Which is why I am happy with my dslr.

Conversely, "Why is the mirror better?" When the answer to this basic question is "it isn't better" then I can finally see the dslr to mirrorless transition. And then, it will mostly be to save money, moving parts, etc. Get into the mirror box, dedicated PDAF sensor, dedicated processor, etc, there probably is some savings. 

So, this is a long way of saying, they had better nail that EVF and have it not only better than anything I've seen on the market to date but also mimic an OVF and save me some money while doing so. Otherwise, I'll never leave my dslr.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 23, 2018)

Firstly my personal preference is to have a native EF Mount.
This is more out of practicality than knowledge.
I've invest heavily in EF lens. I naturally distrust adapters. I always feel they take away from performance.
Even the extenders I'm not convinced about. Yes they work better on the big whites but even then I think the lens are slightly less good and I'm not sure if the picture cropped is better than the lens extended or not.

Weight - I find the 1DX II too heavy and big. The 5DIV size is the biggest I would work with. I'd be happier with a a slightly smaller / lighter camera but it wouldn't have to be as small as a Sony. 

Viewfinder - yes it has to be really good , focus peaking etc needs to be there

AutoFocusing - needs to be on par with the mirrored cameras at least

FPS needs to be 16FPS to 20 FPS. I think it will be key to its commercial success. At the high end its the compelling reason to go mirrorless

Battery Life - It needs to be good. Mirrorless just eats batteries. It needs a substantial battery

No interest in Video as I think 4K is overkill (and requires big hardware to process) but I'm sure it would be good regardless.

I'd have no interest in attaching legacy lens. I think this would be a minority pursuit easily catered for by adapters.

My concern would be is that the Canon camera would not be the best it can be if Canon persisted with the EF mount. Nikon is gambling they can make a superior mirrorless camera if they change the mount.
I have a lack of knowledge on the theory here.

All things being equal (assuming a parallel world where Canon don't have an amazing set of current lens).
Would Canon then be better advised to drop the EF mount and design one specifically for mirrorless?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 23, 2018)

New mount for me. As much as I'd be annoyed having to use adaptors it's time to move on. The 1986 EF mount has had a great run, but we have more exciting things ahead of us.


----------



## RJ_4000 (Jan 23, 2018)

Hi again

Just an additional comment:

Will the mirrorless replace the DSLR or not ?

Well, 
if you look at pro sport photographers, as an example, they need to nail down the right shot.
The exact instant that will be... paid for.
That's why we see this continuous quest for faster frame rate, faster AF,...
At some point, a next step will obviously be a continuous 8K VIDEO shooting (32Mpixels * 30fps)
Then you have more frames to pick from.
To allow that, you need to remove the mirror.
And if you remove the mirror, well, you need that Electronic Viewfinder.

Another topic where mirrorless is better now (it started as a drawback but now is an benefit) :
They use Contrast AF.
Or, better, they use Phase AF first (from the full sensor) and they finalize it with Contrast AF.
This is more accurate.
And micro-AF adjustement is less needed. Or may be done automatically.
But you can't do that without the full sensor being used for AF. Which means no mirror in the light path.
Also the fact that you may actually perform the AF on (almost) any part of the frame is a HUGE benefit.
Eye-AF probably also benefits from that, since you are able to use more detailed image to AF. You just need more CPU-horse-power.

To be able to see what the final image will look like (WYSIWYG) is also a benefit.

I think all those things make a big difference. Therefore all Pros will want that sooner or later.

All DSLRs could do that while in Liveview, of course.
They just miss the EVF.
That's why I think, on short term, we'll see some Pro DSLR WITH an EVF on top of the OVF.
No compromise. Everything in the same box. One Human-Machine Interface.

There are also points where mirrorless actually LACK against a DSLR.

The obvious one is the lack of OVF. 
Then , the sensor has no protection against dust or spills while the lens is removed. 
And they are closer to the lens mount too.
So they get dirty much faster.
If Canon wants to launch a Pro Mirrorless, they should address that (why not to close the shutter if the lens is removed ?)

They pump more on the battery too, because they have to permanently feed this EVF.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 23, 2018)

RJ_4000 said:


> That's why I think, on short term, we'll see some Pro DSLR WITH an EVF on top of the OVF.
> No compromise. Everything in the same box. One Human-Machine Interface.



That's not what they'll do. If anything they'll do a combined OVF/EVF which will potentially be the best of both worlds, if it can perform right.




RJ_4000 said:


> Then , the sensor has no protection against dust or spills while the lens is removed.
> So they get dirty much faster.



This is true, but conversely they are also much easier to keep clean.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

I have the M6, for me it serves as a travel backup camera and a good option for outings where I don't want to take a big camera – I choose to sacrifice IQ for portability. So, in a FF MILC for a _second_ camera, I'd want it as compact as possible (if they could fit it in an M6 chassis, great!), a new, shorter mount with a small set of native lenses (small primes, small and therefore slow zooms), and an adapter for EF lenses. That would be _not_ having to sacrifice IQ for portability. But...for a primary camera, I'd want a full size body (personally, 1-series size, I know, not gonna happen) and the good ergonomics that go with it, and a native EF mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> New mount for me. As much as I'd be annoyed having to use adaptors it's time to move on. The 1986 EF mount has had a great run, but we have more exciting things ahead of us.



Yeah, like native f/2.8 zooms with an empty tube at the back to replicate the longer flange focal distance. Exciting!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> RJ_4000 said:
> 
> 
> > Then , the sensor has no protection against dust or spills while the lens is removed.
> ...



Can you explain how MILC sensors are easier to _keep_ clean? I can see how the actual process of cleaning a MILC sensor *might* be considered easier...no need to use menus to lock up the mirror (but how big a deal is that, really) and a shallower depth for easier access (but all the cleaning tools have sufficient length to obviate that issue). But even if those steps are very slightly less cumbersome, if the sensor gets dirtier faster, you have to clean it more frequently. That's anything but easier, anyway you look at it.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 23, 2018)

I assume he meant easier to clean.
I was wondering also as someone pointed out above why on a mirrorless camera there isn't some short of shutter coming down when a lens is removed. 
I use an Olympus as a light portable camera and dust has not been an issue yet (and I'm always changing lenses). I think its easier/quicker to switch lens on a small camera (when the lens are small too)




neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > RJ_4000 said:
> ...


----------



## RJ_4000 (Jan 23, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I assume he meant easier to clean.
> I was wondering also as someone pointed out above why on a mirrorless camera there isn't some short of shutter coming down when a lens is removed.



That's what I just added to my comment above:
"Why not to close the shutter if the lens is removed ?"


----------



## exquisitor (Jan 23, 2018)

I agree with the opinion that mirrorless with native EF mount doesn't make sense. It would be essentially DSLR sized body with EVF. Why bother then, just do an external EVF. Native mirrorless mount with flange distance of < 20 mm and an EF adapter is more flexible solution, allowing for smaller native lenses (unlike Sony FE lenses, which are essentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

exquisitor said:


> Native mirrorless mount with flange distance of < 20 mm and an EF adapter is more flexible solution, allowing for smaller native lenses (unlike Sony FE lenses, which are essentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts).



Why are Sony FE lenses esentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts? Maybe Canon is great at lens design, but Sony and Zeiss just suck at it? Inquiring minds want to know...


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can you explain how MILC sensors are easier to _keep_ clean?



Less space inside to collect dust that can then accumulate on the sensor, blowing the dust off the sensor for example is much more likely to blow it *OUT* of the camera rather than just hide it inside again.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, like native f/2.8 zooms with an empty tube at the back to replicate the longer flange focal distance. Exciting!



Well, for photographers who only use their holy trinity lenses it's hard to understand the advantages of mirrorless that's for sure.

But strangely, not every photographer uses 2.8 zooms all the time. 

Show me a lens with the quality and compactness of the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 on the EF mount please.


----------



## Tremotino (Jan 23, 2018)

I really hope canon brings the hybrid mirrorless camera. 8) Doing so they would have the best of both. And it would be better than any other mirrorless camera because of this feature.

Body same as 1d or maybe another lineup for a 5d lookalike body with an electric viewfinder. With a simple button, you can switch between optical view or electric view. That would be so amazing. 

Yeah, that's my first post.


----------



## 3dit0r (Jan 23, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Keep it the same size....keep the EF mount.....so, what's the point?
> 
> I try to think about what a mirrorless camera could provide that I do not already have and all I come up with is spread of AF points and seeing exposure through an EVF. It would be nice to be able to look through a viewfinder and be able AF on close to the entire frame and see a representation of the image I am about to take.
> 
> ...



There are many more reasons than the ones you mention, just a few examples I can think of from personal use -

- AF is more accurate and needs no lens calibration, as it is on the plane of the sensor. This is not only true for native lenses, e.g. Sony A7Riii users are now getting tack sharp results wide open with notoriously difficult lenses such as the Canon 50 1.2, 85 1.2, etc. because of this and Eye-AF. And those lenses are adapted, outperforming the native camera. Actually this is huge. Huge. Feels very weird to be thinking about lens calibration in DSLR-land again after getting used to mirrorless for a while.
- Use of ND filters is far easier, e.g., those who use it for portraiture with flash to kill depth of field can still see their subject and AF on them despite high stop NDs.
- You can use focus peaking/electronic split screen focusing with complete accuracy with MF lenses, or when MF overriding.
- Lack of mirror vibration/shock means pictures will be sharper, especially at lower shutter speeds, mirror lock-up becomes a thing of the past (again, this seems bizarrely antiquated, when thinking about DSLR after mirrorless).
- The mirror isn't better? Bearing in mind the above, explain to me what the mirror IS useful for?
- Have you actually looked through the EVF of one of the better latest generation EVFs? They are very far from the crapiness of the early ones. The latest Fuji ones are great, the GH5 is immense and the A7riii should be good too (although I haven't used the latter one myself). Make sure when you look through them that you have picture effects turned off and the contrast and colour adjusted to taste. When you're used to a real viewfinder, the picture effects and contrast and saturation turned up can be, understandably, too much. Mostly I use my Fuji with all that turned off to give a more natural picture and like it much better.
- Conversely, an advantage can be turning certain picture profiles on. E.g. with black and white, you get to actually see what you're shooting IN black and white. With Fuji you can even apply R/G/Y filters in cam and the preview matches that. You can also adjust contrast curves and it will match that. Sometimes it's nice to get things right in camera without guessing, or spending too much time on the computer later (I say this as someone who shot on film, then DSLRs for 30 years).
- Switching to live view is the same result? I don't think so. I like holding my camera to my eye 90% of the time, for a good many reasons.
- A hybrid viewfinder? Well, maybe. But again, explain what you think a mirror is actually giving you? Fuji a hybrid EVF/OVF in the X-Pro series. I own an X-Pro 2 and have used it extensively for two years. I've used the OVF exactly once. My friend who tried it (who's a pro DP) did the same. I think this is quite common judging by others who use the X-Pro 2. The EVF is so good, the OVF is redundant. Next time I'll buy an X-T2 and save myself some weight and cost!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Can you explain how MILC sensors are easier to _keep_ clean?
> ...



When you blow on a sensor, the airflow bounces off the sensor and first goes to the sides, then forward where there’s a lip for the mount. Lots of surfaces for the dust to stick to, I don’t think the dust is all that much more likely to blow out. The smaller space and opening may actually create more turbulence that’s more likely to deposit dust on sensor box surfaces, which can later fall back on the sensor.

In any case, you’re describing subtle differences – not really consistent with, “...much easier to keep clean.”

Personally, I don’t find that to be true in practice, comparing my 1D X to my EOS M cameras.


----------



## 3dit0r (Jan 23, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> I assume he meant easier to clean.
> I was wondering also as someone pointed out above why on a mirrorless camera there isn't some short of shutter coming down when a lens is removed.
> I use an Olympus as a light portable camera and dust has not been an issue yet (and I'm always changing lenses). I think its easier/quicker to switch lens on a small camera (when the lens are small too)
> 
> ...



FWIW I've used three brands of Mirrorless ILCs now, over several years (Fuji, Olympus, Sony). I have had far less problems with dust than I ever had on Canon or Nikon DSLRs. In fact I can only recall one instance of having to remove a noticeable dust spot from a Fuji shot once. On my 1DsMkii, I had severe dust issues constantly. The D700 and 5Dmkii were an improvement though.

This despite mainly shooting primes (so more regular lens changes) on the mirrorless cameras, and mainly 24-70 zooms on the Canon/Nikon bodies. No idea why, just my experience of real-life use.


----------



## RJ_4000 (Jan 23, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> There are many more reasons than the ones you mention, just a few examples I can think of from personal use
> - AF is more accurate and needs no lens calibration, as it is on the plane of the sensor. This is not only true for native lenses, e.g. Sony A7Riii users are now getting tack sharp results wide open with notoriously difficult lenses such as the Canon 50 1.2, 85 1.2, etc. because of this and Eye-AF. And those lenses are adapted, outperforming the native camera. Actually this is huge. Huge. Feels very weird to be thinking about lens calibration in DSLR-land again after getting used to mirrorless for a while.
> - Use of ND filters is far easier, e.g., those who use it for portraiture with flash to kill depth of field can still see their subject and AF on them despite high stop NDs.
> - You can use focus peaking/electronic split screen focusing with complete accuracy with MF lenses, or when MF overriding.
> ...



Most of those points (not the ND filter one) are also true in Liveview with a DSLR.
All you miss is an EVF.
Add an EVF and you have it.

I own several (serious) Mirrorless camera. 
But looking through a GOOD OVF (5DSR, 1DX) ALWAYS gives me more excitement.
I want the image I see. 
At the end, that has me producing more good pictures (to my taste).
I see the benefits of an EVF. I want BOTH in my main camera.
(I could live without OVF on my secondary camera.)
OK, that's me.


(Focus peaking, by the way, is far from perfect.)


----------



## scyrene (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Each to their own, but that only works if money is no object. The 500L II is £8k while the 600L II is £10.5k. That's a hell of a difference for 100mm, when the 1.4x TC gives you 200mm extra for £300.
> ...



Heh, good point!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Show me a lens with the quality and compactness of the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 on the EF mount please.



The Sony FE 55/1.8 is about the same size and weight as the Canon 50/1.4 (the Sony is skinnier and longer, volumes are approximately the same, only 10g difference in weight), and the Canon is 2/3-stop faster. I have no doubt that if Canon wanted to design a $1000 50mm f/1.8, it could easily be the same quality and compactness of the Sony 55/1.8. In other words, there’s nothing about the FE 55/1.8 lens that’s unique to it being designed for a MILC. 

If you prefer actual to theoretical, consider the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4 for the EF mount. It is 2mm larger in diameter and 1mm shorter than the Sony FE 55/1.8, which I’d call similar compactness. Simliar IQ if you compare the two lenses at f/1.8.

Thanks for playing!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> FWIW I've used three brands of Mirrorless ILCs now, over several years (Fuji, Olympus, Sony). I have had far less problems with dust than I ever had on Canon or Nikon DSLRs. In fact I can only recall one instance of having to remove a noticeable dust spot from a Fuji shot once. On my 1DsMkii, I had severe dust issues constantly. The D700 and 5Dmkii were an improvement though.
> 
> This despite mainly shooting primes (so more regular lens changes) on the mirrorless cameras, and mainly 24-70 zooms on the Canon/Nikon bodies. No idea why, just my experience of real-life use.



I’m curious – were any of the MILCs you refer to full frame? On my EOS M cameras, I have little problem with dust – only an occasional spot that needs cleaning, maybe I have to clean the sensor twice a year. My 1D X requires much more frequent cleaning, once a month or more. With those limited data points, I’d conclude that mirrorless accumulated dust much less than a dSLR. However, I had two Canon APS-C dSLRs for a total of 5 years, and in all that time, I needed to clean the sensor twice.


----------



## RJ_4000 (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m curious – were any of the MILCs you refer to full frame? On my EOS M cameras, I have little problem with dust – only an occasional spot that needs cleaning, maybe I have to clean the sensor twice a year. My 1D X requires much more frequent cleaning, once a month or more. With those limited data points, I’d conclude that mirrorless accumulated dust much less than a dSLR. However, I had two Canon APS-C dSLRs for a total of 5 years, and in all that time, I needed to clean the sensor twice.



You may have a point here.
My experience is
1D2 - Cleaned sensor from time to time, over 8 years of extensive use
Nex 7 - A real nightmare. Dust and oil every week. Was using only Older lenses though (not much choice at that time)
1DX - Hardly ever cleaned the sensor since 2013
A7R - Same than Nex 7. Finally had the screen replaced (warranty) and sensor cleaned by Sony. I couldn't get it clean.
5DSR - Clean ? What ?
A6000 - No cleaning needed yet (well, now it's defect). I mainly used the E 16-70, E 24 1.8 and FE 55 1.8.

But, again, that's just one single experience (mine)


----------



## efmshark (Jan 23, 2018)

Shorter flange definitely enables simpler and/or smaller/lighter wide angle lenses. This is one of the motivations for a mirrorless camera. When the mirrorless body has a full-frame sensor, amazingly small wide angle lenses targeted at the APS-C mirrorless bodies (like the Rokinon 12mm f/2) may not be possible, but it should be still possible to make fast wide angle primes (and zooms) that are more compact and lighter than lenses targeted at full frame SLRs.

As for the viewfinder, unless Canon pulls of some kind of an hybrid optical viewfinder trick like the Fuji X-Pro series, I would like to see an OLED with at least half the sensor linear resolution at minimum of 120Hz refresh rate.

Leica M9 has probably one of the best form factors. Not too small, not too big. A Canon mirrorless with similar dimensions would be perfect.



RJ_4000 said:


> About size impact for lower flange distance, here is probably a better example:
> http://briansmith.com/super-wide-zoom-showdown-sony-fe-12-24mm-f4-g-vs-canon-ef-11-24mm-f4-l/
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the shorter focal length you get, the bigger the benefit of shorter flange-sensor distance
> ...


----------



## exquisitor (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> exquisitor said:
> 
> 
> > Native mirrorless mount with flange distance of < 20 mm and an EF adapter is more flexible solution, allowing for smaller native lenses (unlike Sony FE lenses, which are essentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts).
> ...



This or this whole "smaller lenses" is just a marketing BS. As RJ_4000 suggested, the biggest benefit seems to be for the ultra wide angle designs.
I am rather hoping that Canon could manage smaller FF mirrorless lenses in comparison to Sony. EF-M lenses have a small edge in size in comparison to Sony E lenses for APS-C, so hopefully the FF line will be the same.


----------



## RJ_4000 (Jan 23, 2018)

Another example of smaller lens (Leica M Mount)
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-voigtlander-12mm-5-6-ultra-wide-heliar/


----------



## unfocused (Jan 23, 2018)

RJ_4000 said:


> ...if you look at pro sport photographers, as an example, they need to nail down the right shot...
> ...At some point, a next step will obviously be a continuous 8K VIDEO shooting (32Mpixels * 30fps)
> Then you have more frames to pick from...



This is one of the most common misconceptions around. 

If you are shooting video, the optimal shutter speed is twice the frame rate. So, 30 fps=1/60 second shutter speed. For smooth video you must blur the image from one frame to the next so that it appears smooth to the eye. Otherwise you have jerky or stuttering video.

For sports still photography you want to stop action (usually). That means 1/800 second or more depending on lens and action. 

1080p, 4K, 8K, 100K – the resolution doesn't matter. You can't simply grab frames from a video. Sure, you could shoot a video at 1/1000 of a second, but it won't be usable as video. This is a fantasy that needs to be put to rest.


----------



## lo lite (Jan 23, 2018)

RJ_4000 said:


> Hi
> I strongly disagree about a Mirrorless with EF mount.
> 
> …
> ...



No, that won't work for an existing mount with existing lenses like EF since a shorter flange distance would mean you can't focus. Basic physics.


----------



## rjbray01 (Jan 23, 2018)

All I care about is the EVF. To be viable I believe it has to be 

* "retina" quality resolution - indistinguishable from the "reality" of an OVF
* super fast - when panning or moving up and down and it must keep up

Also, one major benefit would be if we could see the depth of field before taking the shot ! 

I would like to be able to ZOOM IN EVEN WHEN USING AUTOMATIC FOCUS and to review the DoF. 

Using an 85mm or 135mm F/1.4 lens can be tricky as the DoF is so small that only the eyes are in focus and other facial features are blurred. An EVF could help solve this.

Unfortunately, most EVFs only allow you to zoom in when using manual focus ... which adds one more task to the list ... if the camera has automatic Eye-focus and it works then all there is left to worry about is DoF ... 

***Please*** Canon - I'm sure this would be a useful feature for many others ... if you can get Eye-focus working of course !


----------



## I Simonius (Jan 23, 2018)

I agree with most of the OP but not about size

I wouldn't want of use a mirrorless FF for sports or birding, _can't see any advantage over DSLR_

What most people want mirrorless for is less weight and if possible smaller format ( but unlikely by much if FF)


----------



## LDS (Jan 23, 2018)

RJ_4000 said:


> some lenses could be designed differently.



The key is "designed differently". You don't need retrofocus designs to keep the rear elements away from the mirror. You can have elements protruding into the camera.

Retrofocus designs for larger apertures require larger, heavier lenses, and more elements, which also means a sturdier barrel. Standard wide-angle designs can deliver larger apertures with smaller, lighter lenses and barrels.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Sony FE 55/1.8 is about the same size and weight as the Canon 50/1.4



You lost me at Canon 50/1.4.

I asked about lenses of a similar quality!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 23, 2018)

Sorry but the elephant in the room for EF is the back focus depth its 44mm for EF and EF-S and 18mm for EF-M. 
The Sony is 18mm. 

Taking this into consideration their will be very little weight saving simply removing the mirror box & pentaprism (sure there will be something) but as others have stated maybe that not a bad thing. From a FPS standpoint its huge and maybe in this format Canon will move to a global shutter. Im not convinced from a video point of view about removing the OPLF whereas from a stills point it has a small advantage. 
Sony has released its Venice movie camera which is full-frame (Vistavision or as close as), maybe if Canon go down this route they can develop reiterations of a sensor just as Sony has done.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The Sony FE 55/1.8 is about the same size and weight as the Canon 50/1.4
> ...



But did you see how enormous Sony’s 50mm f/2.8 macro tilt-shift is? I mean it’s just huge. Oh wait, they don’t happen to have an exact equivalent. But there’s no reason to assume that were they to make one that it would be different size-wise or weight-wise in any significant way. It’s reasonable to extrapolate general physical attributes from similar lenses. Sony and Canon have the same laws of physics to work with it would seem.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 23, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Sorry but the elephant in the room for EF is the back focus depth its 44mm for EF and EF-S and 18mm for EF-M.
> The Sony is 18mm.
> 
> Taking this into consideration their will be very little weight saving simply removing the mirror box & pentaprism (sure there will be something) but as others have stated maybe that not a bad thing. From a FPS standpoint its huge and maybe in this format Canon will move to a global shutter. Im not convinced from a video point of view about removing the OPLF whereas from a stills point it has a small advantage.
> Sony has released its Venice movie camera which is full-frame (Vistavision or as close as), maybe if Canon go down this route they can develop reiterations of a sensor just as Sony has done.



Unless the lens optics can extend significantly into the mount then the penalty would not be as large. Canon couldn't do this before because of the mirror would interfere, but with mirrorless, this could be an option. If one brings a bag full of lenses (especially telephoto lenses), then it makes sense to have the increased distance on the camera side rather than having multiple lenses incurring the penalty (assuming one travels with more lenses than bodies).


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> exquisitor said:
> 
> 
> > Native mirrorless mount with flange distance of < 20 mm and an EF adapter is more flexible solution, allowing for smaller native lenses (unlike Sony FE lenses, which are essentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts).
> ...



simple: because Sony E-mount was really only designed for APS-C image circle ... and only on second thought Sony decided to force it into use with FF sensors as well. For FF image circle Sony E-mount [as well as Canon EF-M mount] do not have optimally chosen parameters. Combination of 1. opening very narrow plus 2. FFD very short leaves not too many opportunities for lens design. 

But [even I! ] am very confident Canon will go with very generously-sized parameters for their new mirrorless mount ... as they did back in 1987 with EF mount ... and it served them very well ... along with radical break away from old FD mount and all sorts of mechanical shenanigans ... a really forward looking approach ... it allowed them to design not-monstrously big f/1.2 and even f/1.0 lens/es as well as very compact lenses [not only EF 40/2.8 pancake but for their focal length and speed also lenses like EF 100/2.0 or 135/2.0] ... with ease and at a price typically somewhat lower than Nikon and considerably lower than comparably Sony [A-mount and FE] lenses. Canon will most likely pull off a very similar transition to a fantastic range of new, optimized for-mirrorless-FF lenses.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 23, 2018)

and transition is so much easier this time than the hard break FD :: EF back in 1987. All that's needed is a little cylindrical tube with wiring thru ... to keep all EF lenses fully functional and usable. Adapter-Angst really is very irrational. And if people really fear losing it or "handling issues in the field" ... well then just take a drop of Loctite blue and permanently fix that adapter tube into camera lens mount and be done with it.


----------



## Talys (Jan 23, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but the elephant in the room for EF is the back focus depth its 44mm for EF and EF-S and 18mm for EF-M.
> ...



It doesn't matter how far the lens optics extends into the mount. There are two issues - flange focal distance and throat diameter.

The flange focal distance, which is the distance from the first (nearest) lens element to the sensor, not the mirror, which does not lengthen that measurement. You can see with Sony G-Master lenses that in order to do big aperture pro lenses, Sony had to extend the flange focal distance back to exactly where it was before, making the distance from the sensor to the last glass element no shorter on E mount than A mount (or EF).

The reason EFS and EFM and MFT shorten the flange focal distance is because it's a smaller sensor.

Then there's the throat diameter, which is much smaller on E-mount and EFM than it is on EF or EFS. This gives you the potential of much smaller lenses, with two caveats: First, there's no voodoo black magic to optical formulae that allows you to shrink front glass elements yet still allow the same amount of light, so at best, you end up with more conical shaped lenses (since each lens element can be a smaller as light converges towards the sensor). So, the size savings comes mostly in the small aperture lenses, where the front element can be small.

And then there's the wide angle issue -- because the throat is very small, very wide angle lenses are challenging to build. That's why E-Mount 16-35/2.8 took so long for Sony to build, and why ultrawides like Canon's rectilinear 11-24mm may never exist for it.

And finally, other lens manufacturers (sigma or tamron, can't recall which) have complained that small throat diameter makes IBIS compatibility an issue, since the sensor needs extra space to move around.


----------



## Buck (Jan 23, 2018)

IglooEater said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > PS: "professional" camera does not equal "use of big tele lenses" or "shooting outdoors in sub-zero blizzard conditions".
> ...



you need to keep the champagne spray out


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The Sony FE 55/1.8 is about the same size and weight as the Canon 50/1.4
> ...



I understand. When your bluff is called and you're shown to be incorrect, it can be hard to admit that you were wrong.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> then there's the wide angle issue -- because the throat is very small, very wide angle lenses are challenging to build. That's why E-Mount 16-35/2.8 took so long for Sony to build, and why ultrawides like Canon's rectilinear 11-24mm may never exist for it.



https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1338517-REG/sony_sel1224g_fe_12_24mm_f_4_g.html ?


----------



## Talys (Jan 23, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Adapter-Angst really is very irrational.



If I can accept that there are people who are just fine with adapters without thinking that they're being irrational, you should have the same courtesy towards people who have a different opinion -- or priorities -- as you.

I'm with CR guy. I hate adapters for current lenses and current cameras. It won't happen. Either I'll go with the new mount and new camera, or I'll stick with my current mount and bodies for it. I respect that other people don't care one way or the other.

I'm also like him with respect to teleconverters - I don't like them. I'm more likely to buy the focal length I need than to add a teleconverter. The one exception is that if I'm packing light and will be doing a lot of 70-200, I'll take a 1.4x or 2x with me just in case I need telephoto. 

This is a practical packing thing, where I only want to take small bag with 1 lens, and not carry anything extra, but want some extra length just in case. So on a thinktank holster or sling, for example, I can just tuck an extender at the bottom, and just know that it's there.



privatebydesign said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > then there's the wide angle issue -- because the throat is very small, very wide angle lenses are challenging to build. That's why E-Mount 16-35/2.8 took so long for Sony to build, and why ultrawides like Canon's rectilinear 11-24mm may never exist for it.
> ...



I wasn't aware of this lens. Thank you for pointing it out!


----------



## asl (Jan 23, 2018)

unfocused said:


> RJ_4000 said:
> 
> 
> > ...if you look at pro sport photographers, as an example, they need to nail down the right shot...
> ...



It would not necessarily need to be usable as video if garbing frames from it is the purpose. 
If the alternative is taking stills you will not have a video any way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > exquisitor said:
> ...



Oh, ok. Then I guess Nikon sucks at lens design, because their (rumored) FF MILC mount will be only 3 mm wider in diameter than the Sony E-mount, and it's actually got a 2mm _shallower_ FFD.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 23, 2018)

why would canon follow Sony's mistake and repeat it?

For all the internet hype Sony has yet after 6 years of mirrorless managed to get back to the marketshare levels they were before they started this adventure.

Their A mount marketshare has been reduced to rounding error.

there's only a finite amount of lenses Canon can build in a year, a new mount, like it did for Sony would spell the end of EF mount lens development. that's also why they haven't done many EF-M lenses, because they still consider the EF mount the primary focus.

When Canon had the FD mount, it was deemed inadequate to support electronic interconnects and AF. they had to switch the mount.

in this case, there's very little that canon would care about to need a switch of a lens mount and spend millions upon millions of research into new lens designs, when their entire patent portfolio is based upon a ~40-44 back focus distance.

people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


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



to be honest, it's rumored and it really depends on the filter stack to how well it will work.


----------



## vangelismm (Jan 23, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> and transition is so much easier this time than the hard break FD :: EF back in 1987. All that's needed is a little cylindrical tube with wiring thru ... to keep all EF lenses fully functional and usable. Adapter-Angst really is very irrational. And if people really fear losing it or "handling issues in the field" ... well then just take a drop of Loctite blue and permanently fix that adapter tube into camera lens mount and be done with it.



Ok, lets think about new mount.

What about the actual aps-c mirrorless, EF-m? Became gimmick?
Because EF-m will require a new adapter to this mirrrorless FF mount lens.
They did not choose this path with aps-c DSLR.
Cant see Canon doing this now.
It is easier go Sony router and squeeze FF sensor on the EF-m.


----------



## 3dit0r (Jan 23, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> why would canon follow Sony's mistake and repeat it?
> 
> For all the internet hype Sony has yet after 6 years of mirrorless managed to get back to the marketshare levels they were before they started this adventure.
> 
> ...



Actually, after most of a day to think about it, I've come to the conclusion that the OP is correct about retaining the EF lens mount. I was on the fence before, but having been a Sony mirrorless user, one thing which always struck me was that _for the same speed and quality_, i.e. comparing like for like, Sony FF lenses were really no different size/weight wise to Canon equivalents. So, bearing that in mind, what is the sense in Canon adopting a new FF mount when they have a vast catalogue of great lenses.

The flange distance? Who cares. Once you factor in a decent grip, as Sony have increasingly done, the depth of the camera isn't that different overall. The mirror box going allows for a decrease in height, which is useful, but you want an ergonomically nice camera, especially balancing with FF lenses. It's the weight difference which getting rid of the mirror and associated components allows which is particularly useful. If they get within 50g of Sony A9, they'll be all good.

So yep, on reflection, native EF mount all the way.


----------



## LDS (Jan 23, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> it allowed them to design not-monstrously big f/1.2 and even f/1.0 lens/es as well as very compact lenses



Just like the FD 50/1.2L? 52mm filters instead of 72mm!!

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/fd/50mm-f12-L.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm

There were sound reasons to move to the EF mount, especially regarding AF (and later IS) needs and fully electronic coupling - but, still, the FD mount allowed many of the lenses you still see today...


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 23, 2018)

LDS said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > I will buy a FF mirrorless only WITH the possibility to use
> ...



I am interested using FD lenses and companies make cameras for customers to satisfy their needs if ... IF ... it gives them the chance to make money.

You have omitted two further reasons and I will give you a fourth reason for a mount with smaller flange distance mentioned by a lot of others: Lenses with lens elements near the sensor to enhance IQ / get very good IQ at lower prices. Mostly in the (ultra)wide range.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Unless the lens optics can extend significantly into the mount then the penalty would not be as large. Canon couldn't do this before because of the mirror would interfere, but with mirrorless, this could be an option. If one brings a bag full of lenses (especially telephoto lenses), then it makes sense to have the increased distance on the camera side rather than having multiple lenses incurring the penalty (assuming one travels with more lenses than bodies).
> ...



My point was how Canon could compete to produce smaller camera/lens combos if it retains the EF mount. LEICA has fast glass that is smaller than EF lenses at the wide/normal focal lengths. It has rear elements that are closer to the sensor than the distance between the EF mount and the sensor. My point is now Canon could consider putting more optical elements behind the lens mount because it can INTRUDE into the space more now that it will be mirrorless. This has more benefit at the wider focal lengths.

For example, the Canon 11-24 is 2.5 lb, 4.3" diameter and 5.6" long. The Sigma 12-24 is also 2.5 lb, 4" diameter and 5.6" long. In contrast, the Sony FE 12-24 is 1.2 lb, 3.4" diameter and 4.6" long. Lighter, smaller diameter and shorter length.


----------



## LDS (Jan 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> The flange focal distance, which is the distance from the first (nearest) lens element to the sensor,



No, it's the distance from the mounting flange (ring) plane to the sensor plane, and it's a fixed distance set in stone when a lens mount is designed. All lenses then needs to take it into account if they want to be able to focus at infinity.

The nearest lens element can be before or after it - of course if there's a mirror behind the flange, the rear element can't protrude inside the camera much, or the mirror will hit it when actuated. 

Before retrofocus design became commong, UWA needed to lock the mirror up and then mount the lens (see, for example, the Canon FL 19/3.5).


----------



## The Fat Fish (Jan 23, 2018)

It has to have a good 4K video implementation too. Canon are the only company who care so little about sub £7000 4K video. The 5DIV's 1.74x crop 4K with horrific motion JPEG was a good sign of this and the 6DII's lack of 4K all together was the final straw for most.

Spec's wise the A7RIII is the mirrorless benchmark.

14.8 Stops of DR
IBIS
FF 4K video and 1.5x sharper video
10 FPS
$3300

Canon need to come pretty close.


----------



## midluk (Jan 23, 2018)

Introducing a new FF mirrorless mount would likely kill EF mount lens sales and resale value. Canon could always introduce a new mount after giving its first FF mirroless an EF mount, but going back to EF after introducing a new mount would likely not work.

An additional benefit of a new shorter mount I can see would be the possibility to design tilt-shift lenses with a bigger maximum tilt (good for macro). But this would need a relatively large throat diameter which would not help with small size lenses and bodies.
And if new lenses are designed for it this might also allow for IBIS. But Canon would likely only allow it for new lenses and not for adapted EF lenses with an unsuitably small image circle, so this would be of limited benefit.

My preferred first step would be a DSLR with additional detachable EVF (or hybrid in one VF, but that is difficult without getting light losses resulting in a dim image). My main use of the EVF would be to get completely silent shooting with the mirror locked up and electronic shutter.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jan 23, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> why would canon follow Sony's mistake and repeat it?
> 
> For all the internet hype Sony has yet after 6 years of mirrorless managed to get back to the marketshare levels they were before they started this adventure.
> 
> ...



This is exactly why Canon should deliver an EF mount mirrorless body. 

First off, many pros are already shooting fast primes and workhorse zooms. The body size isn't a real factor relative to the glass they shoot on. If Canon released an EF mount mirrorless body targeted to pros, this audience will probably never have a pancake or 28-70 variable kit zoom on it. Size and weight isn't #1 on their list.

Secondly, Canon could deliver this camera optimized for the EF mount and not go the adapter route which has always resulted in sub-par performance with legacy glass even with Canon's own M series. On my Sony bodies, every time I go back and forth between a native Sony lens and a Canon lens, I have to juggle both the adapter and the lenses.

Lastly, no waiting for new glass. Canon's large repertoire of EF glass is immediately accessible. I use my 24-105 II a lot for outdoor event work, and I use it on my A9 as well because Sony didn't have a 24-105 lens at the time. If Canon brought out a new body tomorrow with a new mount, you are at least 2+ years out before you will even have a stable of decent focal lengths. Look at how long the other competitors took. Sony's 24-105 just came out a month ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> I am interested using FD lenses and companies make cameras for customers to satisfy their needs if ... IF ... it gives them the chance to make money.



If the needs in question applies to a sub-miniscule fraction of the target market, most companies don't give a damn about satisfying them.


----------



## photorockies (Jan 23, 2018)

Mirrorless cameras seem to have one and only one reason for existence--a small, lightweight alternative to bigger, heavier DSLRS. A slightly smaller camera that mounts heavy EF mounts is worthless to me. Want to mount an 85 1.4 or 500 f4? Buy a 5DMK4 or 1DXMKII or suck it up and use an adapter. The camera must have a new lightweight lens mount and should be designed with landscape and street shooters in mind. This means high image quality, a good viewfinder, and smaller lenses with f 2.8-f4 maximum apertures with perhaps one ultra wide angle at f2 for astro shooters. There should be no AA filter. A few controls such as ISO, exposure compensation and drive mode should be easy to set with buttons. The rest can be menu driven.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 23, 2018)

photorockies said:


> Mirrorless cameras seem to have one and only one reason for existence--a small, lightweight alternative to bigger, heavier DSLRS.



It is kind of funny how after a zillion threads on FF mirrorless - and 7 pages in this particular thread, people keep saying this. I can understand how many folks associate smaller with mirrorless, but that is because most mirrorless cameras are 4/3rds or aps-c size. At FF the camera (with lenses especially) will not be much smaller. The main reasons to choose mirrorless now seem to be: Seeing the exposure in the EVF, getting potentially many more FPS shooting, no AFMA for your lenses, among other things.

Four years ago, I would never have thought I would prefer mirrorless to a DSLR - especially due to the EVF vs. OVF. Now, my two cameras are mirrorless because once I could view exposure setting in the EVF, this became the single biggest reason to choose mirrorless. I don't care about fps, or all the video bells and whistles (focus peakig, zebras, etc.). This one feature is enough if a difference for me in choosing mirrorless.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

photorockies said:


> Mirrorless cameras seem to have one and only one reason for existence--a small, lightweight alternative to bigger, heavier DSLRS.



You are describing the current situation, but prior history does not always correspond to future directions. As mirrorless cameras first entered the ILC market, that market was completely dominated by Canon and Nikon dSLRs. I wonder how much of the current market dynamic has been driven by mirrorless manufacturers trying to penetrate the market by making something that dSLRs aren't. Recall that Sony used to make dSLRs, but abandoned them to focus on MILCs because they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon. Conversely, as the market leader Canon already has all of the market penetration they need (of course they'd like more, but…). They're not trying to take business away from the big boys, they _are_ the big boy. So, rather than make something different…they may be better off making something familiar, namely an MILC with the ergonomics of their dSLRs. At least, that could certainly apply to the full frame market segment. 

Just some food for thought.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 23, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?



Canon already has a patent for a new FF mirrorless mount and EF adapter, it came out 2 or 3 years back. There is a issue with a shorter lens to sensor distance that Canon has been trying to solve thru different designs for their dual pixel sensors, also a couple of patents discussing the issue.

The problem is the angle of the light rays toward the edges of the sensor means you lose even more light than the EF mount. To compensate, you must boost the gain of the outer photo sensors even more. That increases noise and reduces resolution. You definitely pay for the short flange back distance in IQ.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 23, 2018)

"It is kind of *funny* how after a zillion threads on FF mirrorless - and 7 pages in this particular thread, people keep saying this."

I know next to nothing on this topic but even I had to laugh. I read CR for the humour. 

Jack


----------



## rjbray01 (Jan 23, 2018)

dak723 said:


> photorockies said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless cameras seem to have one and only one reason for existence--a small, lightweight alternative to bigger, heavier DSLRS.
> ...



I too find it utterly extraordinary how many people are discussing the mount, size and weight. 

I would have thought it extremely likely that that Canon will release a camera which looks, feels and mounts something like the 5D/6D, simply to ensure that their customer base don't jump brand when they jump technology. 

Nothing to do with technical reasons : just plain commercial common sense.

The change will simply be from DSLR to either EVF-only or an outside chance of EFV+OVF. 

The challenge to Canon is provide a competitive mirrorless offering ... and, assuming no drop in image quality or other features, that will revolve around the quality of the viewfinder and its feature-advantages.

If they produce a camera which matches the 5D4 in every way but adds the advantage of being able to see (and zoom ?) the exposure in the EVF as you suggest (and perhaps flip between OVF/EVF if we are super-lucky) and add $200 to the price of a 5D4 then I think everyone will let out a sigh of relief. Any bells and whistles like eye-focus and some of us will be dancing !





And surely the main issue here is about the viewfinder !


----------



## Yasko (Jan 23, 2018)

photorockies said:


> Mirrorless cameras seem to have one and only one reason for existence--a small, lightweight alternative to bigger, heavier DSLRS. A slightly smaller camera that mounts heavy EF mounts is worthless to me. Want to mount an 85 1.4 or 500 f4? Buy a 5DMK4 or 1DXMKII or suck it up and use an adapter. The camera must have a new lightweight lens mount and should be designed with landscape and street shooters in mind. This means high image quality, a good viewfinder, and smaller lenses with f 2.8-f4 maximum apertures with perhaps one ultra wide angle at f2 for astro shooters. There should be no AA filter. A few controls such as ISO, exposure compensation and drive mode should be easy to set with buttons. The rest can be menu driven.



Well, buy a M5 oO.
FF is about image quality. Image quality comes with superior lens quality that allows for small DoF and with that also large apertures and low light capability with fast shutter speeds while keeping ISO low. Everyone knows that sensors get better and apertures may decrease, still bigger apertures are the non plus ultra and with that comes weight and a need for bodies that are usable with heavier lenses.

EF-M is compact and may offer more bright primes in the future... just not FF (yet).
Thats one way to see it...


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 23, 2018)

> A native EF mount The Canon EF lens lineup is the best in the business. No other camera manufacturer has the breadth and depth of lenses, nor the manufacturing power to churn out amazing glass time and time again. This is Canon’s biggest advantage over other manufacturers and will ensure they take the #1 spot in mirrorless camera sales without much marketing effort.
> 
> This is where I think Nikon is going to make a massive mistake if they really do require you to need an adapter to fit F mount glass.



So the #1 thing is to throw out all size / lens design advantages that a shorter flange distance could offer? So all you are doing is taking the space where the mirror is and replacing it with useless empty space? Then you might as well keep a mirror because having a bunch of empty space is stupid. There should absolutely be a new lens mount so that you can have something like the Sony EF 12-24 which is incredibly small and lightweight due to the advantages possible with that shorter lens mount. Because it's a Canon camera, you can have a native EF adapter that has *NO LOSS OF PERFORMANCE* with EF lenses because they can work out any kinks. Thus, people who want to just use EF glass can keep that adapter on forever and then you basically have what you are after with a bunch of advantages you won't use but other people will.



> No adapters! I hate adapters, and I even hate teleconverters. Any extra thingy I have to worry about to use gear is a non starter for me. If I think I have to add a teleconverter to a 500mm lens, then I’ll buy a 600mm lens. Thanks to Canon for the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x.



Your personal dislike of adapters is not a valid reason to throw away a whole pile of advantages and increased capabilities made readily available by short flange distance.



> Lens adapters are to solve a unique problem, and I don’t mind them if I really have a need to use an FD lens or a Nikon lens on my Canon camera. But if I’m using a modern Canon lens, it better fit without an adapter on my modern Canon camera.



This section reads as "I don't see much use for adapting other lenses so why should anyone else?" which is frankly baffling. Again, I don't see why a native Canon made EF adapter could not be done such that full native EF lens performance you are used to is maintained, so your complaint seems moot.



> Adapters are lazy.


Nothing could be lazier than the sentiment that having to attach and never remove an EF adapter once to meet your own personal narrow view of what a Canon mirrorless camera would be is reason enough to throw out all the potential that having a different lens mount could bring.



> Size and weight? Is this really why we want mirrorless cameras? I’d argue going too small is actually bad for usability when attaching larger, heavy lenses. Attach a Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II to a Sony A7R with an adapter. It’s all sorts of awkward to shoot with and you get odd fatigue in your hands, wrist and forearms. If you’re adding a battery grip to your mirroless camera, then you’re already admitting you don’t care about size and to some degree, weight.
> If you remove the mirror and shutter assembly, you’re going to naturally reduce weight.



If you keep the flange distance at EF mount, then you're not going to gain much in size reduction. Sure you can save on some weight possibly by no prism and mirror, but then you are going to have an electronic viewfinder that will balance that out some. I think the gains would be minimal, just like an A7r3 is not *that* much lighter than DSLR bodies. Also, you know mirrorless cameras have a shutter still, right?



> Here’s something for you, a Canon EOS Rebel SL2 weighs less than a Sony A7R with a mirror and shutter assembly. Yes, the build quality is different, but I’m sure Canon can come up with something to make a camera with their great durability and amazing weather sealing.


Whatever. I don't think the Rebel is a worthy point of comparison on many levels. In the end we won't know what a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera weighs because hopefully Canon wont' make one with that lens mount.



> EVF The EVF has to be the best in the business. Period. No skimping on parts and manufacturing here Canon.


Ok sure. I'm sure Canon will listen, just like they have been so attentive about sensor quality for all these years compared to the competition.



> It’s rare I give my opinion on gear, but I’m actually quite opinionated on what Canon needs to do with a full frame professional mirrorless camera.



So basically you want a 5D IV let's say, slightly smaller, with and EVF instead of a mirror/prism..... and that's it. No thanks. Given that after all this time Canon still only has *one* modern sensor (5D4) I'm not harboring high hopes that Canon will produce something amazing.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 23, 2018)

The reason we will see a mirrorless FF body is that they are cheaper to make, and sell for a higher price.

The cost to manufacture a product like this is basically one of part count, the electronics and sensor are the same, but the mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, sub mirror lens, AF sensor, focus screen, eyepiece all go away, only the EVF is added.

So, if there is a market, money is out there waiting to be scooped up. We will see one because customers want it, its just a matter of what will sell best. Canon is very good at figuring that out.


----------



## geekyrocketguy (Jan 23, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> > A native EF mount The Canon EF lens lineup is the best in the business. No other camera manufacturer has the breadth and depth of lenses, nor the manufacturing power to churn out amazing glass time and time again. This is Canon’s biggest advantage over other manufacturers and will ensure they take the #1 spot in mirrorless camera sales without much marketing effort.
> >
> > This is where I think Nikon is going to make a massive mistake if they really do require you to need an adapter to fit F mount glass.
> 
> ...



Kurt is 100% right. Having a DSLR without the mirror gives NO ADVANTAGES. A mirrorless camera using a new mount but WITH AN ADAPTER enables both new, small, sharp lenses, and also access to the legacy lenses in the EF mount.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 23, 2018)

"Kurt is 100% right. Having a DSLR without the mirror gives NO ADVANTAGES."

Even I know this statement is false, i.e. shutter noise. What is clear though is that one flavour will not suit everyone's needs. Sure a very small camera is great for some situations, but not for others, it's not one size fits all.

It will be very interesting to see what happens.

Jack


----------



## slclick (Jan 23, 2018)

It's not what we want. It seems only Mt. Spokane has grasped that. (Although they better make it big but light because it's what I want.)


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 23, 2018)

If the mirrorless will be a high-end/pro model i don't see Canon using adapters, only a native EF mount or a new mount. Adapters have tolerance problems, they are not a professional solution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> So the #1 thing is to throw out all size / lens design advantages that a shorter flange distance could offer? So all you are doing is taking the space where the mirror is and replacing it with useless empty space?



Well, empty space helps with heat dissipation...but it's not like that's been a problem for Sony. Oh, wait.....

Or maybe some of that space could hold a high-capacity battery. No, that's also useless, Sony's a7 series is renowned for excellent battery life. Oops, I did it again......

In any case, welcome to the forums!


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 23, 2018)

blackcoffee17 said:


> If the mirrorless will be a high-end/pro model i don't see Canon using adapters, only a native EF mount or a new mount. Adapters have tolerance problems, they are not a professional solution.



Then if Canon wants to offer an EF mount mirrorless body then that should be only one possible option, and not the only option. Canon could have engineers solve tolerance problems by having a very secure locking mount for an adapter, if they so chose. I don't think a native Canon to Canon adapter made by Canon should be regarded with the same ire as cheap cross-platform mounts made in China rightly are with regard to tolerances. And regardless, there are plenty of people that use adapters of all sorts of lenses successfully. I have not had problems adapting my Canon glass onto my Sony bodies, but I also don't put unrealistic expectations on cross platform adaptability either.



neuroanatomist said:


> kurt765 said:
> 
> 
> > So the #1 thing is to throw out all size / lens design advantages that a shorter flange distance could offer? So all you are doing is taking the space where the mirror is and replacing it with useless empty space?
> ...



Battery issue has been addressed in newer cameras (a9, a7r3) that now exist prior to any Canon mirrorless camera. Also, I'm not sure what heat problems you speak of for most people who use Sony cameras. I have never had any issue with mine, but I'm also not using still cameras as video cameras all the time either. I have several Sony camera bodies and used to be a Canon only shooter. On a recent week long trip I didn't even take my 5D4 out of the bag. Based on my own experience, I see nothing in a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera concept presented here that is going to woo me back full on to Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> Based on my own experience, I see nothing in a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera concept presented here that is going to woo me back full on to Canon.



It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.



So Canon wins as they have pretty much lost a customer (me)? Not sure how losing customers is a win for them. I can think of about 10 people that I know who are also pretty much former Canon shooters now shooting mostly or completely Sony mirrorless, but if none of that matters to Canon then good for them. May they continue to lose customers until such a time as it drives them to make better products.


----------



## geekyrocketguy (Jan 23, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Even I know this statement is false, i.e. shutter noise. What is clear though is that one flavour will not suit everyone's needs. Sure a very small camera is great for some situations, but not for others, it's not one size fits all.
> 
> It will be very interesting to see what happens.
> 
> Jack


If you want a quiet shutter, you can accomplish that with a current camera just by using Live View. You don't need to entirely get rid of the mirror.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2018)

geekyrocketguy said:


> If you want a quiet shutter, you can accomplish that with a current camera just by using Live View. You don't need to entirely get rid of the mirror.



This isn't really a valid argument. You can't look through a viewfinder if you are shooting in live view, so with a DSLR you have to choose between silent shutter and viewfinder, you can't have both.


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.
> ...



Frequently we run into that same issue...where a forum member believes their choices should mirror Canon's marketing teams strategy. Another is when tiny slices of the pie chart believe their experiences represent Canon's customer base. Regionally as well, this logic can be applied time and time again. It may be ego, it may be one's standing in their local photographic community, whatever, it's a lot of assuming. 

Why don't they make it the way I want (Stupid Canon) This comes up in a multitude of ways, i.e. 4k, ergonomics, frame rate, codec, battery life/size, size and weight...on and on and before you know it some folks here change their profile picture as a rallying call to a particular future product. 

They could lose us all, each and every forum member and everyone we all know who owns Canon and they would still have global market dominance. 

Use what you want, wish for what you want but the whining? The proclamations that some know better than Canon? 
-Kickstarter is waiting for you and we all cannot wait to see what do it all camera you've dreamed up for us to back. (Is that how we got the Lytro?)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.
> ...



Sorry, but your personal opinion is contradicted by reality. If it's any consolation, you're far from unique on these forums, in that respect. Plenty of members believe their opinion, and in many cases they, themselves, represent the majority of the ILC market. Of course, you could differentiate yourself from the rest of them by accepting reality – many here can't seem to make that leap, preferring to exist in their own, private world where their opinion is universal. 

In this specific case, in spite of you and the 10 other people you know who've switched from Canon to Sony, over the past few years Canon has _gained_ ILC market share. Considering just mirrorless...in Japan (the largest geographical market for MILCs and the only one for which we have brand-specific market data), Canon is #2 in sales...behind Olympus, with Sony at #3. 

Hopefully those data provide some needed perspective on the current ILC market, and the relative importance (by which I mean lack thereof) of Sony FF MILCs therein.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Jan 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> geekyrocketguy said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a quiet shutter, you can accomplish that with a current camera just by using Live View. You don't need to entirely get rid of the mirror.
> ...



This issue could easily be resolved with a LCD loupe. Most cinematographers already shoot this way, if they even want their camera "to their eye" at all. And if you think it's too impractical to have such a large thing at the back of the camera, there are certainly ways to shrink it and still allow the eye to focus on the screen. That's how an EVF works already.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jan 24, 2018)

Matthew Saville said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > geekyrocketguy said:
> ...



I definitely don't shoot this way on mirrorless. I simply put my eye up to the EVF which replicates the UX on the back LCD. On a DSLR with a loupe, you will also lose the operation of the touch screen, meaning it needs a quick disconnect or flipaway obstructing the operation of the camera in VF mode.


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2018)

If Canon releases a FF mirrorless, Canon will still keep producing FF DSLRs with EF mounts as long as people are willing to buy them, which in my opinion while be quite a while. So, there will continue to be new cameras for sale that can use EF lenses without adapters.

If Canon's FF mirrorless has a new mount that requires an adapter to use EF lenses, then new mount would have value only to the extent that Canon is producing new lenses that capitalize on the advantages of the new mount. To get value from the new mount, customers would have to purchase these hypothetical new lenses that capitalize on the new mount. A suite of these hypothetical lenses would no doubt be quite pricey, so people with EF lenses would tend to buy another DSLR rather than a FF mirrorless, or simply stick with what they have. 


I think Canon's first FF mirrorless will have an EF mount.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2018)

slclick said:


> kurt765 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Good points. Adding: too many forum members fail to understand either churn rate or diminishing returns.

There will naturally be some churn in any business, especially one as large as Canon. Someone may know 10-15 people who have left Canon, but there are another 10-15 leaving Sony for Canon. It's not a one-way street and some customers switch back and forth. It's the aggregate numbers that matter and the evidence is pretty clear that Canon is holding it's own in the aggregate. 

People also fail to understand the diminishing returns of trying to retain every customer. Canon has to decide if keeping kurt765 is worth the investment. Some customers just aren't worth it. 

Many of us here on the forum are loyal customers that Canon can keep so long as they keep up their quality and service and offer interesting products to us on a regular basis. Those who are disgruntled with Canon and demanding products specific to their personal wants may not be worth retaining. If they can keep 98% of their customers happy with an investment of $X dollars, and it will cost 3 x $X to capture the remaining 2%, it's just not worth the added investment. It's not personal, it's just business.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 24, 2018)

What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful?

A mirror.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


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



if true, the parameters are very sub-optimal, yes. It would be repeating the same design Nikon may want to repeat the same prncipal design flaw that has riddled their F-mount all along ... 
Nikon F: FFD 46.5mm / throat 44mm 
Canon EF: 44 mm / *54 *mm 
... backwards compatibility at all costs ... has a high price. 

Am very interested to see what Nikon really will bring ... especially since their audience seems to have even more "adapter-angst" than some Canonites.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > kurt765 said:
> ...



Well I am a loyal customer who has spent beaucoup dinero on Canon cameras and associated paraphernalia, but if Canon doesn't start selling _interesting_ EF-M lenses, there stands a very good chance that I will become disgruntled.


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 24, 2018)

slclick said:


> They could lose us all, each and every forum member and everyone we all know who owns Canon and they would still have global market dominance.
> 
> Use what you want, wish for what you want but the whining? The proclamations that some know better than Canon?
> -Kickstarter is waiting for you and we all cannot wait to see what do it all camera you've dreamed up for us to back. (Is that how we got the Lytro?)



When arguing about the best tools to use, Canon's marketshare is a stupid argument. You should use the best tools for what you want to do. For me for quite awhile now Canon has not made the best tools for my photographic purposes, so I got the best tool elsewhere. Why would anyone not want to use the best tools?

I guess my personal experience is different because I have found that I can't use the market share slider in Lightroom to recover the extra couple of stops of latitude I've been enjoying by using a different camera body. That's because market share does not improve the amount of data captured in my photos. Canon's market share doesn't pay my bills. But, having more data captured with every Sony shutter click has improved my images and reduced the time I spend processing the raw files and has virtually eliminated my need for using grad ND filters. THAT time savings is worth something to me.

I responded to the original post because I was baffled by the idea that a mirrorless camera to be successful has to be literally a DSLR with full-time live view EVF instead of a mirror and no other real changes. Since I have seen in my own experience how there are benefits to a shorter lens mount, I don't really know why you would want to just throw that away other than laziness because the OP can't be bothered with a native adapter. And furthermore, if everything Canon does is perfect because of their market share, then why even bother talking about what Canon needs to do to make a successful mirrorless camera because clearly the god king Canon knows best in all things and will bestow to its flock the ultimate camera they could ever want even if it has an old technology sensor like the 6D 2.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Jan 24, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> Matthew Saville said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



So, literally all you're giving up is the touchscreen. Which is another "didn't know you needed it until you tried it" feature, of course.

But, fair enough. Touchscreens are kinda useful for moving an AF point around, especially if you don't have a good AF point "stick".

Either way, you could just go back to the tradition of interchangeable viewfinder, something which was accepted as a professional necessity back in the days of the Nikon F3 and F4. This is essentially what the OP is asking for. Zero benefits of mirrorless aside from the VF alone. Everything else, even IBIS, (coughPentaxcough) ...is possible in a DSLR.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > They could lose us all, each and every forum member and everyone we all know who owns Canon and they would still have global market dominance.
> ...


I'm glad you found what you want for your purposes.



> When arguing about the best tools to use, Canon's marketshare is a stupid argument.


I think you misunderstand the argument about market share.. 



> Why would anyone not want to use the best tools?


Ah, here's the problem: why do you assume that the best tool for you is the best tool for everyone else? Each person makes their own decisions about what's best for them in terms of price, features, lenses, accessories, etc. Lots of people choose to buy Canon gear, presumably because it suits their needs. This doesn't mean it suits your needs, so you can buy whatever works for you. So market share doesn't prove any objective truth about a camera; rather, it's an indicator that a lot of people believe it suits their needs.



> recover the extra couple of stops of latitude I've been enjoying by using a different camera body.



Maybe other people don't need that feature.



> That's because market share does not improve the amount of data captured in my photos.


No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.



> improved my images and reduced the time I spend processing the raw files and has virtually eliminated my need for using grad ND filters. THAT time savings is worth something to me.



It sounds like you chose the right gear for you. That doesn't mean it's the right gear for other people.



> god king Canon knows best in all things



Not at all, they know what sells better than Nikon, Sony and all the others. I guess I have a question for you: if Sony gear is better not just for you but for everyone, Sony should have "won" by now, why haven't they?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 24, 2018)

Oh my, some people are just too logical, it must drive the dodo birds nuts. These discussions about what "I want" just go on and on and on and ...

Jack


----------



## MrToes (Jan 24, 2018)

FF, EF Mount and super low light beast!?


----------



## Matthew Saville (Jan 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> kurt765 said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Congratulations, it will be logic such as yours that eventually turns Canon into the next Kodak.

Seriously, true story: I actually met a silicon valley guy who did some consulting for Kodak back in the late 90's, when digital cameras were just barely getting started. The CEO of Kodak had a nearly identical attitude towards the potential of digital. Saying, basically, "people don't need that; we're going to stick to what we're best at, nothing could ever disrupt our market share, etc. etc..."

Here's what it seems many Canon fankids don't realize: even if you're happy with Canon's dynamic range, or whatever else it is, it is still in your best interest to encourage them to improve at roughly the same pace as the competition.

Until the latest Canons with on-chip ADC, Canon had a decade-plus of NEAR-ZERO improvement in dynamic range. In fact numerous bodies took steps backward, according to the taboo witchcraft known as lab measurements. Even now, they have a few sensor generations left to go before they could possibly catch up.

It may not be what you want to hear, but the truth is that Canon tries less hard to stay competitive, because they have the most market share. And users are doing a disservice to Canon when they make excuses for the shortcomings.


----------



## infared (Jan 24, 2018)

I think we need two PROFESSIONAL FF Canon mirrorless camera bodies. BOTH need to compete with and exceed the top Sony cameras. One needs to have an EF Mount and be COMPLETELY compatible with current EF lenses...the other needs to have a new mount to take advantage of the shorter flange distance and have a new line of FF Mirrorless lenses moving forward and growing. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2018)

geekyrocketguy said:


> Kurt is 100% right. Having a DSLR without the mirror gives NO ADVANTAGES. A mirrorless camera using a new mount but WITH AN ADAPTER enables both new, small, sharp lenses, and also access to the legacy lenses in the EF mount.



he's 100% wrong if that was his point, i really didnt think it was.
a mirrorless camera regardless of mount offers a weight, manufacturing complexity, and size advantages. Not to mention AF, focus peaking, zebras, EVF styled live histograms, a nicer looking in viewer level and a mydrid of other usability improvements.

Compare the A99 against the A900. EVF versus non EVF camera. which one is smaller?
functionality and ergonomically the same, but the A99 is smaller in every dimension and weighs 100g less.

that would take a 5D Mark IV styled mirrorless down to around 790g. which takes it down to around the same weight as a 6D, but with the 5D Mark IV build quality. No one would mind that at all. it would take it to within 140g of the A7RIII that lacks sealing and build quality compared to the 5D Mark IV. So what's the problem here?

if it's a 5D styled camera body, having an EF mount or not having an EF mount makes little difference to the advantages of mirrorless as canon would see it.

they have minimal in the way of patent portfolio for mirrorless full frame lenses. All their lens portfolio is for lenses with a 40mm backfocus.

so what advantage is it for Canon to go with a shorter mount? None. except millions upon millions of additional R&D coming up with new lens designs and making sure they don't trip over someone else's patent.

Canon could make an A7R III sized camera using the EF mount. that isn't a problem. it would have the same cramped horrid ergonomics as said A7R as well.

the ergonomic necessity of the camera will determine the size and weight far more than the mount ever would.

also .. legacy lenses to the EF system. where do people come up with this? I can adapt M42, nikkor, OM, C/Y mount,etc already to the EF mount, I don't have to switch. there's more than enough legacy glass already available, and old legacy rangefinder glass rarely works on full frame mirrorless cameras because of incident light angles.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 24, 2018)

Here we go again on DR. I never shoot low ISO as a rule due to higher shutter speeds and marginal light and every camera I've considered has the same or maybe even worse DR than Canon at my typical ISOs. Am I supposed to get all worked up about DR and abandon Canon. It's self focused reasoning that's being exhibited. 

Get what is best for you and don't worry about Canon going under. Then quit posting doom and gloom about Canon. If they go under so be it, I don't have any shares.

Jack


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.


Ignorance is bliss I guess. If you don't know what you're missing then you won't miss it.



> Ah, here's the problem: why do you assume that the best tool for you is the best tool for everyone else? Each person makes their own decisions about what's best for them in terms of price, features, lenses, accessories, etc. Lots of people choose to buy Canon gear, presumably because it suits their needs. This doesn't mean it suits your needs, so you can buy whatever works for you. So market share doesn't prove any objective truth about a camera; rather, it's an indicator that a lot of people believe it suits their needs.





> It sounds like you chose the right gear for you. That doesn't mean it's the right gear for other people.



Fair enough, but when talking about future products there's no reason not to examine what the competition is doing and maybe hope for some of those features to make it over and improve the system we're talking about. Should Canon not look at what Sony is doing and adopt any of those ideas for theirs? The OP says no. I think that is baffling, because most of the rejected ideas are literally the major benefits for having a mirrorless system in the first place.



> Not at all, they know what sells better than Nikon, Sony and all the others. I guess I have a question for you: if Sony gear is better not just for you but for everyone, Sony should have "won" by now, why haven't they?


Once people are invested in a given system, it's expensive to switch, so when faced with other systems having some features that might be objectively better (like sensors for instance) there may be many reasons for not switching. It's not unique to cameras of course. On a smaller scale, if I switched phone systems I'd have to re-purchase all my apps for instance. What a hassle. The hassle has to be worth it and in my case it certainly has been with regard to what camera body I use. What sells the most doesn't automatically equate to the best. And again, in the context of this discussion of a new mirrorless Canon camera and what it needs to be successful, why would you not want to include features that competitors have in their products that are objectively better? (or even from within their own line of products for that matter).


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2018)

Matthew Saville said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations, it will be logic such as yours that eventually turns Canon into the next Kodak.


This is an empty assertion.



> The CEO of Kodak had a nearly identical attitude towards the potential of digital. Saying, basically, "people don't need that; we're going to stick to what we're best at, nothing could ever disrupt our market share, etc. etc..."



If you'll notice, there was a recent thread about the fact that Canon has been asking their customers what they want in a mirrorless camera, and this current thread is about the soon-to-be released mirrorless FF. So your example of Kodak is meaningless: Canon is doing precisely what they should do: selling the current market what it wants, while simultaneously keeping an eye on the future.



> even if you're happy with Canon's dynamic range, or whatever else it is, it is still in your best interest to encourage them to improve at roughly the same pace as the competition.


No argument from me nor, I suspect, from anyone else on the forum. You and others fail to understand the simple message: buy what you want, and the market (in aggregate) will send the appropriate message to the manufacturers. Whingeing on these forums will do nothing.



> Until the latest Canons with on-chip ADC, Canon had a decade-plus of NEAR-ZERO improvement in dynamic range.


And apparently it cost them no profits.




> It may not be what you want to hear, but the truth is that Canon tries less hard to stay competitive, because they have the most market share.


You misunderstand: they try less-hard to invest money in features their customers don't care to pay for. Personally, I'd love more DR, less noise and more MP in a cheaper, higher-quality body. But that wish, plus $5.00, will get me a ridiculous cup of coffee at Starbucks. Complaining doesn't help. Buy what works for you.



> And users are doing a disservice to Canon when they make excuses for the shortcomings.


No one is making excuses, we're simply describing how business works in the real world.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> When arguing about the best tools to use, Canon's marketshare is a stupid argument. You should use the best tools for what you want to do. For me for quite awhile now Canon has not made the best tools for my photographic purposes, so I got the best tool elsewhere. Why would anyone not want to use the best tools?



Sorry, I didn't realize that some Supreme Being designated you the arbiter and sole determiner of what constitutes 'the best tools'. Or maybe you just decided on your own to push your Lightroom God slider all the way to +100.

: : :


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.
> ...


Why do you assume they're ignorant? 



> Ah, here's the problem: why do you assume that the best tool for you is the best tool for everyone else? Each person makes their own decisions about what's best for them in terms of price, features, lenses, accessories, etc. Lots of people choose to buy Canon gear, presumably because it suits their needs. This doesn't mean it suits your needs, so you can buy whatever works for you. So market share doesn't prove any objective truth about a camera; rather, it's an indicator that a lot of people believe it suits their needs.





> It sounds like you chose the right gear for you. That doesn't mean it's the right gear for other people.





> Fair enough, but when talking about future products there's no reason not to examine what the competition is doing and maybe hope for some of those features to make it over and improve the system we're talking about. Should Canon not look at what Sony is doing and adopt any of those ideas for theirs? The OP says no. I think that is baffling, because most of the rejected ideas are literally the major benefits for having a mirrorless system in the first place.


I think they should look to their customers and to the competition, then build what they think will sell.



> > Not at all, they know what sells better than Nikon, Sony and all the others. I guess I have a question for you: if Sony gear is better not just for you but for everyone, Sony should have "won" by now, why haven't they?
> 
> 
> Once people are invested in a given system, it's expensive to switch, so when faced with other systems having some features that might be objectively better (like sensors for instance) there may be many reasons for not switching. It's not unique to cameras of course. On a smaller scale, if I switched phone systems I'd have to re-purchase all my apps for instance. What a hassle. The hassle has to be worth it and in my case it certainly has been with regard to what camera body I use.


This is right: it has to be worth it. A lot of people have decided it's not. It's good that you chose the right gear for yourself; others are free to do that for themselves.



> What sells the most doesn't automatically equate to the best.


No one said it did. The assertion is that the one that sells the best is the one most people think suits their needs best.



> And again, in the context of this discussion of a new mirrorless Canon camera and what it needs to be successful, why would you not want to include features that competitors have in their products that are objectively better? (or even from within their own line of products for that matter).



I guess it depends on what you mean by "successful." To me that word means that it sells well. I think what you're asking is not what would make it successful, but what would make me buy it. I'll tell what that is: tracks BIF at least as well as the 7D2, great EVF, a bit more DR and less noise, and good throughput. Of course, it also has to fit my budget.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

Matthew Saville said:


> Seriously, true story: I actually met a silicon valley guy who did some consulting for Kodak back in the late 90's, when digital cameras were just barely getting started. The CEO of Kodak had a nearly identical attitude towards the potential of digital. Saying, basically, "people don't need that; we're going to stick to what we're best at, nothing could ever disrupt our market share, etc. etc..."



Seriously, true story: I actually saw a turtle yawn once. I even took a picture of it. Oh, sorry...I thought it was share your irrelevant story hour.

Film to digital = paradigm shift
Flip phone to smartphone = paradigm shift (just trying to forestall the inevitable Nokia reference)
ILC with mirror to ILC without mirror = a minor variation (and it's not even clear that it's an improvement at this point)




Matthew Saville said:


> Until the latest Canons with on-chip ADC, Canon had a decade-plus of NEAR-ZERO improvement in dynamic range. In fact numerous bodies took steps backward, according to the taboo witchcraft known as lab measurements. Even now, they have a few sensor generations left to go before they could possibly catch up.



Well, Nikon sensors started beating Canon sensors in DxOMark testing back in 2010. Then Sony started doing it, too. But who cared? Well, you did, apparently. I heard some guy here knew 10 other guys who cared, too. And jrista cared, cared so much that he said the 5DIII delivered poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ. But the rest of the world went right on buying Canon, such that Canon gained market share, to the point where they now hold ~50% of the ILC market.

Seems you're another one of our forum members who thinks their own personal needs and beliefs represent those of the majority, despite all evidence to the contrary. 




Matthew Saville said:


> It may not be what you want to hear, but the truth is...



Now that's ironic, a post like that then you start talking about truth. Well done!


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, I didn't realize that some Supreme Being designated you the arbiter and sole determiner of what constitutes 'the best tools'. Or maybe you just decided on your own to push your Lightroom God slider all the way to +100.



Some things are objectively true and scientifically measurable, like sensor dynamic range. Then there are facts like "a shorter lens mount can allow you to adapt almost any lens" that are also objectively true. Perhaps you have not noticed that there's a discussion here about what sorts of things should be in the rumored Canon full frame mirrorless. I have expressed opinions in response to the original post and others that differ from those arguments. You are of course welcome to agree or disagree. And at no point did I say that I am the "sole determiner of what constitutes 'the best tools' as my argument only used my own experience as an example. But in the case of your post, you have turned the "contribute to conversation" slider down to -100. Well done.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Jan 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> And apparently it cost them no profits.


Sure, I know a lot of die-hard Canon shooters who will never switch. But most of them are still very pissed at Canon for not being as competitive as they could be.

And, more importantly, I have truly lost count of how many Canon shooters I've met online and known in person who have dumped Canon for either Nikon or Sony. And, I've met hundreds of photographers in person, and thousands online, as a photography educator.

Their profit margins might be healthy, but they're still flushing money down the toilet. They'll very likely survive the mirrorless revolution, especially if they get things under way this year. But you're still missing my point: your dismissal of the massive volume of ship-jumpers is not doing Canon any favors. Instead, why not make fewer excuses, and encourage them to do better more often? What's the worst that could happen?


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > .





> Some things are objectively true and scientifically measurable, like sensor dynamic range.


True, but whether that's important for a particular photographer's needs is subjective, as is the question of whether it's worth the cost.




> Then there are facts like "a shorter lens mount can allow you to adapt almost any lens" that are also objectively true.


It also changes the way the optics must be designed. I'll leave to others to explain the pros/cons of that.

While certain measurable qualities may be objective, their importance to a particular photographer is decidedly subjective.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I didn't realize that some Supreme Being designated you the arbiter and sole determiner of what constitutes 'the best tools'. Or maybe you just decided on your own to push your Lightroom God slider all the way to +100.
> ...



When we started this discussion, I used the phrase 'everyone wins' because you got the gear that best meets your needs and Canon sells more cameras anyway. 

According to you, people should use the best tools and market share arguments are stupid in that context. I'd argue that people actually _do_ choose the best tools to meet their needs. Canon's market share means that the majority believe that Canon best meets their needs. But you stated that people who choose Canon are bllissfully ignorant, implying they are not using the best tools. Ergo, you have determined what tools are best...and anyone who thinks differently is ignorant. Sounds like you need a metacognition checkup.


----------



## In-The-Dark (Jan 24, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> In-The-Dark said:
> 
> 
> > mirrorless eliminates the need for AFMA (am i correct?)
> ...



well, that was 4 years ago, i think, Re: the EM-1.
i've read somewhere about the canon M5 not having AFMA in it's menu, so i assumed there's no need for AFMA.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

Matthew Saville said:


> Sure, I know a lot of die-hard Canon shooters who will never switch. But most of them are still very pissed at Canon for not being as competitive as they could be.
> 
> And, more importantly, I have truly lost count of how many Canon shooters I've met online and known in person who have dumped Canon for either Nikon or Sony. And, I've met hundreds of photographers in person, and thousands online, as a photography educator.
> 
> Their profit margins might be healthy, but they're still flushing money down the toilet. They'll very likely survive the mirrorless revolution, especially if they get things under way this year. But you're still missing my point: your dismissal of the massive volume of ship-jumpers is not doing Canon any favors. Instead, why not make fewer excuses, and encourage them to do better more often? What's the worst that could happen?



Seriously? A massive volume of ship-jumpers? Canon has been _gaining_ market share, further increasing the margin by which they lead the ILC market. 

Very likely survive the mirrorless revolution? In 5 years, Canon went from having no mirrorless cameras to being #2 in Japan (the largest MILC market), and according to knowledgable sources (e.g. Thom Hogan) Canon is now #2 globally. And that's with an average of one new body per year and only 7 native lenses, a small fraction of the development resources they put into the multiple lines of dSLRs. That pretty stronly suggests they'll do more than 'likely survive', if they do decide to seriously invest in mirrorless, they'll likely end up leading that market segment, too.


And, more importantly, I have truly lost count of how many people I've seen on this forum with heads so thick they don't even feel it when reality smacks them on the pate.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2018)

Matthew Saville said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > And apparently it cost them no profits.
> ...





> But you're still missing my point: your dismissal of the massive volume of ship-jumpers


Can you cite your sources on the ship-jumpers? As the old adage says, _the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."_


----------



## Talys (Jan 24, 2018)

Matthew Saville said:


> Congratulations, it will be logic such as yours that eventually turns Canon into the next Kodak.
> 
> Seriously, true story: I actually met a silicon valley guy who did some consulting for Kodak back in the late 90's, when digital cameras were just barely getting started. The CEO of Kodak had a nearly identical attitude towards the potential of digital. Saying, basically, "people don't need that; we're going to stick to what we're best at, nothing could ever disrupt our market share, etc. etc..."
> 
> ...



There's a huge difference between Canon and Kodak: people abandoned Kodak, while Canon's market share has remained steady or grown, year over year.

It may not be what you want to hear, but different people have different priorities, and a lot of folks may not care a whole lot about what's important to you. By your accounting, Canon makes inferior cameras today and they've made vastly inferior cameras for more than a decade. Now, I don't ascribe this success on Canon's part to the theory that most people are sheep and buy terrible products year after year, nor do I buy into the likelihood that a minority is much smarter and that everyone should buy the products they feel are better. While that might help some people sleep better at night, it's unlikely to be true.

Instead, I think that Canon builds a system with options that form a combination of features and prices that hit various sweet spots. I, for one, made a conscious decision to switch _to_ Canon, from Nikon, after a very brief flirtation with MFT. I have never regretted it.

If I had different priorities -- if I cared about the carry size of the body, if I cared about video, if I didn't despise electronic viewfinders, if I didn't mind going through three batteries or more a day, and if I didn't enjoy the mountains of third party accessories that are available -- I'm sure I would probably want a Sony. If my primary goal was to have a DSLR that had a sensor that would let me play boost X or Y or Z in post, I'd probably run out and buy a Nikon D850.

But my priorities go the other way. To me, Light >> Composition >> Lens > Sensor. If I slotted ergonomics and build quality in there, I'd put it at least equivalent in importance to sensor; maybe even as important as the optics. Quite frankly, every single one of my favorite photos could have been taken with a 2008 camera using what was good glass at that time. 

What makes them my favorite photos is the lighting, the drama, the subject, the moment, the story. It surely isn't the megapixels or dynamic range or corner sharpness or a zillion other metrics used to score equipment these days. In my priorities, the improvements in strobes and flashes and light modifiers has done more for me than the improvements in sensors. For heavens sake, I wouldn't even trade 2 steps of DR for Fusion arca-swiss plates.

Now, I'm happy with all those people who have different priorities than me. Go buy that Sony and shoot 4k video, or have an awesome little package that allows you to cut out a tiny part of a photo and go wild in Lightroom to turn it into a pretty decent image. I'm happy for you; truly, without any sarcasm, I think that every additional person who enjoys photography is a win.


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> kurt765 said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


In the context of a new Canon camera, why would you not want the best technology available in that new camera. So for the new mirrorless camera, that would mean a sensor of the class of the 5D IV or Sony sensors. That is, unless you don't know what you are missing, in which case you are ignorant of the increased available quality of data capture or you just like the reduced dynamic range for reasons that completely escape me.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 24, 2018)

Matthew Saville said:


> Congratulations, it will be logic such as yours that eventually turns Canon into the next Kodak.
> 
> Seriously, true story: I actually met a silicon valley guy who did some consulting for Kodak back in the late 90's, when digital cameras were just barely getting started. The CEO of Kodak had a nearly identical attitude towards the potential of digital. Saying, basically, "people don't need that; we're going to stick to what we're best at, nothing could ever disrupt our market share, etc. etc..."



I just love these BS Kodak stories. It's pretty odd then, based on the above comment, that it was Kodak that was the leader in digital sensor technology in the 1990s. That at least as late as 2005, they had the highest market share of digital camera sales in the USA, and were 3rd globally.



> By BEN DOBBIN
> The Associated Press
> Thursday, November 10, 2005; 9:09 PM
> 
> ...



Kodak also made the first commercially available DSLR camera in 1991. They manufactured the first DSLRs sold under the Canon brand name (the Canon D2000 and D6000). 

So, no, Kodak was not caught napping, nor were they slow to jump into a new technology or new innovations. Kodak's DSLRs were eventually surpassed when Nikon and then Canon got into the race. (Kodak was there first, how about that!) What Kodak didn't do was make lenses. And as we've seen, no one so far has succeeded in making a camera system for someone else's lenses (and Kodak chose the Nikon mount for their first affordable DSLR). Most of their digital cameras were cheaper point and shoots - and we know where that market went.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > kurt765 said:
> ...



Having bought and returned both the Sony A7 and A7 II, I am not ignorant as to what Sony brings to the table. But the "increased data capture" was negligible in the type of shots I take (daylight, landscapes) and the far better color rendition and tonal curves of the Canon sensor and processor were quite evident to me. Not to mention the better ergonomics and better lens portfolio. But despite all that, I do not consider you ignorant because you fail to see the many advantages to the Canon cameras. I do not consider you ignorant because you fail to see that the short flange distance is only an advantage for wide angle lenses and is a definite disadvantage to lenses of longer focal lengths. You have chosen the tools that work best for you, I understand that. Why can't you understand that those of us choosing a Canon camera are doing the same.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > I am interested using FD lenses and companies make cameras for customers to satisfy their needs* if ... IF ... *it gives them the chance to make money.
> ...



That was the reason for the word if marked in red ... but: Taking out sub-minuscle fractions of posts doesn't help to show the whole picture about the question "Adapter or no adapter?" ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...



It seems pretty clear you were implying that using FD lenses is part of Canon's decision tree regarding FF MILC mount choice, and if you honestly believe that...wow. Just...wow.  ??? :'(


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 24, 2018)

infared said:


> I think we need *two* PROFESSIONAL FF Canon mirrorless camera bodies. BOTH need to compete with and exceed the top Sony cameras. One needs to have an EF Mount and be COMPLETELY compatible with current EF lenses...the other needs to have a new mount to take advantage of the shorter flange distance and have a new line of FF Mirrorless lenses moving forward and growing. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me.



This is at least very diplomatic and should help to keep the blood pressure low / avoid heart attacks and headaches 

But maybe this is the right way if they do not differ to much in terms of features. If the body with short flange distance is video enhanced it should not be crippled to much because this is the body where you can use the full plethora of lenses for cinematography.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



No + additional reasons for short flange distance I mentioned here:

"I will buy a FF mirrorless only WITH the possibility to use
- FD lenses
- maybe a tilt adapter for EF lenses
- to be open to adapt other (scientific) optics
The adapter has to be designed to stay well in place (e.g. optional 4 M3 screws) for
those who want use the EF lens line-up, delivered with the camera and
shaped to support ergonomics well.
The EF-XYZ mount of the camera body could have a larger diameter to avoid
mirror box bokeh and other side effects. A shutter window of 27 x 39mm would
help too."

&

"You have omitted [reason 2 and 3] and I will give you a fourth reason for a mount with smaller flange distance mentioned by a lot of others: Lenses with lens elements near the sensor to enhance IQ / get very good IQ at lower prices. Mostly in the (ultra)wide range."

EOT


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 24, 2018)

dak723 said:


> kurt765 said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I do not constrain the better sensor tech to Sony alone. Canon has one camera with what I consider to be a modern sensor - the 5D IV. So you do not have to take everything that Sony has as being better. That is not what I am trying to say.

I'll put it this way: No, I do not understand why anyone would want a new Canon camera (mirrorless in this discussion but any camera really) to have anything less than a 5D IV class sensor in 2018. That doesn't mean that if they make a camera with old tech that people will decide it fits their needs and buy it, but why not push for the best? Shouldn't the next generation of cameras have the best stuff in them?


----------



## dsut4392 (Jan 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> kurt765 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



OK, consider how you might make your subjective decision with the below criteria:
1) _all else being equal_, would you like your sensor to have more or less DR?
2) _all else being equal_, would you like your camera body to be smaller and lighter or bigger and heavier [noting you can always bolt a grip onto a small camera, but you can't make a big camera any smaller]?
3) _all else being equal_, would you rather be able to adapt any lens to your camera body, or be limited to lenses with EF or longer flange focal distance? [On this latter point, your statement of "it also changes the way the optics _must be_ designed" is a fallacy, as optics designed for a longer flange focal distance work equally well (with an adapter) on a short flange camera, assuming the throat of the mount is wide enough. The differences in optical performance between some native lenses vs adapted (for instance as observed by Roger Cicala over at lensrentals) are due not to the flange focal distance but the different cover glass thickness assumed by the lens designer. Shorter flange distance _allows_ changes in optical design, but doesn't force them].
4)_all else being equal_ would you like the option of some lenses that are more compact than the same focal length and aperture in EF mount?

Leaving aside the potential to make the camera and a subset of lenses smaller and lighter by using a shorter flange focal distance, the ONLY inherent advantage of _not having a mirror_ is that it's mechanically simpler. Absolutely everything else could be achieved in an SLR running in 'live view' with a hybrid viewfinder. So if you're not going to make it smaller, what is the advantage to the user of getting rid of the mirror? 

A lot of noise keeps being made about a shorter mount needing to use an adapter for EF lenses. Sure, there's a theoretical impact of mount tolerances, but do people really think the impact is significant. Yes, there are real usability issues when using an adapter to mount lens brand A to body brand B using adapter brand C, but this has vastly more to do with reverse-engineering AF algorithms than the tolerances of the mounting surfaces. There would be absolutely nothing stopping Canon from implementing native EF AF algorithms when an EF lens is mounted.

I don't pretend to know what 'everyone' wants in a camera, but I know what I want in my next one is a smaller, lighter FF camera with a tilt-flip screen and top shelf IQ. The 3 friends I have that moved to Sony from FF DSLR (two from 5D3s, one from Nikon D800) all did so to get a more compact setup for hiking & travel. They all started using adapted lenses, and now shoot mostly native Sony glass. The main thing that has stopped me so far (6D shooter) is that I don't like EVFs. But with Canon putting a distinctly underwhelming sensor in the 6D2 I'm much less confident that my next FF camera will be Canon. To quote Steve Jobs, "if you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will".

The market share argument is all well and good, but it's not indefinitely self-sustaining. For instance, on DPR today is an article claiming Nikon took #1 and #2 sales positions for FF ILC in December https://www.dpreview.com/news/7401041032/nikon-claimed-the-1-spot-in-the-full-frame-camera-market-for-december-2017.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 24, 2018)

infared said:


> I think we need two PROFESSIONAL FF Canon mirrorless camera bodies. BOTH need to compete with and exceed the top Sony cameras. One needs to have an EF Mount and be COMPLETELY compatible with current EF lenses...the other needs to have a new mount to take advantage of the shorter flange distance and have a new line of FF Mirrorless lenses moving forward and growing. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me.



+1! Making an EF mount mirrorless with Canon ergonomics cannot take much effort from Canon, and will satisfy pros and many enthusiasts. I see it as realistic that they will also release a smaller FF mirrorless camera with shorter flange distance and high (L) quality, but not very fast lenses, like Zeiss Batis for Sony FE mount. The number 1 reason for not doing so would be limited market share/expected profit from the targeted enthusiast market.


----------



## Talys (Jan 24, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> 1) _all else being equal_, would you like your sensor to have more or less DR?
> 2) _all else being equal_, would you like your camera body to be smaller and lighter or bigger and heavier [noting you can always bolt a grip onto a small camera, but you can't make a big camera any smaller]?
> 3) _all else being equal_, would you rather be able to adapt any lens to your camera body, or be limited to lenses with EF or longer flange focal distance? [On this latter point, your statement of "it also changes the way the optics _must be_ designed" is a fallacy, as optics designed for a longer flange focal distance work equally well (with an adapter) on a short flange camera, assuming the throat of the mount is wide enough. The differences in optical performance between some native lenses vs adapted (for instance as observed by Roger Cicala over at lensrentals) are due not to the flange focal distance but the different cover glass thickness assumed by the lens designer. Shorter flange distance _allows_ changes in optical design, but doesn't force them].
> 4)_all else being equal_ would you like the option of some lenses that are more compact than the same focal length and aperture in EF mount?



1) All things being equal, I want as much DR as possible. If the sensor can cover a hundred trillion colors from infrared to ultraviolet and record it all perfectly at a thousand frames a second, great.

2) All things being equal I want my camera as light as possible, full stop. In terms of camera size, I want my BODY appropriately sized to the LENS I will most often use. I also want the bottom of my body to be deep enough to accommodate an arca swiss plate horizontally.

3) Whether things are equal or not, I will never, ever use a lens adapter to match current lenses with current bodies. Full stop. Ain't gonna happen no matter what the benefits are. If things aren't equal, I would rather spend $20,000 on new equipment than have an adapter stuck onto my camera body. ****** that. I hope I made that part clear 

4) All things aren't being equal. I want my small travel lens to be as small as possible and I am willing to give up optical quality and big aperture, and I'm willing to buy new stuff to make that happen. I want my big pro lens to be whatever size they need to be to give me the best output at "reasonable" prices. For example, a Canon vs Sony 70-200/2.8 might be a little better or a little worse, one way or the other; personally, I think they're close enough in optical quality, though I think the Canon's construction is significantly more rugged. But anyways, I won't happily pay the Sony premium on the lens. This is part of a "new lens system problem": if Canon came out with a new mount and all new shiny lenses that were slightly smaller and slightly better in every way, they'd be 50% more expensive for a long time, and the improvements would (probably) be too small to justify the price, for me.

Lens weight: frankly, if it's under 1kg, I don't care at how big or heavy it is, within reason. If it's an important lens to me (like a 70-200 and 100-400), the 1.5kg range is fine. Sure, it can be a little lighter, but whether it's 200g either way isn't going to be determinative of which I buy.

I should add:

5) All things being equal, I'd rather have decent weather seals in an expensive camera. This isn't a deal-killer for me, but if the top tier camera doesn't have this, there would have to be at least one thing that was out of this world that I wanted out of it, where there wasn't an alternative elsewhere.

6) Whether things are equal or not, battery life while I'm looking through the viewfinder is very important to me. It doesn't matter how good electronic viewfinders are, if I keep running out of battery while I'm staring down the viewfinder, the camera is junk.

7) I don't care if the camera can even record video. Since 80D and 6DII, I have never recorded even 1 second of video on any device other than my smartphone. If, one day, I want to be an amateur videographer, instead of making my $4000 camera do something it's not ideal for, I'll just go spend a bit more and buy... or rent.. an entry level professional camera rig. There's a reason that the 6 o'clock news isn't produced on a Sony A7R or a Canon or Nikon DSLR.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> When arguing about the best tools to use, Canon's marketshare is a stupid argument. You should use the best tools for what you want to do. For me for quite awhile now Canon has not made the best tools for my photographic purposes, so I got the best tool elsewhere. Why would anyone not want to use the best tools?
> 
> I guess my personal experience is different because I have found that I can't use the market share slider in Lightroom to recover the extra couple of stops of latitude I've been enjoying by using a different camera body. That's because market share does not improve the amount of data captured in my photos. Canon's market share doesn't pay my bills. But, having more data captured with every Sony shutter click has improved my images and reduced the time I spend processing the raw files and has virtually eliminated my need for using grad ND filters. THAT time savings is worth something to me.
> 
> ...



Hang on. You are on a complete tangent there. You are talking about sensor design, not mirrorless vs DSLR. So I am not sure where the 'shorter lens mount fits in there. This is the confused argument that often comes up, where people equate Sony's superior image quality with it being mirrorless - it isn't.


----------



## Talys (Jan 24, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Matthew Saville said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations, it will be logic such as yours that eventually turns Canon into the next Kodak.
> ...



Sadly, this stems from the iPhone/Android trend of a release every year. 

All I can say is, thank God Canon doesn't pop a new FF body every year or two. I would hate it, because I like having current generation bodies, _even though I know they don't significantly improve my photography_. So, frankly, most of my money would be wasted. I would much rather buy a new lens that makes possible something that was not previously.


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > kurt765 said:
> ...


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > kurt765 said:
> ...



By that logic, you seem to be saying that you don't understand why anybody would buy a Canon 6DII, (or possibly a 5DS or a 5DSR). It seems safe to guess that someone buying one of these cameras is looking for something different than more exposure latitude. At this point, pretty much all the Canon aps-c cameras have on sensor ADC, including the mirrorless M5 and M6. There isn't any reason that I can see to think that a Canon FF mirrorless would not have a sensor with on board ADC. If you are whining about the 6DII, I get it. A lot of people do, at least on the internet.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 24, 2018)

always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy. 

when they are out of rational arguments, inevitably they comewith the following:
* what you think is irrelevant [to Canon and to the world]
* Canon knows everything better, no make that "best". ... as proven by sales, market-share, profits ... 
* ridicule and ad-hominem attacks ... thinly disguised as "sarcasm" 

So lets just state the facts ... and see how they react [patterns #1-3 above sure to come!] 

1. overwhelming majority of market - new buyers and aging camera users alike - wants decently capable, less bulky, lighter and affordable gear. Baby boomers are ageing. Younger/new buyers come from smaller gear [smartphones]. 

2. overwhelming majority of (potential) buyers does not want to, cannot and will not spend multi 1,000 USD/€ on gear for a hobby. Professionals face ever tighter budgets / earnings opportunities as well. 

explains to a large degree why Canon EOS M / EF-M has been doing well. It was and is generally somewhat smaller and lighter than competitors's products [e.g. Fuji] and offers much better bang for the buck than other brands [Fuji, Sony, even smaller-sensored mFT gear] and a more intuitive user interface on top ... plus brand-name/marketing/sales channel. 

3. objective fact: Canon EF-mount has been fantastic [arguably best in industry] for DSLRs, but is technically not the best and not even a "good" solution for mirrorless cameras

What follows? Best success to be had with a small & lite [= new, short FFD mount of course], yet decently capable mirrorless FF cam - 1 step above EOS M5, not 3 steps above. Something around "6D II class" performance. Priced maybe 1499 body ... 1999 with decent kit zoom [eg EF-X 24-85/4 IS STM]. Plus a range of compact lenses [moderately fast primes and f/4 zooms plus unavoidable f/5.6 consumer zooms] ... that don't all cost 1k/2k/3k per unit. 

High-end? Yes too, but in overall picture really for bragging rights [Marketing] only.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.
> 
> when they are out of rational arguments, inevitably they comewith the following:
> * what you think is irrelevant [to Canon and to the world]
> ...



1. Agree - has anyone said otherwise?
2. Agree - has anyone said otherwise?
3. What evidence do you have regards EF mount?

What follows? First you need to define success - long term or short term? Irrespective of the merits of EF, there is a lot of sense in Canon first mirrorless to have the EF mount. They do nto have to slay the market with their first model. They can introduce a new mount later. As I said above, you and all the other mirrorless advocates talk as if Canon have to do it NOW. They don't - and saying otherwise is nothing but pure egotistical 'me, I'm important' . I don't think we are disagreeing on the long term shifts in the market merely the rate at which it needs to happen. 



> always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.



Should that be "always the same here. A few mirrorless fanatics trying to hammer down the throat of anyone using a DSLR the supposed advantages of mirrorless and critical of anyone who takes the slightest time to understand where Canon's priorities are and how they have arrived at their successful business strategy.

And note 'the phrase successful business strategy' 

What you see as apologist is in most cases a rebuttal of your assertions that Canon don't understand the market. You make the tedious mistake of confusing 'comprehension' with 'complicity'. 



> * ridicule and ad-hominem attacks ...


Yet you call me an 'apologist'??? Pot...kettle?


----------



## LDS (Jan 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> 1. overwhelming majority of market - new buyers and aging camera users alike - wants decently capable, less bulky, lighter and affordable gear. Baby boomers are ageing. Younger/new buyers come from smaller gear [smartphones].



Yet, smartphones get larger and larger... there will be issues to sell cameras with 3" screens, when young buyers got used to 6" high-dpi ones?



AvTvM said:


> 2. overwhelming majority of (potential) buyers does not want to, cannot and will not spend multi 1,000 USD/€ on gear for a hobby.



Sure, they have to save to buy the new $1000+ smartphone each year....

Anyway, those spending thousand of dollars/euros/<put your currency hear> are not the majority of potential buyers. Probably are the majority here, but not the overall market. You don't really need a 1Dx II and a lineup of all L lenses to take good pictures, especially for an hobby, nor you need to get always the latest and the greatest (GAS! GAS!)

Canon does have a lineup for buyers who are not going to spend those sums. Still, the market for high-end, expensive gear looks still healthy, and probably yields higher returns. It looks the Nikon 850D sold very well....



AvTvM said:


> Professionals face ever tighter budgets / earnings opportunities as well.



That depends on how much you work is valued. Again, you don't always need the latest and the greatest. Hope your customer value the quality of your images, not with what camera you show up (albeit, unluckily, in some market that could be an issue as well...)

Many images that wins award are made with older gear. Probably because those people spend more time shooting than chasing the next holy grail of technical specs.

It is true professional wear their gear more quickly, and need replacement earlier.

Anyway, smaller cameras exist and will co-exist alongside bulkier one, each designed for different market segments. While Canon does sell top-of-the-line cameras to non professional users, it does design them for professional needs - it's the professional user who drives the sales to non-professional ones, not vice-versa.

Canon, for a while in the '50s-'60s didn't target the pro market, while Nikon did. It was in those years that Nikon built its brand recognition. You saw a famous photographer, and if he used a 35mm SLR, it was usually a Nikon F.

At the end of the '60s Canon understood it had to target the pro users with a camera system designed for them. Canon brand recognition greatly improved thanks to F-1 and T90, and then surpassed Nikon with the EOS 1 line, also thanks to the EF lenses. Even if not affordable by many, they created the brand recognition, and still drove sales of other models as well.

A retired baby boomer is not probably in the market segment for a pro camera. After all, Apple doesn't make phones for the elderly - although they do exist. "overwhelming majority of market"? I guess Canon have more market insight than us.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 24, 2018)

Canon better acts "very soon". How anyone would call a business strategy "successful" which leaves the only market segment that holds growth promise and may have some future totally and without any fight to its competitors ... Sony, soon to be joined by Nikon. 

A mirrorless system with EF mount makes very little sense. I does not deliver any of the benefits a short-flanged new mount optimized for mirrorless cameras bring. Nothing except backwards compatibility with EF lenses, which can easily be had with a simple, little ADAPTER. 

That adapter could even be bolted 100% tight and weather-sealed ;D onto camera by Canon service for a small fee for all those who prefer to have a mirrorless camera with "native EF mount". 

New "slim" mount is the only option to cater to the market segment that wants a Canon FF system with significantly less bulk than DSLRs. Nw mount can and should be introduced right at start of mirrorless FF system, as all existing EF lenses are there and will work without any problem ... all that's needed is a little adapter tube. 

I also notice that many of the people with extreme "adapter angst" dont seem to understand the differences between 1 .tele-converters, 2. dinky, non OEM cross-system converters 3. any other dinky converter with glass in it ... and a simple, cheap, solid Canon EF to EF-X extension tube adapter. Of course they also have never used the existing Canon EF-M/EF adapter to experience firsthand, what a simple, precise, stable and cheap item it is. And that you can also leave it on a lens you're likely to use next ... so there is no "field handling issue" and no "OMG I will loose it fumbling ariound in 30 inches of snow with gloves on my hands". I dont. And neither would they. 

"B-b-but NO, I don't want no stinkin' adapter" is the only thought and line they seem capable of ... to use some ridicule and sarcasm. ;D


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 24, 2018)

Hi Folks. 
First of all my main question is do your fingers / hands automatically get smaller because your favourite manufacturer releases a smaller mirrorless camera, if not I would not want a smaller body, I inherited my grandads size 10 shovel hands and small bodies make my fingers ache trying to grip them (we have a 100D and had an M) so yes speaking from experience, that is not to say that small won’t suit some, but where are you going to put all the important controls, rear dial, joystick just to mention two that I would think are very important to the “professional” photographer, I’m not a pro but they are important to me. 

Second everyone clamouring for a shorter flange distance seems to have overlooked this most informative post from Mt Spokane detailing an issue with the short flange and dual pixel af. Dual pixel af is probably the most important thing for a FF mirrorless? 

Cheers, Graham. 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Canon better acts "very soon". How anyone would call a business strategy "successful" which leaves the only market segment that holds growth promise and may have some future totally and without any fight to its competitors ... Sony, soon to be joined by Nikon.



er....and Canon



AvTvM said:


> A mirrorless system with EF mount makes very little sense.


To you.



AvTvM said:


> I does not deliver any of the benefits a short-flanged new mount optimized for mirrorless cameras bring. Nothing except backwards compatibility with EF lenses, which can easily be had with a simple, little ADAPTER.


By 'lenses optimised for mirroless' do you mean the advantages of making a f2.8 lens with a built-in extension tube that makes it larger than the DSLR equivalent?
Yeah, real advantage that is....

Maybe Canon will come out with a new mount but all I said was there are good reasons for having a EF mount mirrorless. You on the other hand dismiss anything that does not agree with your world view. Me, me, me....



AvTvM said:


> New "slim" mount is the only option to cater to the market segment that wants a Canon FF system with significantly less bulk than DSLRs. Nw mount can and should be introduced right at start of mirrorless FF system, as all existing EF lenses are there and will work without any problem ... all that's needed is a little adapter tube.


Long run yes. But as I say you seem incapable of comprehending a mirrorless that offers use of legacy lenses with all the advantages of mirrorless technology and expanding the range of bodies in good time.
One of the deepest criticisms, and one of the greatest concerns of pros has been the lack of native high-quality Sony lenses. That has been remedied over the last couple of years or so and all credit to Sony, but Canon's prestige market is the professional sports/wildlife photographer and that is the one they need to think about. But then again that ain't your sort of photography so that doesn't count, does it? me,me, me...




> I also notice that many of the people with extreme "adapter angst" dont seem to understand the differences between 1 .tele-converters, 2. dinky, non OEM cross-system converters 3. any other dinky converter with glass in it ... and a simple, cheap, solid Canon EF to EF-X extension tube adapter.



Or maybe you don't understand the similarities? 



> And that you can also leave it on a lens you're likely to use next ...


YAY! Here is your new mirrorless camera. By the way you will need to buy three adapters as well to make sure the next lens you pick out has one already loaded. 

As I say, mirrorless will come in good time and Canon know that. But all your objections are based on what you want to see and because Canon (or other people) do not see it the way you do and have different priorities you assume they are dumb.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.


I'm afraid I disagree. The question from the OP was quite simple: what does Canon need to do to make this camera "successful." That word is very simple and clear, it means that it will sell well and be profitable. I answered that question from my perspective.

Some people, apparently yourself included, misinterpreted the OP to ask a different question entirely. If the question had been "what does Canon need to do to make you, personally, buy this camera," then my answer would have been very different.

There's a set of features I'd like in a FF mirrorless, and they probably have a lot of overlap with what you want. But I don't presume that what I want will make this new product "successful." There is no error or "apology" to point out that Canon has (financially) outsmarted their critics for a long time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...



Sorry for ignoring your second and third points, I did so because they were as essentially irrelevant as the first one. But for the sake of completeness… 

1) FD lenses - less than a minuscule market, irrelevant as far as Canon is concerned

2) Tilt adapter - very small market, and to the extent that it's relevant, this point actually argues against you because no doubt Canon would rather sell you a whole tilt shift lens (or >1), instead of just an adapter (or more likely, letting a third-party sell you the adapter)

3) Adapting scientific optics - another less-than-minuscule market, and not specifically germane to a short flange with adapter, since it's certainly possible to adapt current long-flange dSLRs to scientific optics (for example, I have personally mounted both Canon and Nikon dSLRs to my Zeiss Stemi DV4 stereomicroscope, as well as to high end research microscopes in the lab)

4) Cheaper/better WA/UWA lenses - perhaps a valid argument, but I think the jury is still out on this one as far as full frame cameras go; there's really no evidence for better optics, what we can say is the optics can be as good with a smaller physical size, and for crop sensors they can be cheaper (but then, lenses can always be made cheaper if you trade off IQ)

To sum up, the three reasons you initially listed for a short flange with adapter are essentially irrelevant as far as decision-making at Cannon goes. I suspect, if anyone even thought of them, they'd be afraid to open their mouth for fear of being deservedly ridiculed.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > kurt765 said:
> ...





> 1) _all else being equal_,


But all else is not equal; I can't pretend that my needs are representative of the market as a whole; same for this entire forum. What I, personally, want does not matter to Canon, and it shouldn't.



> would you like your


Of course I want better everything at a lower price, but I gave up writing letters to Santa when I was 3. All I can do is watch the products come to market, look at my bank account, and make my purchase decisions.

Here are a few answers to some of your questions:

Smaller/lighter: don't care, compared to lenses it won't matter much

Adapter: this is a red herring. What we need is not "adapters" but to be able to change the "native" lens mount of the camera. As soon as the mirror is gone, you can have an oversized "universal" lens opening to which you can attach a variety of lens mounts. It would come standard with EF, but you should be able to remove that and install mounts for whatever lens line suits you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> What we need is not "adapters" but to be able to change the "native" lens mount of the camera. As soon as the mirror is gone, you can have an oversized "universal" lens opening to which you can attach a variety of lens mounts. It would come standard with EF, but you should be able to remove that and install mounts for whatever lens line suits you.



Don't hold your breath on that one. Beyond just the basic marketing/corporate self interest reason (why would Canon want to facilitate your purchase of lenses other than their own?), there is a significant technical barrier. Look at the images showing the bare chassis/frame of ILCs from different manufacturers, and you'll see that one thing they all have in common is that the mount is integrated into that chassis. There are two reasons for that, one is structural – the mount needs to be strong to hold the weight of the lens when you pick up the camera; the other is optical – the alignment of the lens mount to the plane of the sensor is critical for image quality, and manufacturing tolerances for that alignment are among the tightest in the ILC production process (regardless of whether or not there is a mirror). For those reasons, I don't think you'll ever see a camera with swappable native lens mounts, neither user performed nor service center performed.


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.
> 
> when they are out of rational arguments, inevitably they comewith the following:
> * what you think is irrelevant [to Canon and to the world]
> ...



So, for Canon, the FF Mirrorless sweetspot is one step up from the aps-c M series, using a new EF-X mount and a new series of lenses. By the nature of FF, the EF-X camera and lenses would be larger and more expensive than the M series, sort of an Acura to the M's Honda. (It is not clear to me how an EF-X lens could be adapted to the EF-M mount, but that would be something for the development team to work out.) Canon might be able to make some money with this strategy, but the likely success for this strategy seems more obvious to you than it does to me.

You also say that there is a place for an FF EF mirrorless, which several of us have been saying for a while, and that is where I think Canon will start. Why not let the bragging begin, without taking the time, money and design talent to put out a new line of EF-X lenses before any bragging can be done.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2018)

BillB said:


> You also say that there is a place for an FF EF mirrorless, which several of us have been saying for a while, and that is where I think Canon will start. Why not let the bragging begin, without taking the time, money and design talent to put out a new line of EF-X lenses before any bragging can be done.



canon has no patents really for this fabled line of EF-X lenses, so where and how are they going to come up with them?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 24, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?
> ...


I mainly agree with you the confines of the existing EF mount i.e. throat diameter limits the use of concentric lens designs the image circle should be larger than the diagonal on the 36x24mm sensor enough to cover shading but in just about every manufacturers case this is not the case. Mainly because it would require a larger & heavier lens. Concentric lenses (we have designed some with around a 97% parallel light path) help to rectify this but are of limited use in wide angles but do help with short back focus.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > What we need is not "adapters" but to be able to change the "native" lens mount of the camera. As soon as the mirror is gone, you can have an oversized "universal" lens opening to which you can attach a variety of lens mounts. It would come standard with EF, but you should be able to remove that and install mounts for whatever lens line suits you.
> ...



So what you're saying is that it's just an engineering and marketing problem... ;D


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 24, 2018)

BillB said:


> By that logic, you seem to be saying that you don't understand why anybody would buy a Canon 6DII, (or possibly a 5DS or a 5DSR). It seems safe to guess that someone buying one of these cameras is looking for something different than more exposure latitude. At this point, pretty much all the Canon aps-c cameras have on sensor ADC, including the mirrorless M5 and M6. There isn't any reason that I can see to think that a Canon FF mirrorless would not have a sensor with on board ADC. If you are whining about the 6DII, I get it. A lot of people do, at least on the internet.



*We're talking about what we want in a future product.* Do you want another 6D2 or would you rather get another 5D IV type sensor in the new product?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Canon better acts "very soon". How anyone would call a business strategy "successful" which leaves the only market segment that holds growth promise and may have some future totally and without any fight to its competitors ... Sony, soon to be joined by Nikon.



The only market segment that holds growth promise is _full frame_ mirrorless? LOL.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> 1) _all else being equal_,



_All else being equal_, I want a 24-bit FF sensor with 20 stops of DR and 200 MP, enclosed in a waterproof camera, along with a 12-600mm f/2.8 zoom lens that fits in my jeans pocket.

When you find all-else-is-equal-land, let me know how to get there. Oh, wait...I think I already know how to get there, but I have an aversion to using psychoactive drugs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.



Always the same here, a few people who comprehend reality and would like others to do the same, and a few people who live in their own delusional world where their wants are the determining factor in Canon's success or failure. Plus lots of people in between, and Jack, who reads CR for the humor.


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > By that logic, you seem to be saying that you don't understand why anybody would buy a Canon 6DII, (or possibly a 5DS or a 5DSR). It seems safe to guess that someone buying one of these cameras is looking for something different than more exposure latitude. At this point, pretty much all the Canon aps-c cameras have on sensor ADC, including the mirrorless M5 and M6. There isn't any reason that I can see to think that a Canon FF mirrorless would not have a sensor with on board ADC. If you are whining about the 6DII, I get it. A lot of people do, at least on the internet.
> ...



You have your Sony, I have my 5DIV, and I said that I don't think that a new Canon FF mirrorless is going to have a 6DII sensor in it. So what is the point of your question?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon better acts "very soon". How anyone would call a business strategy "successful" which leaves the only market segment that holds growth promise and may have some future totally and without any fight to its competitors ... Sony, soon to be joined by Nikon.
> ...



Wait...what... you don't think $2,500+ camera bodies are the only growth market?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) _all else being equal_,
> ...



I'm sure you'd get double takes walking down the sidewalk with that in your jeans.


----------



## PRINZMETAL (Jan 24, 2018)

Canon has market share advantage in ff and my guess is that they make their money now selling glass. This market is not growing so if it was me making a business decision of ff mirrorless I would want it to sell into my extensive base which means using exiting glass without an adapter. Futher, Canon is falling behinf Niken with its af for sports and bif (see a. morris reasons for switching 
www.birdsasart-blog.com/2018/01/24/why-i-switched-from-canon-to-nikon/

So, Canon needs to have a reason for existing ff canon user to switch. First no afma is a big deal. Two the mirrorless af has to be equal to Nikon for fast moving objects and the af needs to be good in low light. They need to have a small light ff the size camera of say an sl2 size and a regular size one that is light. The controls need to be similar to existing high end eos so there is no learning curve for existing canon users. The camera needs to be priced so canon makes money but reflects the cost savings canon incurred with no mirror. It needs to be priced less than current models and certainly less than Nikon's ff when they announce one.

Overall, the new ff mirrorless camera needs to be such that existing canon eos users will "want" to buy one. That gives canon two streams of profit for existing ff users...a new camera plus lenses. This camera is just a way to try to extend the cash flow for eos cameras in a declining market and protect the sports and bif market from Nikon and for everyone else from the likes of Sony.

Bp


----------



## LDS (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those reasons, I don't think you'll ever see a camera with swappable native lens mounts, neither user performed nor service center performed.



Canon does it for the C700 - it costs 450 euro (labour only, without the mount, 1400 with a mount supplied).

This projects is doing it for a film SRL:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reflexcamera/reflex-bringing-back-the-analogue-slr-camera

But its technology, tolerances, and aims look far below what someone would expect from a Canon camera, especially an high-end one...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


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



No, I'm quite sure they are...in the AvTvM Universe. But in there, the overall market is limited to one person.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2018)

LDS said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > For those reasons, I don't think you'll ever see a camera with swappable native lens mounts, neither user performed nor service center performed.
> ...



464 backers. P.T. Barnum called it. 

One of my favorite aspects of the design:



> Reflex is the first analog camera to have both flash and continuous light source (LED) on board giving photographers the freedom to choose their preferred method of lighting. Both flash and LED have 3 intensities.



The LED actually has 4 intensities – high, meduim, low, and covered by hand. :


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 24, 2018)

PRINZMETAL said:


> Canon has market share advantage in ff



Looks a bit dodgy

https://petapixel.com/2018/01/23/nikon-1-full-frame-camera-sales-2017-holidays/

Limited time period, and applies to the US only but it is an interesting development...


----------



## infared (Jan 24, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I think we need two PROFESSIONAL FF Canon mirrorless camera bodies. BOTH need to compete with and exceed the top Sony cameras. One needs to have an EF Mount and be COMPLETELY compatible with current EF lenses...the other needs to have a new mount to take advantage of the shorter flange distance and have a new line of FF Mirrorless lenses moving forward and growing. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
> ...



My thought was that the first camera would give dedicated customers the benefits of shooting mirrorless with their existing lens quiver....and the second, perhaps smaller camera in my mind would be totally PRO too...with fast pro glass..a whole new top notch system that we could grow into...kind of like a heroin addict going on methadone... 8) ???


----------



## Talys (Jan 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> 2. overwhelming majority of (potential) buyers does not want to, cannot and will not spend multi 1,000 USD/€ on gear for a hobby. Professionals face ever tighter budgets / earnings opportunities as well.
> 
> explains to a large degree why Canon EOS M / EF-M has been doing well. It was and is generally somewhat smaller and lighter than competitors's products [e.g. Fuji] and offers much better bang for the buck than other brands [Fuji, Sony, even smaller-sensored mFT gear] and a more intuitive user interface on top ... plus brand-name/marketing/sales channel.



Professionals: why do professionals face tighter budges and have fewer earnings opportunities? What is your source for this?

I would submit that people who make their living primarily from photography can get the job done with their 5+ year old camera they still have around. In the context of their work-related assets/expenditures, the cost of a camera body is still very small. 


About folks who don't want to spend more than $1,000: This thread is about full frame mirrorless, and the people with this budget *should not buy a full frame camera of any sort, Canon, Sony, or otherwise*. 

You will spend more money on lenses and accessories, everything will be bigger, and you'll forever want things in the lineup that are ungodly expensive if you think that another thousand bucks in the hobby is more than you want to spend. What is the point of buying an A7RIII (which is way over that budget anyways), if you can't afford G-Master lenses?


I get it, you want everything packed into the "best" camera. The smallest size, the best optics, the best video, etc etc etc that can do it all... weddings, birds, studio, billboards, youtubes, whatever. I am different from you. I fundamentally believe that not every task is best served by the same tool, and that a pack-it-light camera body will not in my lifetime be the same device as a best-in-class sports/wildlife camera body. I do not mind owning a mirrorless with a set of mirrorless lenses, and a DSLR with a set of DSLR lenses, and a cinema camcorder with cinema lenses. 

I don't think there is a "best" form factor, because the use case dictates what form factor to use. I don't want to shoulder a DSLR to take photos. I don't want to hold a tiny camera or use it on a gimbal for 5 hours. I don't want to pack a DSLR and 3 gigantic lenses when I'm travelling light.


----------



## kurt765 (Jan 24, 2018)

BillB said:


> kurt765 said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



I also have a 5D IV. I think that sensor is the best one Canon has ever made, and that they should have that kind of sensor in a new mirrorless camera or any other camera they ever make going forward. You seem to agree, I guess, with your response, but you were accusing me of not understanding why anyone would buy another camera. I was saying I don't understand why anyone would not want a 5D IV type sensor in a new product compared to what they did with the 6D2, as an example. Get it? So we agree right?


----------



## LDS (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 464 backers. P.T. Barnum called it.



Still each one sent almost £300 - hope for them they get something... they don't really look interested in a mirrorless...



neuroanatomist said:


> One of my favorite aspects of the design:
> The LED actually has 4 intensities – high, meduim, low, and covered by hand. :



It's a "manual" camera, isn't it? 

My favourite one is the lens mount slides in from the bottom - I don't want to think what happens to the lens if it doesn't stay in place...

Anyway for a project like this it's important to avoid to have to make lenses also, which are more complex than a camera body to build. I can't see any company with a big line-up like Canon feeling the need to support other lenses, it won't be a strong selling point but maybe for around 464 photographers.

Different story in video cameras where being able to switch to PL mount can be seen as plus - but the way a lens is used for stills and video is quite different.


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > kurt765 said:
> ...



Sorry for any misunderstanding on my part. I didn't intend to accuse you of anything, and likely misunderstood what you said you couldn't understand. Basically, the only reason I can think of for preferring a camera with the 6DII sensor would be price. The 6DII costs less than $2000, and I can't think of any camera with a 5DIV class sensor that can be had for that price new. So yes, I agree with you about the 5DIV sensor being preferable to the 6DII sensor.


----------



## dsut4392 (Jan 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) _all else being equal_,
> ...



Neuro, I usually respect a lot of what you post, but on this thread you seem to be deliberately combative and obtuse.
None of my "all else being equal" questions related to anything that was beyond the realms of Canon's current technical capability, nor were any of them mutually exclusive. The only thing that those decision points affect is market positioning/segmentation. 

As historical market share numbers evidence, Canon has a history of usually doing well at the market positioning, but as they say in the finance industry, "past performance is not indicative of future results". The market share numbers also only reflect Canon's pewrformance against it's actual competitors, and say nothing about how much better or worse Canon might have done had they built different cameras.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2018)

Quite simple.....

It needs to be a reasonable camera at a reasonable price. 

Mirrorless has some advantages and it has some drawbacks. The people who see advantages will go for it.


----------



## Talys (Jan 25, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dsut4392 said:
> ...



His point, though is that rarely, if ever, does "all else being equal" apply. 

I mean, it's like saying if a 5D3 and an 5D4 were the same price, which would you prefer? But they're not the same price, so the question doesn't make sense.

You can't have more DR without sacrificing something (like budget or brand or mount)

You can't have a size reduction without sacrificing something (like a size gain somewhere else, ergonomics, whatever).

etc.

Life is full of compromises and camera gear is no different. It's a jigsaw puzzle of what you want, rarely with one "this is perfect" entry. Usually, some grass on the other side is greener, and some looks like rot. But in fact, I would submit that most photographs that are amazing could have been taken with technology several generations old. 

Most of it is marketing wizardry, to convince you of the whole "if all else were equal" thing -- like "if you could have everything in your A7RII but better, wouldn't that be great?" except, it hits you in the pocket book, and for most people, their pictures in their A7RIII aren't going to be a whole lot different than the ones that came out of their A7RII. Likewise, if you can't take amazing photos with a 5DR3, don't expect it out of your 5DR4, or any other camera. That's not to say they're not happy with their purchase and aren't happy to forking out the cash, of course -- this is all part of the wizardry


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Exactly. Even if the options presented are technically feasible, they're not available. We could play the 'what if' game all day long, and be right where we started.

But sometimes it's fun...

_1) _all else being equal_, would you like your sensor to have more or less DR?_

More, of course. Who wouldn't? But what if it costs an extra $200. Or means switching to a brand without the lenses I want. Or the electronic implementation that allows more DR at low ISO results in comparatively more noise and less DR at high ISO? Nothing in life is free...


_2) _all else being equal_, would you like your camera body to be smaller and lighter or bigger and heavier [noting you can always bolt a grip onto a small camera, but you can't make a big camera any smaller]?_

I don't want my camera any smaller, and not significantly lighter, than my 1D X. Not the answer you were expecting, perhaps. I use f/2.8 zooms frequently, and I've tried smaller cameras – the balance is poor, and my hand hurts after a short period of use. I can use my 1D X and a 70-200/2.8 all day with no issues. As for a grip, there is always some flex between grip and body, and that flex leads to vibration when mounting on a tripod, because the connection point is the grip. So a grip is really not an optimal solution, removing and replacing it to use a tripod is a royal PITA.


_3) _all else being equal_, would you rather be able to adapt any lens to your camera body, or be limited to lenses with EF or longer flange focal distance? [On this latter point, your statement of "it also changes the way the optics _must be_ designed" is a fallacy, as optics designed for a longer flange focal distance work equally well (with an adapter) on a short flange camera, assuming the throat of the mount is wide enough. The differences in optical performance between some native lenses vs adapted (for instance as observed by Roger Cicala over at lensrentals) are due not to the flange focal distance but the different cover glass thickness assumed by the lens designer. Shorter flange distance _allows_ changes in optical design, but doesn't force them]._

Using any lens would be great, but I'd rather not use an adapter...and as long as the native mount has a lens selection that meets my needs, the native mount is preferable to an adapter. Interesting that you mention Roger's article on the sensor stack effects...did you also read his article from about a year earlier on the physical problems that can result degraded optical performance? It was entitled, "There Is No Free Lunch, Episode 763: Lens Adapters." THe data are from his optical bench, so the sensor stack is irrelevant.

[quote author=Roger Cicala]
So when I hear people cavalierly talking about putting an adapter on their camera I tend to cringe. When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems.
[/quote]

'There is no free lunch' is just another way of saying that all else is *not* equal.


_4)_all else being equal_ would you like the option of some lenses that are more compact than the same focal length and aperture in EF mount?_

Sure, as long as the optical quality is maintained. But would it be? And if so, would the cost be the same?

So, we're back where we started. If all else was equal...but it's not. Like me ol' Irish Da told me, wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.


----------



## dsut4392 (Jan 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > 1) _all else being equal_, would you like your sensor to have more or less DR?
> ...



#1 & 2 agree, obviously.

Re your #3, I actually had another point "_all else being equal_ as long as it has an EF mount you could build it out of brie cheese and I don't care"  I took it out as I didn't want to flame bait, but as you've raised the issue would you mind giving a reason other than "I just don wanna!". You do realise that there is no reason Canon couldn't implement exactly the same AF algorithms as in EF mount, so your EF lenses would perform exactly how they do now? Adapters sucked on Sony because they couldn't nail focus due to reverse engineered AF, and sucked on EOS-M because the body didn't offer enough power. Why assume Canon couldn't make it work?

Re #4, why do you insist 'all things aren't being equal?' Sony has compact lightweight lenses with optical compromises to suit the travel end, and honking big G-Master lenses for the "I must have the best possible IQ" crowd. They mount on the same body. Shorten the flange distance and you can keep your red rings and big whites (on an adapter), and buy some new compact designs when Canon drops the price (because we all know Sigma, Tamron and Tokina will get on board with lenses optimised for short flange once the market leader does). 

Re #5 I haven't killed a dslr yet (not even a rebel) despite using them in some fairly challenging places covering the summit of Mt Kenya, behind Icelandic waterfalls, back-country snow camping, tropical downpours at Angkor Wat, the Sahara desert in mid-summer and many places in between. I treat my cameras as a tool, and don't baby them. That said, I'm not a pro, so I get to towel it off and put it away rather than having to keep shooting as the rain pours. Weather sealing is nice-to-have but not a drop-dead requirement for me.

#6 Agree. 

#7 I don't shoot much video, but don't think this will fly for marketing reasons, nor does it make much sense from a design point of view. Depending on resolution, downsampling vs crop, codec choices etc canon may need to improve their digic chip, but once you have live view and a fast memory pipeline (which you need for high frame rate stills shooting anyway), implementing video is mostly a software thing. Canon already have the guts of pro-level software from their C-line, or could re-use the code from 5D4 for virtually no cost. At this point it's probably _cheaper_ for both development and production to include video than omit it.


----------



## dsut4392 (Jan 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > dsut4392 said:
> ...



'There is no free lunch' is just another way of saying that all else is *not* equal.


_4)_all else being equal_ would you like the option of some lenses that are more compact than the same focal length and aperture in EF mount?_

Sure, as long as the optical quality is maintained. But would it be? And if so, would the cost be the same?

So, we're back where we started. If all else was equal...but it's not. Like me ol' Irish Da told me, wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.
[/quote]

You have a bunch of valid points, but they're all based on the assumption that the status quo is the only compromise that makes sense. And you argue with a straight face that some alternative compromises "might be technically feasible but aren't available", in a thread talking about a hypothetical camera *that isn't available*. Circular argument much?

- I would have bought a 6D2 that cost $200 more and had the 5D4 sensor, but I'm never buying the one they built, and never buying a 5D4. Canon killed the replacement/upgrade path for many 6D owners with the sensor decision they made.
- I'm not representative of every customer, but I'm not alone. I shoot mainly travel and backcountry adventure, as do most of my friends, and none of them want a 1D size (or even 5D size) body. Even if the lenses stay the same size, 200g less weight in my camera is almost an extra day's food I can carry. For someone who wants a big body, why bother going mirrorless? There's nothing a mirrorless body can do that couldn't be done in an SLR with the mirror locked up - the features people like about mirrorless don't magically disappear if you add a mirror in front. Why not ask for a camera with the best of both worlds? Selling something on the _absence_ of a feature is the classic 'Emperor's new clothes'.
-I read most of what Roger posts, but either missed or had forgotten that post. 
-The 'top quality lens' and the 'compact lens' could be but don't have to be one and the same. Like you say, the situation dictates the compromise. 

For all that argument, a loathing of EVFs is the main thing that's held me back from going the Sony route, and there is no objective reason to think a Canon EVF would be significantly nicer.


----------



## bolray (Jan 25, 2018)

I think that sensor tech can always improve but really I am cool with what I have with 6D. what I am craving for are:

Amazing focus that goes closer to the edge of the sensor and can see in the dark. I still have trouble in focus and recompose sometimes when the subject moves even a bit or my technique is off.
HUGE bright EVF or OVF {DONT CARE FOR THE SCREEN ON THE BACK}. this is what makes the experience of photography immersive for me; the moment when something clicks in focus.
Sensor stabilisation. I can use lighter lenses if i have this.
if an adaptor is needed then its just a cheap dumb contact extender and the lenses focus as well as they do in dslr. don't want another piece of glass messing with the image.
small i.e. more portable.
tilt screen


----------



## scyrene (Jan 25, 2018)

Sorry, late to the party, but I may as well chip in.



kurt765 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.
> ...



You realise how arrogant this makes you sound? Everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? Please.



kurt765 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you assume they're ignorant?
> ...



You mentioned objectivity earlier. While there can be objectively more or less of something, there cannot ever be objectively better or worse anything, because those are value judgments. Some people want lower resolution, some higher. While most people would prefer more DR, some people prefer images with higher contrast and therefore lower DR in the final image. I repeat: 'better' is not objective, and you are betraying your personal preferences by using it in this way.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 25, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.
> 
> when they are out of rational arguments, inevitably they comewith the following:
> * what you think is irrelevant [to Canon and to the world]
> ...



You can hardly call people out on being biased or ignoring facts. Or you can, but it makes you an arch hypocrite.

Your facts... well, I think the majority of the market has always wanted something fairly small and light, but above all cheap - but as others have mentioned above, that generally precludes full frame digital cameras. Clearly there are still enough buyers wanting other things for it to be worth the while of Canon - and Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, etc - to produce big, heavy lenses and bodies that offer long focal length, extreme robustness, etc. As for EF - well, what is it about mirrorless that means EF is best replaced? I've read all these interminable arguments on this thread and many others, but nobody seems to have unequivocal evidence that mirrorless bodies mandate lens mounts that offer anything special other than maybe slightly smaller and lighter lenses in a restrictive range of focal lengths - and even then, some argue that it is mostly down to most mirrorless bodies until now having had smaller than FF sensors.

You are ignoring the original issue: what does *full frame* mirrorless have to offer for it to be a success? FF DSLRs could be smaller - they are not, not because of the mirror, but because of the ergonomics of full frame lenses. You are so caught up in your own desires, you ignore that many lenses (and the preference of users who specialise in the areas that those lenses are for) will never be much smaller, so for those people, a small body is not only not a priority, but a bad move.



AvTvM said:


> A mirrorless system with EF mount makes very little sense. I does not deliver any of the benefits a short-flanged new mount optimized for mirrorless cameras bring. Nothing except backwards compatibility with EF lenses, which can easily be had with a simple, little ADAPTER.



Well plenty of good reasons have been presented on both sides. You're ignoring the pro-EF side. Be biased and blinkered if you want, but don't pretend you're not. Once again, can you clearly state what the 'benefits of a short-flanged new mount' are, besides smaller size <80mm focal length?


----------



## scyrene (Jan 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> I don't think there is a "best" form factor, because the use case dictates what form factor to use.



+100



Don Haines said:


> Quite simple.....
> 
> It needs to be a reasonable camera at a reasonable price.
> 
> Mirrorless has some advantages and it has some drawbacks. The people who see advantages will go for it.



Also +100


----------



## dak723 (Jan 25, 2018)

scyrene said:


> ....As for EF - well, what is it about mirrorless that means EF is best replaced? I've read all these interminable arguments on this thread and many others, but nobody seems to have unequivocal evidence that mirrorless bodies mandate lens mounts that offer anything special other than maybe slightly smaller and lighter lenses in a restrictive range of focal lengths - and even then, some argue that it is mostly down to most mirrorless bodies until now having had smaller than FF sensors.
> 
> You are ignoring the original issue: what does *full frame* mirrorless have to offer for it to be a success? FF DSLRs could be smaller - they are not, not because of the mirror, but because of the ergonomics of full frame lenses. You are so caught up in your own desires, you ignore that many lenses (and the preference of users who specialise in the areas that those lenses are for) will never be much smaller, so for those people, a small body is not only not a priority, but a bad move.



Well said, but ultimately people who are arguing for the new smaller mount will ignore any type of rational argument. Yes, the currenct DSLR FF cameras could obviously be made smaller - just as the SL1 showed that the APS-C DSLR could be made considerably smaller - but the mirrorless crowd can not accept that the mirror does not have that much to do with the size. They can't accept that fast lenses will be large. They can't accept that a 200mm lens is going to be 200mm in mirrorless, too. They can't accept that it would take years, maybe a decade or more, to get an acceptable lens lineup for pros if they go with a new mount. Look at all the complaints regarding the lens lineup for the M cameras. Imagine that scenario for a new FF! 

It may not apply to all of those who are arguing for a new mount, but my guess is that many do so for one simple reason. They want the camera to be like Sony FF. Sony is innovative, so Canon should follow their lead. Sony is cutting edge and "cool" - so Canon better follow their lead. Who wants a dumpy old Canon when they can have a sleek new "Sony-like" Canon.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 25, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The reason we will see a mirrorless FF body is that they are cheaper to make, and sell for a higher price.
> 
> The cost to manufacture a product like this is basically one of part count, the electronics and sensor are the same, but the mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, sub mirror lens, AF sensor, focus screen, eyepiece all go away, only the EVF is added.
> 
> So, if there is a market, money is out there waiting to be scooped up. We will see one because customers want it, its just a matter of what will sell best. Canon is very good at figuring that out.



I've been reading this thread off an on with some detached interest, in that I am very unlikely to buy an new camera body in the next few years, but I find keeping up with technology entertaining up to a point. Part of my curiosity concerns why someone would want a mirrorless camera. I take my G7X II when I travel, so most of my shots are made with it. And I gained appreciation for live view when I had to use it on my T3i in August rather than risking blindness during the eclipse. I can see how an EVF would have helped in that situation, since somehow shooting pictures of the sun involves being out in bright sunlight. Who would have thunk? Maybe I'll get a mirrorless camera in 2024. But otherwise I can't see the point for me.

This post seems to make the most sense to me of about everything I have read in this thread. Thanks for this perspective.


----------



## BillB (Jan 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Well said, but ultimately people who are arguing for the new smaller mount will ignore any type of rational argument. Yes, the currenct DSLR FF cameras could obviously be made smaller - just as the SL1 showed that the APS-C DSLR could be made considerably smaller - but the mirrorless crowd can not accept that the mirror does not have that much to do with the size. They can't accept that fast lenses will be large. They can't accept that a 200mm lens is going to be 200mm in mirrorless, too. They can't accept that it would take years, maybe a decade or more, to get an acceptable lens lineup for pros if they go with a new mount. Look at all the complaints regarding the lens lineup for the M cameras. Imagine that scenario for a new FF!
> 
> It may not apply to all of those who are arguing for a new mount, but my guess is that many do so for one simple reason. They want the camera to be like Sony FF. Sony is innovative, so Canon should follow their lead. Sony is cutting edge and "cool" - so Canon better follow their lead. Who wants a dumpy old Canon when they can have a sleek new "Sony-like" Canon.



I think there is something else going on too, which is somewhat related to Sony envy, and that is Full Frame fixation. Cameras with crop sensors are smaller, lighter and cheaper, but they are not Full Frame. 

There are a couple of questions floating around in this discussion about a new FF amount. One question is whether a crop camera can deliver the necessary IQ, and that is a question that each photographer has to answer for her or himself. The other question is how small a mirrorless camera Canon can build using an EF mount, and only Canon knows the answer to that question. Whether the smallest FF camera that Canon actually builds with an EF mount would be small enough is of course up to each photographer deciding individually.

For a new Canon FF mirrorless mount to make sense, for enough photographers, the answer to the first question has to be that a crop camera can't provide high enough IQ and the answer to the second question has to be that Canon can't build a FF mirrorless with an EF mount that is small enough. So the marketing question for Canon is how many photographers are in that gap and how much each will be willing to pay for a camera with the new mount, along with the new lenses that are needed to make use of the new camera.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 26, 2018)

BillB said:


> For a new Canon FF mirrorless mount to make sense, for enough photographers, the answer to the first question has to be that a crop camera can't provide high enough IQ and the answer to the second question has to be that Canon can't build a FF mirrorless with an EF mount that is small enough. So the marketing question for Canon is how many photographers are in that gap and how much each will be willing to pay for a camera with the new mount, along with the new lenses that are needed to make use of the new camera.



I think the size is issue is being vastly overplayed. You cannot put a Sony A7R3 with lens in your pocket so you need a bag which immediately places it in the same bracket as a DSLR. Add a spare lens and battery and all realistic advantages vapourise. This is precisely why overall micro 4/3 appeal to me more.
Saving 200g when long distance hiking is a very small % of the market, as is the 'need' for eye AF - both nice if you have them but I don't think anyone would look on them as deal breakers. 

IMO, the weight issue is overplayed because there are actually few essential differences that mirrorless offers so the slap it up there to grab the attention - put it like this: if Sony had not had a superior sensor for nigh on 10 years, mirrorless would not have taken off in the way that it has. I believe the level of its success is because it is Sony with their sensor, not the fact it is mirrorless technology.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 26, 2018)

scyrene said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > A mirrorless system with EF mount makes very little sense. I does not deliver any of the benefits a short-flanged new mount optimized for mirrorless cameras bring. Nothing except backwards compatibility with EF lenses, which can easily be had with a simple, little ADAPTER.
> ...



very simple. A new slim mount allows - amongst many other things - for a ultra-compact and ultra-capable full-frame sensored digital cameras and lenses - in the most frequently used focal length range. Both, moderately fast primes [f1.8-f/2.8, depending on FL] as well as moderately fast zooms [eg. 24-85/4.0]. 

Think of a "modern day, digital Minolta CLE". Or a Sony RX1-RII ... with interchangeable lenses. That is what i would like to get from Canon and i bet , i am not the only one on this planet interested in such gear. And no, such gear would not necessarily have to be absurdly expensive ... unlike the Sony RX-1R's. ;-) 

A slim mount would also not preclude camera bodies as large and chunky as anybody would want to have them, nor the use of all existing EF-lenses. By means of a simple adapter - or if preferred by user - a permanently bolted-on "EF-lens mount nozzle" in front of the camera. 

I am not at all against big, fat cameras - if others want or need them for their purposes, perfectly fine. What i am against is if there were ONLY larger cameras available than what I and many others would want for our needs and purposes. Professionals are a tiny minority of the imaging gear market. As well as people using big white teles or f/1.2 lenses. They are just over-represented in this forum. 

That's why my answer to what a full frame Canon mirrorless (system) needs to have to be successful" is: 
definitely a new, "slim" mount. To allow for compact gear as well as for chunky gear ... and full backwards compatibility for all existing EF glass.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> That's why my answer to what a full frame Canon mirrorless (system) needs to have to be successful" is:
> definitely a new, "slim" mount. To allow for compact gear as well as for chunky gear ... and full backwards compatibility for all existing EF glass.



So what you are saying is that if Canon's first FF mirrorless is EF mount it will not be successful? If that is what you mean than how are you defining 'success'? What level of sales? What level of market position? Based on reviews ratings? The ACDS (AvTvM Canon is a Dinosaur Scale (TM))? 
Without knowing that then no matter how many they sell you can say 'Ah, but they would be even better if....'.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 26, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So what you are saying is that if Canon's first FF mirrorless is EF mount it will not be successful? If that is what you mean than how are you defining 'success'? What level of sales? What level of market position? Based on reviews ratings? The ACDS (AvTvM Canon is a Dinosaur Scale (TM))?
> Without knowing that then no matter how many they sell you can say 'Ah, but they would be even better if....'.



What I am saying is, that Canon will be "most successful" if they use *the optimal*  lens mount for their future FF-sensored system ... which will sooner rather than later be the only FF system they will be able to sell. Whatever that may mean in numbers ... revenues, market share, profits ...

"Optimal" in both the technical sense [short flange back, perfectly chosen mount dimensions] as well as allowing for big AND small gear, with no real problem to backwards compatibility of EF lenses .. for a multi-year transitional period until new mount lens lineup is fully launched. 

At the core of it, non-rational "adapter-angst" and fear of lower resale value by a tiny minority of the market [people with large hands, large cameras and large lenses] are really the only 2 arguments AGAINST a new, slim, optimally designed for FF-mirrorless mount. Non-rational, because those folks will undoubtedly be offered LARGE Canon gear in the future, no matter how "slim" the new mount might be.


----------



## BillB (Jan 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > So what you are saying is that if Canon's first FF mirrorless is EF mount it will not be successful? If that is what you mean than how are you defining 'success'? What level of sales? What level of market position? Based on reviews ratings? The ACDS (AvTvM Canon is a Dinosaur Scale (TM))?
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> That's why my answer to what a full frame Canon mirrorless (system) needs to have to be successful" is:
> definitely a new, "slim" mount. To allow for compact gear as well as for chunky gear ... and full backwards compatibility for all existing EF glass.



If you take out 'full frame', I agree. So does Canon, thus the EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses. But the FF market is different that the sub-$1K 'consumer' market.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > So what you are saying is that if Canon's first FF mirrorless is EF mount it will not be successful? If that is what you mean than how are you defining 'success'? What level of sales? What level of market position? Based on reviews ratings? The ACDS (AvTvM Canon is a Dinosaur Scale (TM))?
> ...



Again, the question is do they need to do that right now? 
But you have still not provided any evidence that the EF mount is non-optimal. It is all theory based on one premise - that the Canon has to be as small as the Sony to be successful. Do you have any evidence other than personal preference? 
If Canon have done the market research and go the message people want a smaller body then they may well be risking things if they ignore it. If however, people say that size is below the opportunity for in-VF information (peaking, zebras etc) Canon will take the appropriate wider decision. 

Odd, really. You criticise people for not being open to the idea of a converter, but not once have you acknowledged the stated marketing advantages of keeping the EF mount in the short term. IME the most closed minded are often those calling for an open mind on change.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


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



Thanks for your answer. I'm not against small bodies for those who want them, and if that implies a new mount, so be it. But I would like (and I am inclined to believe that Canon would be interested in providing for the not inconsiderable market that is *not* driven by small size, especially pros) a native EF camera for the foreseeable future - mirrorless or otherwise (and I'm sure they will continue to produce DSLRs for a long time yet). Really what we're discussing here is which comes first, but hopefully we won't have to wait long to find out.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 26, 2018)

my idea of timing is different. i do believe DSLRs will be a thing of the past *very soon* after both Nikon and Canon finally bring competent FF mirrorless systems to market. I foresee a situation similar to transition to digital .. 1D film cameras were made for many years after switch to digital .. but of no real relevance any longer. Only for some "hardcore retro" folks. Same will happen with DSLRs. Some (high-end) model will remain in product line-up for a good number of years, but sales will be "below detection threshold" ... in overall picture. 

I also believe that APS-C sensor size is not safe from phone-camera / computational onslaught. It may be quite soon that only very good FF sensors & systems will yield immediately visible, major IQ advantage. 

Coming from this take I really think Canon should (and will likely) not launch their future camera generation with DSLR-lens mount .. but use the switch to FF mirrorless for "big bang" system changeover. Most importantly because having [majority of] their existing client base switching to new mount glass over next few years ... starting NOW rather than some years down the road ... will get them much more sales revenues, market share and profits ... most notably in new lenses ... compared to carrying on with incremental improvements on Mk. III, IV, V iterations of EF glass for many more years ... and THEN only launch new slim mount lens lineup ...


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Coming from this take I really think Canon should (and will likely) not launch their future camera generation with DSLR-lens mount .. but use the switch to FF mirrorless for "big bang" system changeover. Most importantly because having [majority of] their existing client base switching to new mount glass over next few years ... starting NOW rather than some years down the road ... will get them much more sales revenues, market share and profits ... most notably in new lenses ... compared to carrying on with incremental improvements on Mk. III, IV, V iterations of EF glass for many more years ... and THEN only launch new slim mount lens lineup ...



So the next how many years necessitating an adapter?


----------



## Talys (Jan 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> my idea of timing is different. i do believe DSLRs will be a thing of the past *very soon* after both Nikon and Canon finally bring competent FF mirrorless systems to market. I foresee a situation similar to transition to digital .. 1D film cameras were made for many years after switch to digital .. but of no real relevance any longer. Only for some "hardcore retro" folks. Same will happen with DSLRs. Some (high-end) model will remain in product line-up for a good number of years, but sales will be "below detection threshold" ... in overall picture.



Of course, you could be right.

However, I don't think so. First, anyone who has to stare through a viewfinder for relatively long times to wait for shots will prefer an OVF until such time that EVFs don't drain the crap out of batteries. I'm not sure when that will be. It's not a retro thing, it's a practical thing. If you patiently wait for 1 hour for a couple of good opportunities of wildlife shots, your battery usage is zero with an OVF, versus... a lot... for an EVF. When I'm in wait, I may have a (wired) remote trigger, and just look between through the lens and with the naked eye, waiting for my subject(s) to do something interesting, or for something else to occur within the environment.

Secondly, people who work with strobes -- especially ones who know what they are doing -- have very little benefit from an EVF. For myself, I find that EVFs are a pain in the ass and more distracting than anything when working with strobes. In the context of portraiture I think they are more distracting to the real job than anything (posing and lighting).

And since those wildlife and flash photography constitute, like, 85%+ of everything I shoot, and since it's rare that I use a small lens, buying a mirrorless would just be a luxury gadget than a genuinely useful tool for me. I'm not saying that I won't get one, but some of those factors will have to sort themselves out before it becomes a primary tool.

The third issue is the ergonomics, and while I totally get that big DSLRs aren't your thing, and perhaps those who prefer it are in the minority, I think it's still at least a decent chunk of the FF market.


----------



## BillB (Jan 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> my idea of timing is different. i do believe DSLRs will be a thing of the past *very soon* after both Nikon and Canon finally bring competent FF mirrorless systems to market. I foresee a situation similar to transition to digital .. 1D film cameras were made for many years after switch to digital .. but of no real relevance any longer. Only for some "hardcore retro" folks. Same will happen with DSLRs. Some (high-end) model will remain in product line-up for a good number of years, but sales will be "below detection threshold" ... in overall picture.
> 
> I also believe that APS-C sensor size is not safe from phone-camera / computational onslaught. It may be quite soon that only very good FF sensors & systems will yield immediately visible, major IQ advantage.
> 
> Coming from this take I really think Canon should (and will likely) not launch their future camera generation with DSLR-lens mount .. but use the switch to FF mirrorless for "big bang" system changeover. Most importantly because having [majority of] their existing client base switching to new mount glass over next few years ... starting NOW rather than some years down the road ... will get them much more sales revenues, market share and profits ... most notably in new lenses ... compared to carrying on with incremental improvements on Mk. III, IV, V iterations of EF glass for many more years ... and THEN only launch new slim mount lens lineup ...



Earlier in this thread, you said the EF-X should be positioned one step above the M series. Now you say the M series may soon be under water, but the quality of FF sensor's will keep the EF-X's feet dry. Be that as it may, a Big Bang strategy implies the ability to move a lot of new product fast, or to at least have some new product available for sale. How can you have a Big Bang without any product? Unless Canon buys your idea to ditch the EF mount as soon as it can, opening the bidding with an EF mount mirrorless makes a lot of sense to me, even if it announces the new mount up front. Smoothing the transition on a change this big does have value.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> However, I don't think so. First, anyone who has to stare through a viewfinder for relatively long times to wait for shots will prefer an OVF until such time that EVFs don't drain the crap out of batteries. I'm not sure when that will be. It's not a retro thing, it's a practical thing. If you patiently wait for 1 hour for a couple of good opportunities of wildlife shots, your battery usage is zero with an OVF, versus... a lot... for an EVF. When I'm in wait, I may have a (wired) remote trigger, and just look between through the lens and with the naked eye, waiting for my subject(s) to do something interesting, or for something else to occur within the environment.
> 
> Secondly, people who work with strobes -- especially ones who know what they are doing -- have very little benefit from an EVF. For myself, I find that EVFs are a pain in the ass and more distracting than anything when working with strobes. In the context of portraiture I think they are more distracting to the real job than anything (posing and lighting).
> 
> ...



I agree. 
For me mirrorless cameras make sense for certain applications such as available light shooting and the need for silence.
Those times when I need to keep the camera ready I could never use an EVF.

The other bugaboo for me at the moment WRT EVFs is the difficulty using them in bright sun.
With current models if you use a WYSIWYG mode then all is decent until you pop on a flash for fill. Then the camera uses auto adjust for the EVF and makes it very difficult to use with bright scenes such as snow where it naturally underexposes by 2 stops or so.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 28, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> I also believe that APS-C sensor size is not safe from phone-camera / computational onslaught. It may be quite soon that only very good FF sensors & systems will yield immediately visible, major IQ advantage.



I am almost thinking the opposite - that the increased quality of APS-C sensors in recent years means there is a serious justification in saying that fewer people may be tempted to upgrade to FF systems - especially when we consider the price and weight benefits of crop lenses.


----------



## Talys (Jan 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I also believe that APS-C sensor size is not safe from phone-camera / computational onslaught. It may be quite soon that only very good FF sensors & systems will yield immediately visible, major IQ advantage.
> ...



The back and forth is pretty funny, actually. On one hand, when I'd like to see APSC get closer to what FF is able to do, some people have asserted, "APSC is near the limit of what's possible". On the other, "smartphone sensors could catch up to APSC!"

Both aren't possible. Either sensors still have room to get better, given today's technologies, or sensors are near their limits.

Anyways, there's a MASSIVE difference between MILCs/DSLRs and smartphones that cannot be overcome by sensor improvements. Forget the sensor. ILCs have stuff going for them that you can't put into a cell phone form factor, like...

1. tripod mount
2. hotshoe
3. interchangeable lenses
4. the ability to use filters
5. ergonomics

Personally, I think iPhone/Samsung/Pixel cameras are very good _for what they're good at_. The problem is, they are incapable of using light modifying tools, and are terrible for long exposures, long focal lengths, or macro photography. They're impractical to use if your desired task is to take many photos over a long period, and they have laughably short battery life if you actually want them to use them to take pictures of stuff for any period of time.

Full frame or APSC, the sunset you photograph at a beach with an ILC, tripod and filters compared to what's possible with a smartphone and mucking about in post is not to compare.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 28, 2018)

15 pages of answers. Maybe this response was already been said but the answer is simple.

"a release date"


----------



## dak723 (Jan 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I also believe that APS-C sensor size is not safe from phone-camera / computational onslaught. It may be quite soon that only very good FF sensors & systems will yield immediately visible, major IQ advantage.
> ...



I tend to agree, but that may just be because I downsized from FF and now have only one APS-C camera and one M4/3rds.


----------



## slclick (Jan 28, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> 15 pages of answers. Maybe this response was already been said but the answer is simple.
> 
> "a release date"



or high sales volume and profit


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 28, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> 15 pages of answers. Maybe this response was already been said but the answer is simple.
> 
> "a release date"


+1


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 28, 2018)

AvTvM said:


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



Bandwidth is cheap. Can you please name them?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > very simple. A new slim mount allows - *amongst many other things* - for a ultra-compact and ultra-capable full-frame sensored digital cameras and lenses - in the most frequently used focal length range.
> ...



#1 – it allows AvTvM to get what he personally wants

#2 – irrelevant

#3 – doesn't matter

#4 – who cares

etc.


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


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



You obviously are not getting your internet connection in a rural area by satelite.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 28, 2018)

A new mount with a smaller flange difference has tots of advantages. 

You get the advantage of smaller size lenses when using wide angle.

You get the advantage of adaptors being able to adapt some of other maker's lenses. (not all)

You get the advantage of increased chromatic abberation.

You get the advantage of posting complaints on CR while you wait for all those lenses you want in a new mount to trickle out....

You get the advantage of trying different ergonomics from what is "tried and true".....

You will probably get the advantage of buying a new battery because all your LP-E6 batteries will not fit into a slimmer body.

You will probably get the advantage of fewer buttons, controls, and displays so your camera won't be as confusing to operate....

Those of us who bring a backup body to a job will have the advantage of upgrading both bodies to the new mirrorless design so we have no restrictions on using what body with which lens....


----------



## dak723 (Jan 29, 2018)

Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
(similar pro lenses compared)

*35mm f/1.4*
Sony 78.5 x 112mm, 630 g
Canon 80.4 x 105.5mm, 760 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

*85mm f/1.4*
Sony 89.5 x 107.5mm, 820 g
Canon 88.6 x 105mm, 950 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.
*
24-105mm f/4.0*

Sony 83.4 x 113.3mm, 663 g
Canon 83.5 x 118mm, 795 g

Canon slightly larger and heavier.

*24-70mm*

Sony 87.6 x 136mm, 886 g
Canon 88.5 x 113mm, 805 g

Canon smaller and lighter

*70-200mm*
Sony 88 x 200mm, 1480 g
Canon 89 x199mm, 1490 g

Almost identical.

Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 29, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.



comparison only valid for Sony FE lenses, not generally for short FFD lenses. 

Sony is using a lens mount for FF image sensor, that was designed for APS-C. Mount parameters are sub-par for FF. That causes Sony FE lenses to be more complex in optical formula than need be, and larger, heavier and more expensive. 

If Canon launches a new native mount designed from scratch to be optimized for mirrorless FF system, more compact lenses for the focal lengths in question will be technically possible. 

Leica M is a good example how compact high-quality mirrorless FF lenses can be built. Adding an STM AF drive and (possibly) IS might make things a bit bigger, but not necessarily by very much ... if done "really right".


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.
> ...



I agree.

The lens length argument is comparing apples to oranges.

If Canon decides that small size is the priority for their mirrorless FF cameras, and they design a new mount with small size in mind, then it would follow that when they design those new lenses, that they will also be designed with small size in mind. 

In other words, if they decide to make it smaller then EF mount, then they will make it smaller.


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

I'm sorry guys, but Canon cannot defy the laws of physics, given the properties of glass and the size of the desired image on the focal plane (the sensor size).

They can find size and weight savings by building a more efficient optical formula, or by using different techniques (like diffractive lenses, which may reduce the number of elements). Of course, they can use optical formulae that yield an inferior image. Or dramatically shrink the package by shrinking the sensor, or decreasing maximum aperture, or using variable aperture in a zoom lens. Or removing features like image stabilization (or in the case of Leica M, the mount is pre-autofocus...). But none of this has anything to do with mirrorless.

There's no freebies when it comes to optics. You can take out the entire camera body and the metal casing of the lens -- just have a sensor, followed sequentially by each glass element mechanically held in place and manually adjusted, and guess what? To generate an image of X size from a subject at Y distance with Z aperture... the distance between the sensor and the first element, to the second element, to the third, and so forth.. are exactly the same. 

The mount is not magic. It's just a couple of rings that hold a tube of glass elements in place, at a fixed distance from the sensor, plus some contacts for electronics. The nice thing about E-mount is double edged: because the flange focal distance is short, the lenses that don't need a longer FFD can benefit from it (the most obvious being pancakes). But a lot of lenses that you like have an optical formula that that requires more distance from the first element to the sensor, so if you primarily use lenses of this sort, _every single lens ends up longer_, and by exactly the length that you cut out of the body.

Now, they could make the electronics, housing and the motor more efficient and smaller. But at what cost? Canon L lenses have legendary durability, and I don't think many people are willing to sacrifice that to have slightly lighter. Of course, they could use more exotic materials, too. But I don't think many peeps want to pay for a titanium super telephoto to save weight.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> I'm sorry guys, but Canon cannot defy the laws of physics, given the properties of glass and the size of the desired image on the focal plane (the sensor size).
> 
> They can find size and weight savings by building a more efficient optical formula, or by using different techniques (like diffractive lenses, which may reduce the number of elements). Of course, they can use optical formulae that yield an inferior image. Or dramatically shrink the package by shrinking the sensor, or decreasing maximum aperture, or using variable aperture in a zoom lens. Or removing features like image stabilization (or in the case of Leica M, the mount is pre-autofocus...). But none of this has anything to do with mirrorless.
> 
> ...



If Canon decides to make a new and smaller mount and lenses, then they will make it smaller.

They know better than any of us what the cost of smaller size will be, and that will be poorer optical performance, as the sharper you bend light, the harder it is to correct aberrations. Just look at Canons old 50F1.4 lens and compare it to the new ones out by everyone else.... to make it better, they had to make it longer, and that is even with the advantages of newer materials, exotic glasses, and coatings.

What we don’t know are the sales projections, and if there are a sufficient number of people willing to take a hit in optical quality and ergonomics in order to get a smaller body. When you consider that there is already a small solution with reduced performance (M series), and that there is already the FF EF bodies and lenses for the “quality is everything” crowd, I rather doubt that the numbers in the middle are enough to justify creating a whole new series of lenses.


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> They know better than any of us what the cost of smaller size will be, and that will be poorer optical performance, as the sharper you bend light, the harder it is to correct aberrations. Just look at Canons old 50F1.4 lens and compare it to the new ones out by everyone else.... to make it better, they had to make it longer, and that is even with the advantages of newer materials, exotic glasses, and coatings.
> 
> What we don’t know are the sales projections, and if there are a sufficient number of people willing to take a hit in optical quality and ergonomics in order to get a smaller body. When you consider that there is already a small solution with reduced performance (M series), and that there is already the FF EF bodies and lenses for the “quality is everything” crowd, I rather doubt that the numbers in the middle are enough to justify creating a whole new series of lenses.



I'm not sure that the Canon EF 50/f1.4 advances your argument very well. It is 50.5mm long and weighs 290g, and looks and feels small and light. I don't think anyone who ones a 50/1.4 is really thinking, "gee, I wish that were smaller". I believe what most people want is better autofocus, modern coatings to cut CA, sharper corners wide open, _image stabilization_, that kind of thing.

The closest lens is the much newer (15 year difference!) Nikon 50/1.4 is practically identical in size/weight, at 54.2mm and 290g.

The contemporaries in EF 50/1.4 are way, way bigger and heavier (I'm thinking Sigma Art and Zeiss Milvus), about twice the length and 800-900 grams. If you look at Sony FE 50/1.4 (the Zeiss), same deal. Bigger, heavier. Yes, obviously, these compete with the Canon 50/1.2, but it's not like anyone has made a significantly _smaller_ midrange FF 50/1.4 to compete with the 1993 Canon. 

To get smaller and lighter, you need to go to something like the Canon 50/1.8 II. And even then, the length is practically the same. It's just half the weight (or some such) because the metal has been replaced with plastic. I don't think this is a good formula for success in a new Canon mount (slash weight by going all plastic) 

As I understand it, the 25-year old optical formula for the 50/1.4 is an excellent one when balancing weight and size. If they refreshed it, and added IS, it would get heavier and bigger.

Now, if I've missed some new, super-tiny, 50/f1.4 full frame lens, I apologize! Just none comes to mind. I believe that the Sigma Art has it right, by the way. The people willing to pay $1,000+ for a 50mm are perfectly happy with the size and weight of it (or a Canon 1.2 or 1.0) -- and the 100mm length / 800g sized lenes are a very good fit for 80D - 5D sized bodies.

The ones I think you REALLY save on are the pancake lenses. But you can't really make a camera revolving around pancake focal lengths.


----------



## BillB (Jan 29, 2018)

I don't think smaller primes are going to be critical to the success of any FF mirrorless, especially since there is already the 40mm pancake and the 24, 28 and the 35 trinity. A smaller 50 or 85 might be nice, but the venerable 50 f4 and 85 are Canon's best selling primes, hardly an argument that they need to be smaller. Anyway, if you want small, there is always the nifty fifty.

Canon makes a lot more money on zooms than it does on primes, so the real question would seem to be whether a new mount would let Canon build a normal zoom and an UWA that was enough smaller and lighter so that buyers cared. The existing Canon FF lightweights are the 24-70 F4 IS and the 16-35 F4 IS, very good lenses weighing over 600 grams. Only Canon knows whether they could build something smaller with a new mount. The rest of us would be guessing.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 29, 2018)

well chosen lens mount parameters - focal flange distance, throat width - are absolutely crucial. They define "envelope of possibilities" for entire camera system and lens line-up. Importance cannot be underestimated. 1 mm in either dimension - and combination of dimensions - can make a world of difference. It does not go without significant punishment if a lens mount designed for APS-C image circle as an afterthought is pressed into service for FF image circle as well ... see Sony FE lens lineup. Design restrictions abound, making lenses more complex, larger, heavier and more expensive than what would be possible with a "really right for mirrorless FF" lens mount.

I have full confidence that Canon will chose mount parameters very wisely ... as they have done in the past. "When in doubt, make diameter larger to let more light in and let it pass more easily" ;D

Perfectly chosen Cnaon "EF-" mount will not only allow for ultra-compact moderately fast primes but also for very compact, moderately fast zooms [f/4.0] ... in the most frequently used focal length range [ca. 20 - 85 mm]. AF and IS notwithstanding.

And perfectly chosen, new native mirrorless FF lens mount also does not preclude fabulous, big glass f/1.2 or f1.0 "Super L" lenses .... quite to the opposite ... "really right mount" is an absolute pre-requisite for these. 

In this context Sony reallsý is an example for how NOT to do it. Poor choice of lens mount yields sub-optimal results, that not even Zeiss can remedy later on.  ;D


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 29, 2018)

Moving away from the EF mount would be a high risk move. If you need to buy new lenses, it just gives people a reason to either (1) wait until there is a more complete range of lenses or (2) consider alternative brands.

And given Canon's lack of enthusiasm for releasing new EF-M lenses, I'd have doubts about how quickly they would release FF mirrorless lenses. And the Eos-M *is* a sales success.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > They know better than any of us what the cost of smaller size will be, and that will be poorer optical performance, as the sharper you bend light, the harder it is to correct aberrations. Just look at Canons old 50F1.4 lens and compare it to the new ones out by everyone else.... to make it better, they had to make it longer, and that is even with the advantages of newer materials, exotic glasses, and coatings.
> ...



I didn’t explain myself well..... what I typed and what I as trying to say are very different.... please let me try again....

With the 50 F1.4, you have a reasonably small lens. The demand for new versions of that lens is to have higher and higher quality, and in order to deliver on that demand for increased quality, the physical size of the second party options has grown considerably. You can’t deliver both high quality and small size, one has to choose.

I think that the market for FF cameras is looking for the best quality possible, and my opinion is that they are not going to settle on buying a collection of newer lenses of lower IQ.... and that means that they will stick with EF.


----------



## BillB (Jan 29, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> well chosen lens mount parameters - focal flange distance, throat width - are absolutely crucial. They define "envelope of possibilities" for entire camera system and lens line-up. Importance cannot be underestimated. 1 mm in either dimension - and combination of dimensions - can make a world of difference. It does not go without significant punishment if a lens mount designed for APS-C image circle as an afterthought is pressed into service for FF image circle as well ... see Sony FE lens lineup. Design restrictions abound, making lenses more complex, larger, heavier and more expensive than what would be possible with a "really right for mirrorless FF" lens mount.
> 
> I have full confidence that Canon will chose mount parameters very wisely ... as they have done in the past. "When in doubt, make diameter larger to let more light in and let it pass more easily" ;D
> 
> ...



If it is so important to get the new mount exactly right, it seems to me that Canon would want to be very sure they nailed it, which would mean that it might be a while before this hypothetical EF-X mount, along with the absolutely vital very compact normal and UWA zooms, see the light of day. Meanwhile, my guess is that we will see an FF EF mirrorless, maybe a 6D size camera, hopefully with the 5DIV sensor or a suitable equivalent. As long as we are hoping and wishing... .


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 29, 2018)

1. Despite constant whimpering by some, Canon EF-M lens lineup is "perfectly right" on all counts. And broad enough. Everything coverd from 11 to 200mm. It matches interests of target group just fine: very compact and budget-friendly and optically anywhere from "decent to excellent". 

EF-M lens lineup is actually the biggest upside of Canon EOS M system compared to its competitors [Fuji, Sony, mFT]. Others may have (slightly) better camera bodies, but lenses like EF-M 22/2.0 or EF-M 11-22 are either not be had at or at twice or three times the price only. And then much bulkier and with unnecessary features like ... pseudo-mechanical aperture rings.  

No wonder, Canon M system sells like hotcakes. It's really simple: Decent, compact, reasonably priced cameras and very decent, very compact and very reasonably priced crop lenses. 8)

Compact, constant aperture f/4 wide- to standard EF-M zooms might be a possibility but in the end probably too high a price category for majority of EOS M buyers. After all, it is "APS-C only". People willing to spend serious money on lenses typically go for FF image circle, not for crop. At least I do, and looking at market data, many others as well. ;D

2. New native mirrorless "EF-X?" mount is not "abandoning EF mount". Going from long to shorter FFD makes transition simple, wuite the opposite of 1987 FD to EF move. There will be 100% fully functional compatibilty with any and all EF lenses ever made - to the extent DSLR-lenses can possibly be made compatible with mirrorless cameras - especially as far as AF systems go that were designed decades ago for pure Phase-AF operation]. All that's needed is a little mount adaptor ... that could also be permanently fixed as to mirrorless cam for those who prefer to have a "pig snout" up front on their cameras. 

Why is this so difficult to understand for some? Over and over again. "Holy cow, sacred EF mount". Without understanding nature of move to shorter FFD. Neither EF mount nor EF-lens owners will be "abandoned". We will be nicely "soft-transitioned" to new native mirrorless mount. Everything keeps working. Everybody can take the move from DSLR + EF to mirrorless + EF-X? at their own speed. Or as soon as superior new lenses come out and G.A.S. runs rampant.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> No wonder, Canon M system sells like hotcakes. It's really simple: Decent, compact, reasonably priced cameras and very decent, very compact and very reasonably priced crop lenses. 8)
> 
> ...People willing to spend serious money on lenses typically go for FF image circle, not for crop. At least I do, and looking at market data, many others as well. ;D



What makes you think that priorities for buyers of APS-C mirrorless cameras are the same as those for buyers of full frame MILCs? Even your own statement suggests they are not the same. 

What proportion of APS-C buyers are purchasing their first ILC? I'd bet the proportion of FF buyers in a similar situation is much, much lower. What proportion of APS-C owners versus FF owners have multiple lenses, where swapping among them and a new lens system mixed with adapters would be more problematic? How many T#i/7xxD bodies vs. SL#/1-200D bodies are sold globally, with similar feature sets but different body sizes, giving a hint as to the importance of smaller physical size in purchase decisions? 

As with many other things, you do not know the answers. That's OK, Canon does and you can be sure those answers will drive their product development decisions. 




AvTvM said:


> Why is this so difficult to understand for some? Over and over again.



Why is this so difficult for _you_ to understand, that your views are not necessarily those of the broader market.


----------



## BillB (Jan 29, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> 1. Despite constant whimpering by some, Canon EF-M lens lineup is "perfectly right" on all counts. And broad enough. Everything coverd from 11 to 200mm. It matches interests of target group just fine: very compact and budget-friendly and optically anywhere from "decent to excellent".
> 
> EF-M lens lineup is actually the biggest upside of Canon EOS M system compared to its competitors [Fuji, Sony, mFT]. Others may have (slightly) better camera bodies, but lenses like EF-M 22/2.0 or EF-M 11-22 are either not be had at or at twice or three times the price only. And then much bulkier and with unnecessary features like ... pseudo-mechanical aperture rings.
> 
> ...



The question for several of us seems to be why, rather than why not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Assuming a $2500 cost for an EF-X camera and a couple of zooms at $750 apiece, that is $4000 to buy into the game. And my guess that the introductory prices would be higher than that if Canon takes the time to make sure they have done it right. Canon would have to get its up front money out of it somehow.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 29, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> 1. Despite constant whimpering by some, Canon EF-M lens lineup is "perfectly right" on all counts. And broad enough. Everything coverd from 11 to 200mm. It matches interests of target group just fine: very compact and budget-friendly and optically anywhere from "decent to excellent".
> 
> EF-M lens lineup is actually the biggest upside of Canon EOS M system compared to its competitors [Fuji, Sony, mFT]. Others may have (slightly) better camera bodies, but lenses like EF-M 22/2.0 or EF-M 11-22 are either not be had at or at twice or three times the price only. And then much bulkier and with unnecessary features like ... pseudo-mechanical aperture rings.
> 
> ...



Not even your beloved Sony have solved the issue of getting people to buy FF as their first ILC: in fact, just the opposite, they seem to rely on getting committed FF users to switch from CaNikon rather than develop their own grass roots following. One reason Sony are convinced that a smaller body is the best way (including the A9 which many users say would ideally be bigger) is that smaller body = thinner mount - opportunity to get people to use lenses from another model. They had to do it to start off, let alone survive. 
Canon does not have that imperative, so they can afford to listen to what users actually want. 

So we come back to a question that I asked many moons ago in a slightly different context and you never answered then and I don't really expect you to answer now - where is the marketing imperative for Canon to take the higher risk option of introducing a narrower mount now?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So we come back to a question that I asked many moons ago in a slightly different context and you never answered then and I don't really expect you to answer now - where is the marketing imperative for Canon to take the higher risk option of introducing a narrower mount now?



I thought he covered that...because he wants it, precious. He wants it and he must haves it. 

That, and the millions of people whose opinions he claims to represent. : :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


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



I’ll take the three AvTvM posts which follow this and discuss “size” and “bulk” as a “no I can not.”

I do however look forward to being shown otherwise.


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I didn’t explain myself well..... what I typed and what I as trying to say are very different.... please let me try again....
> 
> With the 50 F1.4, you have a reasonably small lens. The demand for new versions of that lens is to have higher and higher quality, and in order to deliver on that demand for increased quality, the physical size of the second party options has grown considerably. You can’t deliver both high quality and small size, one has to choose.
> 
> I think that the market for FF cameras is looking for the best quality possible, and my opinion is that they are not going to settle on buying a collection of newer lenses of lower IQ.... and that means that they will stick with EF.



Ahhh, I understand, now 

Yes, I completely agree that the market for full frame cameras is to maximize quality. Keeping it smaller or lighter is still desirable, but secondary. You can see it in a lot of Mark II (or next version) Canon L lenses -- they sometimes get a little heavier or lighter, but you never see them claw back image quality. And the target market gets really miffed if any part of the focal or aperture range is inferior -- like with 24-105L II being reportedly very slightly worse at the wide end.

In my opinion, APSC or MFT just makes more sense if someone wants a smaller package. It's not like those are terrible sensor sizes.


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

BillB said:


> The question for several of us seems to be why, rather than why not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Assuming a $2500 cost for an EF-X camera and a couple of zooms at $750 apiece, that is $4000 to buy into the game. And my guess that the introductory prices would be higher than that if Canon takes the time to make sure they have done it right. Canon would have to get its up front money out of it somehow.



That's awfully optimistic.

It'd be more like $3,000 - $4,000 for an EF-X camera, about 3-4+ zooms at $2,000+ a piece, and some primes at $1,000+ each to have "essential tools" if you like a variety of stuff.

If I'm to replace my existing kit, I can't imagine not being able to cover from at least 16mm to 200mm in constant aperture zooms, with at least 2 out of 3 of those being f/2.8 and the third f/4 or f/2.8. I would really miss a 100-400, and then I would want a replacement for a 150-600 if I'm to go birding. I would need a macro prime 85mm-100mm range, as well as some type of portrait prime, though they could potentially be the same lens, and something wide.

And that's not even getting into stuff like a 135L2, which I don't "need", but I'd sure miss, a 50mm, and pancakes. 

Plus, a portrait orientation grip, wired and wireless remote triggers. And a wireless flash system that supported HSS, plus at least 3-4 flashes, if they changed RT. Another L bracket is inevitable.

It's a big investment, man. I can't speak for others, but I cannot imagine getting into new FF mount body + lenses for less than $10,000. Even if I didn't buy it all at one go, it wouldn't take long.


----------



## BillB (Jan 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > The question for several of us seems to be why, rather than why not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Assuming a $2500 cost for an EF-X camera and a couple of zooms at $750 apiece, that is $4000 to buy into the game. And my guess that the introductory prices would be higher than that if Canon takes the time to make sure they have done it right. Canon would have to get its up front money out of it somehow.
> ...



Well, it wouldn't cost that much because most of the stuff you are talking about wouldn't be available in an EF-X mount any time soon, but that's ok. With AvTvM's RX1-R form factor, you probably want to have a bigger rig around anyway. The pop up EVF bothers me at least as much as the adapters.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 29, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> 1. Despite constant whimpering by some, Canon EF-M lens lineup is "perfectly right" on all counts.



Sorry - totally not true even for the M series cameras. Have you missed how many folks want these lenses to be faster? For the new FF camera - these slower lenses will absolutely not cut it. People will want Pro level cameras - that means fast lenses. And that means big - as big as the lenses on my previous list.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jan 29, 2018)

I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.

Also, as they seem to be (my guess) releasing an EF-M mount video centric mirrorless camera, they will keep releasing new lenses for EF-M. 

Otherwise, they probably need to release two FF mirrorless cameras in rapid succession, one for the video centric audience and another with high resolution. And the third one will probably be the first real pro model. 

Anyway, interesting times ahead.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Sorry - totally not true even for the M series cameras. Have you missed how many folks want these lenses to be faster?



Yes, I've missed how many folks _in the overall market_ want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers. Consider that the EOS M system is very popular – #2 MILC globally – with only one fast(ish) prime, and the rest slow/variable zooms. Consider the EF-S lineup, with only f/2.8 primes (slow for primes), mostly slow/variable zooms, and only one fast zoom...which is getting very long in tooth. 

I think what most folks want is for EF-N lenses to be _cheaper_, like the EF-S 10-18mm that replaced the EF-S 10-22mm (lower cost, added IS, better IQ, but slower aperture – that ticked the boxes).




dak723 said:


> For the new FF camera - these slower lenses will absolutely not cut it. People will want Pro level cameras - that means fast lenses. And that means big - as big as the lenses on my previous list.



Agreed – FF and APS-C are different beasts.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry - totally not true even for the M series cameras. Have you missed how many folks want these lenses to be faster?
> ...



DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

One market is after small and cheap.... the other is after highest quality.... there are a few in the middle, but not enough to matter. (If you are one of those in the middle, it s**ks)


----------



## DaviSto (Jan 29, 2018)

kurt765 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.
> ...


Everybody overestimates the importance to the market of their individual purchasing decision ... it's only human. You were one of those most easily lured away from Canon. Chances are that you will be one of those most easily wooed back. But, I admit, that requires Canon to step-up and offer a competitive FF mirrorless camera. My bet is that they will ... in EF mount. But let's wait and see.

It's the people who are more difficult to separate from their money that represent the bigger marketing challenge.


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

BurningPlatform said:


> I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.



Could I be misunderstanding you?

How would an EF-M lens (APSC) be mountable on a full frame mirrorless? Even if it physically worked, you'd get the black vignette thing, and who wants that? Or do you mean something else?

I can't imagine any scenario9 where a FF will have a smaller flange focal distance or throat diameter than EF-M/E-Mount. 




Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I couldn't agree more. 

I just can't imagine someone in the "small and cheap" market buying a digital camera like a A7R3, which is small, but definitely not cheap, and with pro-grade lenses that aren't small and are definitely NOT cheap. And if you go with the kit-grade lenses... that's just such a waste of the body.

I am in the "awesome quality and my-wife-will-only-kill-me-once priced" category


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> BurningPlatform said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.
> ...


Assuming that you had an adaptor that would fit, and that the lens would focus, you could use a smaller diameter image circle and crop to it.

Where this gets interesting is that if you took a mirrorless EF mount camera, you could mount EF-S lenses on it ( no mirror clearance problems because you have no mirror) and run the camera in crop-mode using the centre 60% of the sensor......


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > BurningPlatform said:
> ...



Thats one of the things I would like about the a7riii. I could mount on their tiny crop sensor pancake lenses, and still have a 18mp image.


----------



## BillB (Jan 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!
> 
> One market is after small and cheap.... the other is after highest quality.... there are a few in the middle, but not enough to matter. (If you are one of those in the middle, it s**ks)



Actually, I think there is a middle, defined by having a single intermediate body (6D/80D/7DII etc.) and a relatively small number of intermediate lenses (f4 zooms, etc.) that is not all that bad for a lot of kinds of shooting (but certainly not all).


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, I've missed how many folks _in the overall market_ want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers.


I might be missing the nuance, but are you thinking that FF mirrorless buyers would tend to prefer lower cost lenses vs better, but more expensive lenses?

I look at the Eos-M and feel that it is a very good value system for what it is. And I'd generally prefer lower cost vs more expensive, too. But I also suspect that many people buying a FF mirrorless system would want lenses that excel in a few different areas, such as landscapes, travel (with good build quality and some weather sealing), low light and portraits (with wide apertures). I don't think they will want to settle for lenses that have noticeably lower specs or performance than current L lenses. I'm really curious how Canon will approach this.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2018)

BillB said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!
> ...



Yes.... as someone with a 6D2, 7D2, and F4 zooms I agree that there is a middle ground.... but as far as image quality goes, these bodies and glass are very close to the expensive options. We miss out on that extra stop of lens speed and the highest level of AF, but save a lot of money. 

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.... if I were to give odds it would be 80% EF Mount and 20% New Mount, but then again, I have no sales data or customer survey data, so realistically,I haven’t a clue what will happen.


----------



## BillB (Jan 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



That sounds about right to me. I think one big question is how fast people will give up their DSLR's. If people want to hold on to their DSLR's, I think Canon is going have a tough time selling them a mirrorless without an EF amount.


----------



## Talys (Jan 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Assuming that you had an adaptor that would fit, and that the lens would focus, you could use a smaller diameter image circle and crop to it.
> 
> Where this gets interesting is that if you took a mirrorless EF mount camera, you could mount EF-S lenses on it ( no mirror clearance problems because you have no mirror) and run the camera in crop-mode using the centre 60% of the sensor......



So, in other words, the probably $200 adaptor would turn your $3000 mirrorless full frame camera... into a $800 mirrorless APSC camera!  Ok, I guess how I see a few lens like 11-22 could be interesting-ish.

Then, you could go a step further, and make cheap crop lenses for native FF mount  Sounds moronic, but follow me, here. You could have a small APSC 300mm/f5.6 lens, crop it by a full 2x on a 50 megapixel camera (why stop at 1.6x?), and say "Effective 600mm!" -- which is no different than what some MFT folks like to argue about their cameras are lighter with their "equivalent" focal length lenses.

In terms of EFS, the problem is, almost all of Canon's EFS lenses are now pretty sucky. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that would be kind of cool would be EFS 18-135 nano usm.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2018)

there is definitely space for at 3 lines of mirrorless FF lenses ... just like in the world of EF glass ... 
1) hi-end: fast primes, fast zooms, high IQ, fully sealed, tank-like build, big, fat, super expensive - high grade "L"
2) middle ground: very good, not as fast, not as big, far less expensive ... like e.g. current EF /4.0 L zoom series 
1) basic line: optically decent, slower apertures, hi-grade plastics, not sealed, ultra-compact, very affordable ... f/1.8 - 2.8 primes, f/4.0 zooms, f/5.6 tele zooms

If camera has a slim mount, all 3 are possible. But if camera has EF mount, only 1 and 2 will be possible. What is smarter for Canon? And for customers as a whole? 

Personally I buy FF lenses in all 3 categories [crop lenses only in category 3 cheap] ... and put together kit as needed for the respective task. 

Also: "slim" new mount will not mean "only small cameras! There will undoubtedly be small(er) camera models and big(ger) camera models. As with Canon DSLRs. Canon can easily produce "chunky, big gripp, large battery, many physical control points"-cameras ... with "slim" mount. 

But not even innovative Canon can make ultracompact mirrorless FF cameras with EF mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2018)

Hillsilly said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I've missed how many folks _in the overall market_ want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers.
> ...



I was responding to the post suggesting that 'lots of' EOS M (i.e., APS-C) users want fast lenses, and suggesting that what they mostly want is inexpensive lenses.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jan 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> BurningPlatform said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.
> ...



I guess this was alraedy covered by others. Just what Nikon does with its DX lenses on FX - crop automatically to the center area of the sensor. Nikon allows for full frame capture as well, though, which seems to somewhat work with some lenses, zoom settings and apertures. See e.g. https://photographylife.com/using-nikon-dx-lenses-on-fx-cameras. I don't think Canon would allow it, though.


----------



## dsut4392 (Jan 31, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
> (similar pro lenses compared)
> 
> *35mm f/1.4*
> ...



Hmm, I see about 480g weight difference for the lenses, then add another 200g for the body. 680g weight difference is not to be sneezed at. And that's just for the 'Pro' lenses. If you consider that a smaller aperture lens stands to benefit more from the shorter flange distance, then those people who are prepared to compromise some IQ to save weight would see an even bigger saving in weight, and a significant saving in bulk. e.g. Canon 24-70/4 =600g
Sony 24-70/4 = 426g
Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 = 295g

My friends that have switched to Sony did it for size and weight reasons initially, but have now replaced many of their big L-series lenses with native G series and Zeiss Batis lenses for times when the weight doesn't matter (because of poor AF performance of the adapted lens, not poor optical performance).

If you don't want reduced size from a mirrorless camera, what _do_ you want that you couldn't get from an SLR in live view with a hybrid viewfinder?


----------



## dsut4392 (Jan 31, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Wait, what? CR is not representative of most buyers, yet in our little echo chamber we think the "WINNER" is what most people on the forum are arguing? That's some skewed logic if ever I've seen it!


----------



## dsut4392 (Jan 31, 2018)

Talys said:


> BurningPlatform said:
> 
> 
> > I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.
> ...



The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2018)

hahaha ... https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/

hahaha, dwarf-sensor plus 4k video apparently suffices for professional / Hollywood cine use already. 
Yes, also for "low light" scenes. 
No, I don't think Mr. Soderbergh's choice of imaging gear was forced by budgetary constraints ...  

By the time Canon launches a mirrorless FF system WITH 4k video ... there might be no more use for it. Except of course for forum members needing "highest possible IQ", native EF mount and big, fat expensive lenses ... to snap some pics for their vacation family albums ... ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2018)

Question: "What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful?"
Correct answer: "It has to come very soon." 
;D


----------



## Talys (Jan 31, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...



It's hard to imagine, because I don't know why someone would want to stick a kit lens on a $3,000 body. Or, for that matter, an APSC lens on a flagship full frame body.

If you buy a kit lens because of size, you're probably not super fussy about optical quality for that lens. So if that's the case, just do yourself a favor, and buy a relatively cheap, small APSC body. Then you can mount the cheap, and much smaller lens, because there is no way a full frame lens can compete in size with an crop one in size.

Also, I guess it's just me, but if I own the pro version of a lens, I would not buy another kit version that covered a similar focal range, _for the same camera_, even if that lens were a lot smaller and lighter.

For example: If I owned a 5D4 and an EF 50/1.2, I would never, ever mount my EF 50/1.8 or EF 50/1.4 on it. Or, if I owned a 24-105L, I would not mount (much less buy, afterwards....) a 24-105 STM.


----------



## BillB (Jan 31, 2018)

Talys said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...
> ...



My guess is there would be two cameras, one high end DSLR, and the other lightweight.


----------



## BillB (Jan 31, 2018)

Apparently, Canon designed an EF-M mount that would not work well for FF mirrorless. Was it because they could not design a mount that would work well for both aps-c and FF or was it because they had already decided that they would use the EF mount for their fullframe mirrorless? I'm pretty sure they thought about it at the time. Canon is not that stupid.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...



There were over 11 million ILCs sold last year. When discussing the overall ILC market, the market segment that you know is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> Apparently, Canon designed an EF-M mount that would not work well for FF mirrorless. Was it because they could not design a mount that would work well for both aps-c and FF or was it because they had already decided that they would use the EF mount for their fullframe mirrorless? I'm pretty sure they thought about it at the time. Canon is not that stupid.



Canon designed EF-M mount optimally suited to build very compact, very affordable and very decent APS-C mirrorless cameras and lenses. At the time of that design decision, "mirrorless FF" was not even a concept in the heads of their [geriatric ward] executive team. They thought, they could sell many more minimally improved, iterative generations of mirrorslappers. And did just that. 

Canon made exactly the same mistake Sony made in designing its E-mount as "optimal for APS-C" only. Due to Sony's failure with their big, fat, DOA SLTs they had to move to mirrorless FF much sooner. And were bitten in the rear by their E-mount mistake ... at the time they were under heavy criticism by some forum-dwelling old-fart A-mount users and by some web platform editors for "bringing ever more new mounts and abandoning the good old A-mount ... bla bla". So Sony decided not to bring one more new mount - optimal for mirrorless FF - but to press E-mount into full-frame service. Resulting in severely limited design options for their FE lenses. 

All 3 of them acted fairly stupidly: 
* Sony did not have the balls to say "f*ck A-mount" and bring a "true FE-mount" for their FF mirrorless system
* Canon - for believing they could go on for at least 10 more years just iterating their FF mirrorslpappers, mitigated only somewhat by eventually getting EOS M system right [after initial epic fail with "high price for crop-sensor camera"] 
* Nikon - totally dumb with their dwarf-size CX sensor for Nikon-1 system and believing they would not need APS-C and even less so FF mirrorless .. .for many years to come


----------



## BillB (Jan 31, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently, Canon designed an EF-M mount that would not work well for FF mirrorless. Was it because they could not design a mount that would work well for both aps-c and FF or was it because they had already decided that they would use the EF mount for their fullframe mirrorless? I'm pretty sure they thought about it at the time. Canon is not that stupid.
> ...



So your position is that Canon is indeed stupider than I thought. If the had been smarter, could they have designed a mount that met the needs of both ape-c and fullframe mirrorless cameras?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> So your position is that Canon is indeed stupider than I thought. If the had been smarter, could they have designed a mount that met the needs of both ape-c and fullframe mirrorless cameras?



His position is a delusion, wrapped in a dream, located in his own, private reality. A couple of examples:



AvTvM said:


> At the time of that design decision, "mirrorless FF" was not even a concept in the heads of their [geriatric ward] executive team.


Apparently, he sits on Canon's board and is privy to their internal discussions. Or he is capable of telepathically reading their thoughts. Or he's delusional. You pick. 



AvTvM said:


> * Canon - for believing they could go on for at least 10 more years just iterating their FF mirrorslpappers, mitigated only somewhat by eventually getting EOS M system right [after initial epic fail with "high price for crop-sensor camera"]


The original EOS M was the second best selling MILC in Japan (behind only one of Sony's many NEX models), without significant discounts, and Japan is the largest geographical market for MILCs (and was even more so at the time). But to him, it was an epic fail. That's what passes for reality in the AvTvM Universe.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 31, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> hahaha ... https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/
> 
> hahaha, dwarf-sensor plus 4k video apparently suffices for professional / Hollywood cine use already.
> Yes, also for "low light" scenes.
> ...



This is a straw man if ever I saw one. If movies and tv made with DSLRs were a small minority, professional video shot on mobile phones isn't even a blip on the radar. So what if some creative types use non-standard tools? Are you really claiming that the future is iPhones as standard for cinema? Don't be absurd (and even if that were the case, it has literally zero bearing on what cameras Canon should release in the next year or two). PS I doubt he was shooting handheld - even when using relatively small cameras, film-makers tend to use big, heavy rigs for stabilisation, focusing, etc. The future of mainstream cinema production is not tiny, and Canon's next mirrorless line is of no relevance to it whatsoever.

Incidentally, except when making a conscious decision (Barry Lyndon is the most famous example), there isn't really 'low light' on a film set - they can make the light as bright or dim as they want (and the norm seems to be even when a scene is set in the dark, they use plenty of lighting but use other cues, like blue colour, to indicate that it's night for instance). Try using an iPhone to film in a truly dimly-lit room and tell me sensor size doesn't matter.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 31, 2018)

Talys said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > The market segment I know doing this isn't after "small and cheap". They are buying BOTH the pro lenses and the kit lenses, and using each when it's appropriate. What's so hard to imagine about that? Perhaps you married the wrong woman...
> ...



I can name a couple of counterexamples, but they're probably niche - first, someone may be on an upgrade path that means they choose to get a better body before they can furnish it with better lenses. Second, if I had a cheap and an expensive lens covering the same FL, I might use the former if it was a situation where it might take more wear or damage, or if I was worried about it getting stolen, such as on holiday. Or indeed to maximise portability, especially where absolute image quality was less important (casual snapshots on a long walk, for instance).


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2018)

i use cheapest current Canon EF lens ... EF 50/1.8 STM ... and EF 40/2.8 on my 5D 3 more often than more expensive lenses i own (or rent). EF-M 18-55 more often than any other lens, especially more often than any of my big, heavy and rather conspicuous (!) 2.8 L zooms ... lens choice solely depending on shooting situation and my creative ideas / goals for images to be captured or created. 

Also ... not all excellent IQ lenses are necessarily big and/or expensive ... see Canon EF-M 22/2.0 or EF-M 11-22 ... or EF 40/2.8 ...


----------



## Talys (Jan 31, 2018)

scyrene said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > hahaha ... https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/
> ...



The iPhone is late to the game. In 2010, 5D Mark II was used to shoot the entire episode of House's season finale. Viewers who weren't tech geeks didn't even know. That's was a top rated TV show! See? Canon doesn't need a cine line. Or the 5D Mark 3 or Mark 4. Or, evidently, 4k video.

https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 31, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Canon designed EF-M mount optimally suited to build very compact, very affordable and very decent APS-C mirrorless cameras and lenses. At the time of that design decision, "mirrorless FF" was not even a concept in the heads of their [geriatric ward] executive team. They thought, they could sell many more minimally improved, iterative generations of mirrorslappers. And did just that.
> 
> Canon made exactly the same mistake Sony made in designing its E-mount as "optimal for APS-C" only. Due to Sony's failure with their big, fat, DOA SLTs they had to move to mirrorless FF much sooner. And were bitten in the rear by their E-mount mistake ... at the time they were under heavy criticism by some forum-dwelling old-fart A-mount users and by some web platform editors for "bringing ever more new mounts and abandoning the good old A-mount ... bla bla". So Sony decided not to bring one more new mount - optimal for mirrorless FF - but to press E-mount into full-frame service. Resulting in severely limited design options for their FE lenses.
> 
> ...



So based on your research the solution is that Canon/Sony/Nikon start a joint venture with Walmart and get permission to mount Walmart's patented collapsible stainless steel cup in front of their mirrorless cameras and then attach lenses to it. Problem solved. What a brilliant solution! Stupid Canon, Sony Nikon!!


----------



## dak723 (Jan 31, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
> ...



Very clever! Yes, if you add up all the comparable lenses, you will save some weight! Of course, I only have one lens on my camera at a time. So I guess I don't really see your point.

I never said I don't want reduced size from a mirrorless. What I am saying is that the size reduction that many folks here seem to want or think likely to happen isn't really possible. Nor is the size and weight dependent on the mount as the SL-1 clearly indicates. When Canon does come out with a FF mnirrorless, I would be very disappointed if it was not smaller and lighter than its DSLR counterparts. It can do so with an EF mount. If it has the same 18mm mount as Sony, I wouldn't even consider it, because I can not afford the high priced lenses that would be necessary to overcome the optical issues that the short flange distance creates. I have tried the Sony FF - and with the cheaper kit lenses that do not correct for the short flange distance, you get burned. 

Like most folks, I shoot with the viewfinder, so whatever is possible in live view is irrelevant. Nor does any camera I have a "hybrid" viewfinder, which would certainly be welcome. My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2018)

dak723 said:


> My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.



It _can be_ a huge advantage, in some situations. In others, it can be a major impediment. For example, shooting with flash using camera settings intended to eliminate the contribution of ambient lighting – in that use case, WYSIWIG becomes WYSIN (what you see is nothing).


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
> ...



could be handled by software function (firmware) ..."flash active -> exposure simulation" ... or is it already handled that way ... ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Automatically? The camera would need to decide if your intent is fill flash or primary illumination. It can already be done manually in the settings (at least with Canon, with Sony if you can find the menu setting, not sure about Nikon but their live view mode is already clunky).


----------



## Duct_Taper (Jan 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


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



I can't speak for other cameras, but using my T6s in Live View with hotshoe bounce flash as the primary lighting, the Live View picture stays quite dark until I begin focusing and then it automatically brightens to perform autofocus. It's possible there is a setting that controls this behavior but if so I haven't found it or changed it (i.e. this is how it behaves by default).

It still doesn't give you a WYSIWYG image but at least you can see to confirm focus, composition, etc.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 31, 2018)

Talys said:


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



Yes, but my point is actually the opposite happened - when they saw the success of the 5D2 for film-making, Canon started releasing the cinema line cameras - they saw the best way to maximise profits in that sector was not pursuing DSLR moviemakers, but dedicated movie cameras (and I'd argue the same is true for mirrorless stills cameras).


----------



## BillB (Jan 31, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



My guess is that the 5DII didn't have much impact on Canon's decision to develop the cine line, which was taking off anyway. I think there is a real limit to how much DSLR's can meet video needs.


----------



## Talys (Jan 31, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The iPhone is late to the game. In 2010, 5D Mark II was used to shoot the entire episode of House's season finale. Viewers who weren't tech geeks didn't even know. That's was a top rated TV show! See? Canon doesn't need a cine line. Or the 5D Mark 3 or Mark 4. Or, evidently, 4k video.
> ...



Sorry, man... I understood that. I was being sarcastic  

I post all the time that if I wanted to make semi-pro/enthusiast quality video, I'd invest in video equipment, not try to shove a square peg into a round hole with a DSLR. ;D


----------



## dak723 (Feb 1, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
> ...



Hmmm...interesting, since WYSIN is the case with 100% of all shots with an OVF...  ;D 

I guess that means that an OVF is a major impediment. I've never ever thought that, but I guess you have convinced me!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2018)

dak723 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Seems you missed the point, but that's ok. If it helps, note that I didn't state there was no ambient light, I stated the use of camera settings to eliminate the image contribution of that ambient light. Think 1/200 s, f/14 and ISO 100 in a room with a 60W-equivalent bulb...plenty of light to compose (and focus, with a dSLR at least) with an f/2.8 (and probably f/4) lens, but WYSIWYG becomes WYSIN. Let me know if you need more help understanding the issue.


----------



## Talys (Feb 1, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Seems you missed the point, but that's ok. If it helps, note that I didn't state there was no ambient light, I stated the use of camera settings to eliminate the image contribution of that ambient light. Think 1/200 s, f/14 and ISO 100 in a room with a 60W-equivalent bulb...plenty of light to compose (and focus, with a dSLR at least) with an f/2.8 (and probably f/4) lens, but WYSIWYG becomes WYSIN. Let me know if you need more help understanding the issue.



This describes a lot of home studio situations (me!). I have enough ambient light to compose, but I want to shoot at a relatively fast shutter speed and at as high an aperture as possible at ISO 100, and rely on strobes/flashes to provide all of the actual light for the shot. 

Think woman with hair in the wind (fan), and you want to keep everything in focus. Even if you had the magic unicorn camera that could perfectly focus and recover colors even in near-darkness because it had the bestest sensor ever, and I had a t1i and a proper lighting setup, the photo taken with the t1i would STILL be incomparably better, because at the end of the day, the two things that you need to make the portrait amazing is a flattering pose and flattering/dramatic/interesting light. If you're just using the ambient lighting in the room, that just isn't going to happen.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 1, 2018)

All of this leads to the conclusion that Canon probably realized some time ago. The well-equipped photo bug must have a DSLR _and_ a MILC, since each has different strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 1, 2018)

Talys said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



To me, it is an ergonomics problem.... you hold the camera differently for video and for stills. A real video camera is much easier to hold and move around when shooting video and the controls are properly located, while a DSLR just feels terrible..... and the roles are reversed when shooting stills...


----------



## bwud (Feb 1, 2018)

dak723 said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I asked this question in another thread but it wasn’t answered. I have only an elementary understanding of optics, so am curious:

Is is *not possible* due to the physics, or did it just *not happen* with this specific manufacturer’s lens lineup? 

It it impossible to realize weight reduction from a shorter mount? Obviously longer lenses optically must be longer physically, and wider apertures require a wider apparent iris, which is limited by the front element. However a statement was made that Sony’s mount is inefficient for 135-format. If true, is that playing into the magnitude of the weight difference? If so, how much?


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 1, 2018)

dak723 said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



How are the other focal length lenses in your bag any less relevant than the one lens mounted? The weight reduction of 680g was based on a reasonable kit of real-life lenses (and in fact it actually grows if you omit the 24-70s which overlap the 24-105s), yet you say it "really isn't possible". What's your opinion on the moon landings out of interest, did they not happen either?

As has been pointed out in this thread and others is that many of Sonys lens design contraints are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount as much as the are to do with the flange focal distance. Is Canon likely to use E-mount?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> What's your opinion on the moon landings out of interest, did they not happen either?
> 
> As has been pointed out in this thread and others is that many of Sonys lens design contraints are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount as much as the are to do with the flange focal distance. Is Canon likely to use E-mount?



Moon landings? They happened. But...speaking of people unwilling or unable to accept reality – considering the 'design contraints [that] are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount', what about the Leica M mount which has a throat diameter 2 mm _narrower_ than Sony E. Out of interest, does Leica not make high-quality, compact lenses?


----------



## Talys (Feb 1, 2018)

bwud said:


> I asked this question in another thread but it wasn’t answered. I have only an elementary understanding of optics, so am curious:
> 
> Is is *not possible* due to the physics, or did it just *not happen* with this specific manufacturer’s lens lineup?
> 
> It it impossible to realize weight reduction from a shorter mount? Obviously longer lenses optically must be longer physically, and wider apertures require a wider apparent iris, which is limited by the front element. However a statement was made that Sony’s mount is inefficient for 135-format. If true, is that playing into the magnitude of the weight difference? If so, how much?



To say that it's a physics limitation should be qualified to, "it's not possible using available materials and available technology."

A camera lens or optical telescope works by light hitting elements such as convex and concave glass that bend light multiple times until it hits the focal plane (your sensor or optical viewfinder). We can state the following as immutable:

- We'll always need a series of lenses (as opposed to just one lens) because it's necessary to focus the image based on how far away it is.

- Since photons hit the first glass element and progress towards the focal plane, the larger the glass elements, the more photons will enter the lens. So if you want a brighter image on the sensor, you'll need larger glass elements.

Now, optics teaches us that the lens material matters. There are many considerations, at the top being refractive index (how much the material will bend light), and transmittance (how much light passes through). There are many other considerations though, that contribute to what we consider "Image Quality", like how the material causes chromatic abberation or how it may cause internal reflections. And, how heavy the material is matters too.

Keep in mind that no all lenses are made of glass, and that not all glass is made equal. There are many trade-offs, and improvements in glass material science is a near certainty. If newer glass has higher transmittance, more light could get through the elments. But there are other alternatives too. You see lots of them in eyeglasses -- high index polymers, Trivex, or even plastic. 

Usually camera manufacturers like glass because it's very stable (for example, with temperature) and yields great image quality. Some of the other materials which may be thinner and lighter yield far inferior images, or do not coat well.

So given all that, camera makers build "optical formulae", which is the sequence of elements inside the lens. It's entirely possible that Canon or Sony figures out a more efficient formula, and that would yield a smaller lens package. But the gains are probably not huge, as the guys who figure out these things are pretty good at what they do, and these companies have been doing it for decades. 

It's also possible to introduce clever new ways of using existing materials, like diffractive lenses. However, using that as an example, diffractive optical elements have their own limitations and are expensive to produce.

There are also cost and material strength considerations. You could make lenses really light by picking a light material like plastic, but then it's not very durable. Or, you could make them super light and strong by using a material like titanium, but then nobody would be able to afford them.

So the problem isn't that it's not _impossible_, or at least, it's not _inconceivable_. However, to accomplish significantly brighter (faster aperture) AND smaller lenses would require some breakthrough in optics that hasn't happened yet, and therefore makes it the stuff of science fiction for now. Of course, today's scifi could be tomorrow's reality.

It's not a problem that can be solved and commercialized in the short term, so until that breakthrough happens, we're looking at tinkering around the edges, improving glass and coatings, electronics and design, and at best, the types of improvements that you see between 100-400 Mark 1 to Mark 2. The new lens is certainly _much better_ in almost every measurable way -- optics, ergonomics, usability... pick any measure you want -- but it surely is not significantly smaller and lighter.


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 1, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > What's your opinion on the moon landings out of interest, did they not happen either?
> ...



Thankyou for agreeing with me. Yes, it is possible to make small high quality lenses for a shorter flange focal distance than 44mm. The throat diameter matters less the greater the distance between the focal plane and closest lens element gets, but of course you know that. Besides, "constraint" <> "impossible", which of course you also knew. Out on interest, do you think optical design of lens with short flange focal distance is less constrained with a narrower mount, or do you not know?


----------



## scyrene (Feb 2, 2018)

Talys said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Sorry, I did appreciate your humour even if I was too clumsy to express it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> Out on interest, do you think optical design of lens with short flange focal distance is less constrained with a narrower mount, or do you not know?



In most cases, it will be more constrained with a narrower throat diameter. But of course, optical design is only one of the factors affecting choice of lens mount parameters.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 2, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > dsut4392 said:
> ...



Sorry that I upset you by making my list of comparable lenses. I was just personally curious as to the differences in the lens lineup between Canon and what will likely be one of their two main competitors when they all enter the mirrorless FF lineup. Then I shared what I learned, which, I realize now, was a big mistake, as folks here are not actually interested in factual information - aside from the authenticity of the moon landings, which I am quite sure actually happened as they were big news at the time. I am fairly certain the lenses I listed above are real and that the size and weight information is factual, although - now that I think about it - I have not actually seen any of the Sony lenses in real life. 

I am not an optical engineer, so I shouldn't have said "isn't really possible." I should have said, "it isn't likely to happen, in my opinion." Thank you for making me see the error in my ways. Since my issues with weight are more about the camera I am actually carrying, not the weight of a full camera bag, which I rarely carry, and would more likely be in the front seat, or perhaps the trunk of my car, (and when I do carry it, never has more than 2, maybe 3 lenses in it), thank you for pointing out that a real photographer like you would have 5 maybe 6 lenses in their bag. So, yes, the cumulative weight would matter.

Sorry that my comments - and my list of lenses - so upset you that you felt you needed to personally attack my sanity (re: moon landing belief). Have a good day.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2018)

the facts you state are objective. But - as has been pointed out - they are no evidence whatsoever that those Sony FE lenses represent the "smallest and lightest possible lens design" for other mirrorless FF systems. Actually, quite far from it. Sony FE lenses are only one possible implementation of a mirrorless FF mount and lens ecosystem ... one that is fundamentally flawed and hampered by using a lens mount that really is "optimized for APS-C image circle" also for an FF system. Chosen out of marketing considerations at the time.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Feb 2, 2018)

It may be useful to look at the constraints that Canon faces and how they may influence their FF mirrorless design. 

1. Canon is not only a camera gear company. It is also an office equipment company. I believe that Canon CEO indicated recently that they are going to shift more resources to the fast growing office equipment divisions. This is a sound business decision, as per standard business rules. The implication: less money for camera R&D.

2. Canon is not a large scale manufacturer of sensors, as opposed to Sony who manufacture hundreds of millions of sensors (40% of smartphone camera market). The implication: relatively little money for base image sensor R&D. Possible solution: close/sell the image sensor division; buy sensors from Sony, as Nikon does.

3. Shrinking camera market. The implication for a multi division company like Canon: put your shrinking division into milking cow status. Milk the market.

4. What really keeps Canon users loyal? EF lenses. 130 million of them. The implication: keep EF mount at all cost. No new mount, there is no R&D money for it anyway.

Personally, I believe that Canon will treat the mount issue as a seamless transition problem. By analogy, Apple migrated their computer customers from IBM RISC architecture to Intel x86 architecture essentially seamlessly. Technically this is a nightmare. Users did not notice. What was important for the users? That their applications would work on the new computers. And they did.
For Canon users the EF lenses are all important. Continuing use of EF mount will make the migration a non issue. That is it. There is also a future opportunity here for Canon to design lenses utilising the space behind the EF mount plane previously reserved for the mirror.

5. Constrain: not enough processing power and bandwidth to memory and media to implement 4K 60 Hz non-binned video and fancy processing like e.g. Eye-AF. Solution: Redevelop the processing string. Benefit: reuse in future DSLRs. 

-----------------------

Canon has also an opportunity to redevelop the overall shape and ergonomics of the new FF mirrorless camera. Todays DSLRs still have the same shape as the first SLRs from 70 years ago when lenses were tiny and you had to have space in the body for the film cassette and take up roll. Objectively, this shape is ergonomically unsatisfactory for use with modern large and heavy lenses. You need to keep your left hand under the lens to balance. Perhaps a shape of the body more akin to Hasselblad 6x6 but with additional grip protruding forward from underneath the camera would be better.


----------



## bwud (Feb 2, 2018)

Talys said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > I asked this question in another thread but it wasn’t answered. I have only an elementary understanding of optics, so am curious:
> ...



Thanks for the lengthy response Talys.

Would you say then that the mount (in particular the diameter and flange distance) is immaterial/minor factor to lens length, diameter, and element count with all else being equal (most particular: focal length, maximum aperture, and format size)?

I’m not particularly concerned with size and weight. Lighter and smaller would be nice to have but it’s not mandatory. The lenses I have for my Sony setup are on par with my similar canon lenses, if not heavier. I was just curious if they had to do with the alleged flaw in Sony’s mount geometry for 135-format as opposed to physical limitations of optics.


----------



## Karlbug (Feb 2, 2018)

I have a question, which may have been answered in some previous thread, but I just can't find it.

Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount? By that I mean a mount fully compatible with EF lenses, but also compatible with some new type of MILC-only lenses protruding more into the camera to shorten the flange focal distance? Because that's essentially what EF-S lenses do apart from covering smaller image circle, right? Or have I misunderstood the concept of EF-S?


----------



## unfocused (Feb 2, 2018)

Chris Jankowski said:


> It may be useful to look at the constraints that Canon faces and how they may influence their FF mirrorless design...



While I don't generally disagree with your basic premises, I think there is more nuance than you realize.

Canon is more than a camera company, but the bulk of its recent investments seems to be in the imaging business, particularly in medical and surveillance. It is not unreasonable to believe that R&D investments in these areas will pay dividends for its camera division, particularly in the area of low-light imaging, which Canon has been pursuing aggressively on a number of fronts.

Sony is a huge manufacturer of sensors, but manufacturing volume does not automatically translate into more dollars for R&D. At some point the economies of scale hits diminishing returns and simply stamping out billions of sensors for cell phones doesn't equate to innovation. 

While cameras and lenses may not be the bulk of Canon's business today, it remains its defining business. Canon is well aware of that and invests heavily in marketing their image as a camera company. Sony, on the other hand, is a consumer electronics company and a producer of media. That's their core identity. Their camera division could disappear overnight and it would have little impact on the company. 

There is no evidence that Canon is "milking" the market. Instead they are investing heavily in related industries like medical and surveillance imaging and retooling their camera lines to focus on where they perceive the market to be going, focusing more resources on the highly lucrative enthusiast market.

If what you are saying is that all signs point to an EF-Mount full frame mirrorless, I would agree. I just would point out that you are misreading some of the signs along the route.


----------



## BillB (Feb 2, 2018)

angrykarl said:


> I have a question, which may have been answered in some previous thread, but I just can't find it.
> 
> Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount? By that I mean a mount fully compatible with EF lenses, but also compatible with some new type of MILC-only lenses protruding more into the camera to shorten the flange focal distance? Because that's essentially what EF-S lenses do apart from covering smaller image circle, right? Or have I misunderstood the concept of EF-S?



The question has come up a few times, but I haven't seen any meaningful responses. It certainly bears on the question of whether Canon might introduce a short flange mount optimized for FF.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Feb 2, 2018)

In response to BillB:

>>>Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount? 

Mechanically and electrically EF-S is identical to EF i.e. there is no such thing like EF-S mount strictly speaking. There exist EF-S lenses that differ from regular EF lenses only by having rear elements protruding closer to the sensor. This is possible for APS-C cameras only, because their mirror is smaller than FF cameras mirror. This is also why you cannot use EF-S lenses in FF Canon DSLRs, as they would obstruct the flapping mirror path.

So, a mirrorless FF camera with EF mount will certainly be able to use both EF and EF-S lenses without restrictions other then the image circle i.e. an EF-S lense will not automagically become a FF lens. Moreover, it would be possible to design new FF lenses that would have the rear elements protruding even closer to the sensor. These lenses could only be used with the FF mirrorless, not with any Canon DSLRs. These lenses have the potential to be cheaper and smaller in certain cases, as they might avoid the need for retro focus type of a design.

I hope this is clear now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2018)

To avoid confusion on the part of consumers, Canon's line of full frame mirrorless lenses will be called EF-L because they are for cameras that Lack a mirror. 

;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 2, 2018)

Chris Jankowski said:


> In response to BillB:
> 
> >>>Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount?



Mechanically and electrically EF-S is identical to EF i.e. there is no such thing like EF-S mount strictly speaking. 
[/quote]

Except aren’t EF-S lenses designed such that they physically interfere when mounted to a full frame camera?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Except aren’t EF-S lenses designed such that they physically interfere when mounted to a full frame camera?



Yes, but there's a simple solution…a full frame mirrorless camera could simply use the EF-S style of mount, which accepts both EF and EF-S lenses.


----------



## BillB (Feb 2, 2018)

Chris Jankowski said:


> In response to BillB:
> 
> >>>Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount?
> 
> ...



Very clear. Thank you


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Except aren’t EF-S lenses designed such that they physically interfere when mounted to a full frame camera?
> ...



Duh


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



It is obvious, I wasn't sure why you seemed confused.


----------



## BillB (Feb 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



If you want FF mirrorless lenses that protrudes deeper than the EF-S standard, maybe an EF compatible mount that prevents mounting on both EF and EF-S DSLR's would be useful.. This might be called an EF-W or EF-Y -- something like that.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Feb 3, 2018)

In response to BillB:

>>>>>If you want FF mirrorless lenses that protrudes deeper than the EF-S standard, maybe an EF compatible mount that prevents mounting on both EF and EF-S DSLR's would be useful.

In principle, it is simple to do a small cut out in the mount on an FF mirrorless and a matching key on a deeply protruding lens. However, I believe that this was not done by Canon for EF-S lenses, so why should it be done now for the new lenses. Moreover, one may wish to use the new lens on a DSLR with mirror lifted up and using Live View. This will work, so why to prevent it?

I think that Canon has the right to expect some minimum intelligence from their customers. I know it is a dangerous assumption -)).


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Feb 3, 2018)

In response to BillB:

In addition, such a cut out and key solution will prevent use of the new lenses with anything that currently may go at the back of an EF lens - macro rings, adapters to the Canon M series, adapters for other mirrorless cameras such as Sony A7/A9, various microscope and telescope adapters, third party extenders, etc.

For all of these devices new versions would need to be issued or a lot of DYI work with a file or hacksaw will have to happen.

Canon has no business in making their lenses harder to use whichever way people want to use them.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 3, 2018)

Hi Chris. 
First of all, every Canon camera of mine releases mirror lockup or live view as you start to remove the lens making it extremely risky to try deep lenses on FF bodies, and then there is the fact that lots of people don’t read manuals, so have no idea why the EF-S lenses don’t fit the FF bodies only that they tried and it won’t go! 

Cheers, Graham. 



Chris Jankowski said:


> Moreover, one may wish to use the new lens on a DSLR with mirror lifted up and using Live View. This will work, so why to prevent it?
> 
> I think that Canon has the right to expect some minimum intelligence from their customers. I know it is a dangerous assumption -)).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 4, 2018)

Left this thread a while back to conserve time but ran across this article which made me smile. Back to the future it is, I guess - Reflex cameras.

I found it interesting when he comments, "I don't like ..." 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/using-optical-viewfinders-on-cameras-that-already-have-viewing?utm_medium=Email%201663751&utm_campaign=Content&utm_source=WeeklyContent%20180204&utm_content=Explora&utm_term=using-optical-viewfinders-on-cameras-that-already-have-viewing

Anyone using these here?

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 4, 2018)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Chris.
> First of all, every Canon camera of mine releases mirror lockup or live view as you start to remove the lens making it extremely risky to try deep lenses on FF bodies, and then there is the fact that lots of people don’t read manuals, so have no idea why the EF-S lenses don’t fit the FF bodies only that they tried and it won’t go!
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



agreed!

Now a FF mirrorless..... that's a different story!


----------



## Talys (Feb 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> agreed!
> 
> Now a FF mirrorless..... that's a different story!



I guess you guys are right, there's no reason I can think of NOT to use an auto-detect EFS mount on a full frame camera. I cannot think of any downside. if you had a 50-ish megapixel FF camera that become a 30-ish megapixel APSC, that would be neat.

On the other hand, I also can't really think of any EFS lenses I'd want to mount onto a full frame camera, except _maybe_ 17-135 (which would crop 1.6x that), as it is a very nice lens for video, with its very quiet and fast AF motor, that also allows for electronic W/T control.


----------



## hmatthes (Feb 9, 2018)

*Anyone Using Vintage Leica M Lenses want to use them FF?*

I am almost all Canon EOS -- the rest Leica glass. I'm testing a Canon M5 next week with my EF glass but am curious as to trying Leica M vintage lenses on the M5 -- don't have time to order an adapter...

Do you shoot your Canon mirrorless with Leica M glass?

Seems like a natural idea if you like the richness of 50 year old glass....

I'll buy the FF Canon mirrorless even if it is EF/EF-s only but if it is Canon M mount, I could change adapters from Canon EF to Leica M as required!

Just curious!


----------



## Piko-fr (Mar 25, 2018)

I think that keeping the EF mount and especially using the Canon EOS lenses with the mirrorless Canon is not possible.The lens-to-sensor distance of a mirrorless camera is less than the lens-to-sensor distance of DSLRs. So for the future Nikon or Canon, the use of an "old" lens will need an adapter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2018)

Piko-fr said:


> I think that keeping the EF mount and especially using the Canon EOS lenses with the mirrorless Canon is not possible.The lens-to-sensor distance of a mirrorless camera is less than the lens-to-sensor distance of DSLRs. So for the future Nikon or Canon, the use of an "old" lens will need an adapter.



Certainly it's possible. The 44mm flange focal distance could be maintained on a mirrorless body either with a deeper body or a 'snout' for the lens mount (e.g., Sigma Quattro).


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > agreed!
> ...



I'm thinking of this from a "how do we sell more" viewpoint.... If you are a crop shooter and you decide to go FF, it can cost a lot to get all those new lenses, where this way you could get a new body and gradually upgrade..... It might tempt more people to make the jump to FF.


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Definitely! The ability to use EFS on the full frame would encourage a lot of people to experiment or make the jump, I think. Anything to smooth out the transition curve.

The Sony implementation is really nice; it's transparent, and you just end up with a lovely 18 megapixel APSC camera. If they did that on Canon, I'd definitely be happy.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 26, 2018)

Piko-fr said:


> I think that keeping the EF mount and especially using the Canon EOS lenses with the mirrorless Canon is not possible.The lens-to-sensor distance of a mirrorless camera is less than the lens-to-sensor distance of DSLRs. So for the future Nikon or Canon, the use of an "old" lens will need an adapter.



The flange back distance from lens to sensor can be whatever the manufacturer wants. Current mirrorless designs take advantage of the lack of need to provide clearance for a moving mirror and make the camera smaller. This is popular in some markets, not so popular in others. The point is that being mirrorless does not mean a lens must be closer, that causes lots of design issues, particularly at the edges of the sensor due to the angle that light rays strike.


----------

