# Some Canon Mirrorless Talk [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 12, 2016)

```
Lost in the anticipation of the EOS 5D Mark IV announcement in August, is the likelihood of new EOS M camera(s) in the fall for Photokina. We’ve been told that there will definitely be 2 ILC EOS M cameras announced before the end of 2016.</p>
<p>One of the cameras that will be announced is a follow-up to the EOS M3 which was announced in February of 2015 and didn’t make its way to North America until October of 2015. The new camera we’re told will be equipped with the new sensor from the EOS 80D and will see “minor” ergonomic changes.</p>
<p>The second camera, which may actually be announced first will be Canon’s first “prosumer” focused mirrorless camera. Two sources have said that the camera will use a newly designed 24mp full frame image sensor. This camera will be designed to use EF lenses, but how that’s going to be done is presently unknown to us. Details beyond that are quite fuzzy, but we’re pressing for more.</p>
<p>We haven’t heard anything more about a fixed lens full frame camera from Canon, but we hope that’s coming as well.</p>
<p>Expect 3 to 5 new EF-M lenses to be announced before the close of the year. There will be faster prime lenses along with new zooms, but nothing beyond 300mm.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## pedro (Apr 12, 2016)

*Is it too vague to take a guess that the rumored 6DII could probably see its 24 MP mirrorless debut? *


----------



## d (Apr 12, 2016)

Very interesting...I am eager to see what an EF compatible FF mirrorless would look like.

d.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 12, 2016)

Hoping atleast one of those two has DPAF sensor.


----------



## pedro (Apr 12, 2016)

It might as well be the 5DIV...who knows. 5DII pioneered video in DSLRs. 5D series could pioneer Canon's full frame mirrorless. Or will we see another diversification where Canon keep the 5D series as DSLRs and add a new FF mirrorless to their camera body line up?


----------



## Foxdude (Apr 12, 2016)

Very, very interesting. FF mirrorless with EF mount, and new fast primes. I think I need to start save some coins 8)
Interested also M3 successor. We will wait.


----------



## lw (Apr 12, 2016)

Another year, another false dawn...

Ever since I bought my original M back in 2012, every year there has been the rumour of a 'prosumer' M, and vague promises and commitments from Canon execs that they are committed to the M series. Every year it is going to get a DP sensor... Every year there are going to be more and more lenses...

Every year I have been let down and the rumours have been shown to be false.

What is different this time? Nothing.

Not until there is a physical prosumer M in someone's hands will I believe anything about the M...


----------



## pedro (Apr 12, 2016)

lw said:


> Another year, another false dawn...
> 
> Ever since I bought my original M back in 2012, every year there has been the rumour of a 'prosumer' M, and vague promises and commitments from Canon execs that they are committed to the M series. Every year it is going to get a DP sensor... Every year there are going to be more and more lenses...
> 
> ...



This might be your year then... ;D


----------



## crashpc (Apr 12, 2016)

Sounds good enaugh for me. 2 grand of very free money waiting for some usable Canon MILC. 80D sensor is about acceptable upgrade. I would prefer new one, non DPAF, 28-30Mpx piece with on-chip ADC.


----------



## -1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> One of the cameras that will be announced is a follow-up to the EOS M3 which was announced in February of 2015 and didn’t make its way to North America until October of 2015. The new camera we’re told will be equipped with the new sensor from the EOS 80D and will see “minor” ergonomic changes.


If the ergonomic changes involves an intergrated EVF and the sensor gets to keep the DPAF then the Ms might be going places. I don't belive in mirrorless with the EF mount.


----------



## 1Zach1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Loved my M, wish it were still functioning. I would love faster AF, better battery life, integrated intervalometer, while still staying small in footprint. An integrated EVF would be great but I think that's a bridge too far without pushing the camera size too large for what I want it for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2016)

Looking forward to the new M with the 80D sensor, and to new EF-M lenses. Hope the M body stats small, no EVF please. Expect we'll see an M macro and a longer 'fast' prime (50/2?). Just picked up the M55-200. 

Not sure we'll see a FF MILC, but maybe so if it's a 6D-M.


----------



## jebrady03 (Apr 12, 2016)

crashpc said:


> Sounds good enaugh for me. 2 grand of very free money waiting for some usable Canon MILC. 80D sensor is about acceptable upgrade. I would prefer new one, non DPAF, 28-30Mpx piece with on-chip ADC.



Why wouldn't you want DPAF? There's no downside to it, only upside, including VERY fast focusing, as seen in the 80D. Also, if they just transplant the 80D sensor into an M, it'll have on-sensor ADC. MP will be less than you desire, but not by much.


----------



## Pitbullo (Apr 12, 2016)

I am wondering how they implement the FF mirrorless with the EF mount. One idea is, instead of having an adapter letting you use EF lenses, it could be in reverse. The adapter would be a part of the camera, fully implemented, so the mirrorless camera would have an EF mount. However, once the number of FF ML lenses increase, one can remove the EF part of the mount, leaving you with the mount for mirrorless. 
Does this makes sense? Removing a part that is a natural part of the body to get to the mirrorless mount instead of adding an adapter making the camera body bulky and oddly shaped.


----------



## colinu (Apr 12, 2016)

I am currently happily using a 60D, but was toying with upgrading to an 80D. I have also been considering moving to full frame. I can see advantages to going mirrorless, but I would want controls similar to what a DSLR has, and a first-rate EVF. Any purchase is on hold until either the first price drop on the 80D, or more light is shed on these potential releases.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 12, 2016)

pedro said:


> It might as well be the 5DIV...who knows. 5DII pioneered video in DSLRs. 5D series could pioneer Canon's full frame mirrorless. Or will we see another diversification where Canon keep the 5D series as DSLRs and add a new FF mirrorless to their camera body line up?



No way it would be the 5DIV unless its a mirrorless body released in parrallel with the dslr body. Too many pro applications where current EVF wont cut it.


----------



## colinu (Apr 12, 2016)

Pitbullo said:


> I am wondering how they implement the FF mirrorless with the EF mount.



To my mind it would be extremely simple for Canon to modify an existing body for mirrorless. If you start with the premise that it is compatible only with EF lens (not EF-S or EF-M), then you would have an abundance of space in an existing Full Frame body. The sensor would sit where it currently does, but no mirrorbox is needed. In addition to reducing noise, wouldn't the removal of any mirror slap also be a benefit?The pentaprism for the optical viewfinder would also be omitted. This would give additional space for electronics to be shifted about. I would think you would have more empty space, for batteries, storage or external connections.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 12, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds good enaugh for me. 2 grand of very free money waiting for some usable Canon MILC. 80D sensor is about acceptable upgrade. I would prefer new one, non DPAF, 28-30Mpx piece with on-chip ADC.
> ...



See high ISO speed performance. Compared to the Sony fabs heading to sub 100nm even for FF sensors, Canon is doing 500/180nm, and 80D is effectively 50Mpx sensor, so to speak. This is quite problem for old technologies, and while it is somehow offset by microlenses on top of it, it is not absolute solution. I´d rather use higher true resolution, and keep slow focusing. I don´t mind it. Of course, if the M4 gets 80D sensor, I am about to buy it. What else can I do about it, right? :-D


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 12, 2016)

lw said:


> Another year, another false dawn...
> 
> Ever since I bought my original M back in 2012, every year there has been the rumour of a 'prosumer' M, and vague promises and commitments from Canon execs that they are committed to the M series. Every year it is going to get a DP sensor... Every year there are going to be more and more lenses...



I tend to try and be a bit more optimistic, however there is much truth to what you say. However, this maybe is finally, really the year it happens. 

We all know a DPAF is an excellent sensor for the mirroless M. If this rumor is true it will be "about time". The minor tweak to ergonomics concerns me as I read that as saying "no integrated EVF" and I know an integrated EVF is a must for many people, myself included.

As for the full frame mirrorless? I'm sketpical. However, reading it will take existing EF glass and knowing how conservative Canon is I imagine it will be basically the same DSLR body style we are use to. I could see it basically being a mirrorless 6D mark II and could come out the same time as the DSLR 6D mark II, with some new marketing name of course.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 12, 2016)

Now I'm starting to feel the anticipation of 2016: 5D mk IV, EOS-M4, Full-frame mirrorless, new EF-M-mount primes, new EF lenses. And the C100 mk III can't be far behind all of this.
Now I KNOW I don't have enough money.


----------



## jebrady03 (Apr 12, 2016)

I think a premium line (FF) of M bodies based around dslr form factor could be called something like 6M, 5M, follow up versions would be 6M Mark II, etc. So, premium versions the number is in front, consumer versions remain as-is; M3, M4, etc., with the number at the end. 
I like the idea. You guys? 
Also, I like the idea of two versions of each camera. I realize that would increase production costs but I think it would be nice to have a EF Mount version as well as an EFM Mount version.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Looking forward to the new M with the 80D sensor, and to new EF-M lenses. Hope the M body stats small, no EVF please. Expect we'll see an M macro and a longer 'fast' prime (50/2?). Just picked up the M55-200.
> 
> Not sure we'll see a FF MILC, but maybe so if it's a 6D-M.



Let the record show that Neuro was excited about something. 

I feel like The Grinch's small heart just grew three sizes. 

- A


----------



## sdsr (Apr 12, 2016)

Yes, please - ff or aps-c - but not unless a first rate EVF is built in.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

Regarding the original post to this thread, here are my thoughts on this:

1) If the 80D is headed into an EOS-M anytime soon, it is not an entry level EOS-M model at all. The 80D is the very definition of the enthusiast sensor.

2) Put another way, I would be stunned if Canon's EOS-M platform went from 'dare' (EOS-M) to 'triple dog dare' (FF mirrorless) without the 80D sensor arriving as the 'enthusiast model' sometime before the FF 'pro' model does. Anything else would be a slight breach of etiquette. :

3) Same thoughts, third approach: we have yet to see the basic 'niceties' of an enthusiast model in EOS-M: an integral viewfinder, DPAF, perhaps a small top LCD, a sizeable grip, etc. *The 80D has all of those things.* Just make an 80D into an EF-M mount/footprint (but keep the grip!!) and you have a nearly perfect enthustiast rig. Given how well the 80D sensor is shaping up to be, I'd seriously consider paying $1,000-1,200 for that rig provided that USM/Nano USM native EF-M lenses were offered alongside it.

- A


----------



## bereninga (Apr 12, 2016)

My guess is that the 6DII will be mirrorless w/ a hybrid viewfinder.

A Canon-esque upgrade to the current 6D would basically be a 5DIII. I think they'll want their current 6D users to jump onto the 5DIV bandwagon.


----------



## ichiru (Apr 12, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> Lost in the anticipation of the EOS 5D Mark IV announcement in August, is the likelihood of new EOS M camera(s) in the fall for Photokina. We’ve been told that there will definitely be 2 ILC EOS M cameras announced before the end of 2016.</p>
> <p>One of the cameras that will be announced is a follow-up to the EOS M3 which was announced in February of 2015 and didn’t make its way to North America until October of 2015. The new camera we’re told will be equipped with the new sensor from the EOS 80D and will see “minor” ergonomic changes.</p>
> <p>The second camera, which may actually be announced first will be Canon’s first “prosumer” focused mirrorless camera. Two sources have said that the camera will use a newly designed 24mp full frame image sensor. This camera will be designed to use EF lenses, but how that’s going to be done is presently unknown to us. Details beyond that are quite fuzzy, but we’re pressing for more.</p>
> <p>We haven’t heard anything more about a fixed lens full frame camera from Canon, but we hope that’s coming as well.</p>
> ...


 I really hope that this rumor is true... the full frame mirrorless EF mount camera (with new Canon sensor)! I will hold on to my money and keep my Canon gear until the end of the summer but I don't think my allegiance to Canon would survive another let down. Gosh if I didn't love my Canon glass this much I'd be shooting Nikon or Sony by now. Thanks for updates.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Looking forward to the new M with the 80D sensor, and to new EF-M lenses. Hope the M body stats small, no EVF please. Expect we'll see an M macro and a longer 'fast' prime (50/2?). Just picked up the M55-200.
> ...



There are precedents... 



neuroanatomist said:


> Still...I'm definitely looking forward to the 1D X as better than the combination of 7D + 5DII.





neuroanatomist said:


> I'm looking forward to...





neuroanatomist said:


> Looking forward to it!


----------



## Zv (Apr 12, 2016)

Haha typical, just caved and bought an M2 and now there's talk of new M's! 

Will be nice to get a few more EF-M lenses though, that's something to look forward to! A small compact mid tele with IS would be nice to have in the bag. 

FF M is not for me. Can already sense it will be out of my price range, which is currently close to zero as I've used up all my GAS money for the year


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

sdsr said:


> Yes, please - ff or aps-c - but not unless a first rate EVF is built in.



I'm still scratching my head how a company that has yet to give us an integral EVF* feels like "Yeah, sure, the hell with it, let's drop an FF rig on the market." 

I want that rig, but I don't think they're ready yet.

*I'm often reminded that they have integral EVFs on consumer P&S, compacts, superzooms, and on the video rigs but I've watched/read _so_ many reviews where folks accustomed to higher end SLR controls and handling feel handcuffed or let down by the EVF. It has taken Sony/Olympus/Fuji/etc. _a number of generations_ to get the EVF interface & responsiveness where it needs to be. 

So that's exactly why Canon should take a generation or two of 'enthusiast' models in APS-C before they get brave and offer a half-cooked FF mirrorless first offering, IMHO.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are precedents...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Damn you and your data!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2016)

FF mirrorless cameras that use EF lenses can be small, I have a number of old Canon film bodies that used EF lenses piled in my junk box. They are required to have the EF flange distance, but can be smaller.

Canon has already recently said that they cannot make a mirrorless camera match the performance of a DSLR, but there would be a market for what would be a low performance mirrorless. Not everyone needs super fast autofocus, or a OVF. I so expect a over priced camera though.


----------



## traveller (Apr 12, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> FF mirrorless cameras that use EF lenses can be small, I have a number of old Canon film bodies that used EF lenses piled in my junk box. They are required to have the EF flange distance, but can be smaller.
> 
> Canon has already recently said that they cannot make a mirrorless camera match the performance of a DSLR, but there would be a market for what would be a low performance mirrorless. Not everyone needs super fast autofocus, or a OVF. I so expect a over priced camera though.



Even SLRs needn't be huge: 

http://www.darinmcquoid.com/blog296.html (not my website, btw, but a nice size comparison)

Of course, you need more depth on a digital camera for the sensor, electronics, screen, etc. There are also the modern demands of multipoint AF systems, which probably cause geometry issues. 

Nevertheless, I still think there is potential for smaller bodies, if as you say, one is willing to sacrifice some performance and ergonomic requirements. Even more so if one is willing to sacrifice the mirror and OVF.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> So that's exactly why Canon should take a generation or two of 'enthusiast' models in APS-C before they get brave and offer a half-cooked FF mirrorless first offering, IMHO.
> 
> - A



As long as they are supplementing and not replacing anything in their current FF lineup then I don't see the issue/risk. Specifically, if there is still current 1D, 5D, and 6D available, I see no issue an adding a full frame mirrorless. Besides, I doubt it will be "half-cooked". While the tech may not be at the level for AI servo tracking of the best Canon cameras today, with DPAF and EVF tech where it is, it should still be a solid all around camera, especially if one doesn't need fast action/sports. Probably make a decent travel/vacation camera especially if paired with a few small primes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2016)

I'm still quite skeptical it will happen, but I am intrigued by the idea of a 6D M. Chassis of the 6-series (comparatively small for a FF dSLR), sans mirror. DPAF, decent EVF, priced like a 6D. It would be novel, integrate directly with current lenses, and be in a line amenable to 'consumer' features like WiFi/GPS/NFC, and at a level where DPAF tracking will be sufficient.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

traveller said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > FF mirrorless cameras that use EF lenses can be small... [truncated]
> ...



Yes, they can be small but for most people that buy them, they won't be. Today's higher resolution sensors + the obsessive cult of sharpness + the pursuit of small DOF work = massive lenses. Unless you are prepared to stay in a small sensor / large aperture / standard focal length world, your size savings with mirrorless really are tiny. Consider: people don't pay thousands of dollars only to settle for f/2 primes and f/4 zooms.

That's why some 60% of this forum want a full-blown EF mount and a chunky grip on Canon's FF mirrorless offering.

- A


----------



## RGF (Apr 12, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> FF mirrorless cameras that use EF lenses can be small, I have a number of old Canon film bodies that used EF lenses piled in my junk box. They are required to have the EF flange distance, but can be smaller.
> 
> Canon has already recently said that they cannot make a mirrorless camera match the performance of a DSLR, but there would be a market for what would be a low performance mirrorless. Not everyone needs super fast autofocus, or a OVF. I so expect a over priced camera though.



Like to send Canon work on mirrorless for low FPS. Mirrorless for landscape and macro work (with a great sensor) would be well received in those circles.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, please - ff or aps-c - but not unless a first rate EVF is built in.
> ...



My expectation meshes with your logic......

I think that they have already had their first and second generation of EVF, and although they are getting better, they (Canon) are nowhere near optical yet. Companies like Olympus are starting to get closer to optical, not there yet, but they are "good enough". Plus, EVF allows you to see much more than optical, when they get it right there will be no going back for most people. Cameras like the 1DX3 may remain optical, but the masses (Rebels and the like) will eventually go EVF

I expect (and this is my opinion with no data to back it up) that we will soon see a Rebel with an EVF that is the same form factor as now and takes all of the same EF and EF-S lenses, and probably with the LP-6 battery instead of the smaller batteries that Rebels now come with...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm still quite skeptical it will happen, but I am intrigued by the idea of a 6D M. Chassis of the 6-series (comparatively small for a FF dSLR), sans mirror. DPAF, decent EVF, priced like a 6D. It would be novel, integrate directly with current lenses, and be in a line amenable to 'consumer' features like WiFi/GPS/NFC, and at a level where DPAF tracking will be sufficient.



Even if they keep the full EF mount, I think they'd still 'sexy up' the profile to accentuate the space savings somehow. Perhaps like Sigma's science fiction offering below: stout grip, full mount, but skinny in one little place. 

Does it make sense to do this? None at all. Once you commit to the full EF mount, you might as well call it what it is and stuff as much battery as you can in a 6D sort of footprint. 

But as much as the catcalls of 'mirrorless is supposed to be small' are completely pooped on by large aperture / FF / longer FLs needed sort of realities (aka 'physics' aka 'there is no free lunch'), _being thin still defines this market_ to the consumer and I think Canon has to play on that until mirrorless is actually *outperforming* SLRs in a general sense (which we all know will be a while).

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

RGF said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > FF mirrorless cameras that use EF lenses can be small, I have a number of old Canon film bodies that used EF lenses piled in my junk box. They are required to have the EF flange distance, but can be smaller.
> ...



That's already happening, isn't it? A number of folks on this forum are shooting landscapes with their Canon glass on A7 rigs + adaptors right now.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But as much as the catcalls of 'mirrorless is supposed to be small' are completely pooped on by large aperture / FF / longer FLs needed sort of realities (aka 'physics' aka 'there is no free lunch'), _being thin still defines this market_ to *the consumer*...



Is 'the consumer' to whom you refer that group of people who are buying thin cameras, or the >3-fold larger group of people who are buying 'thick' cameras? To which group do you think Canon should market this hypothetical 6D M camera?


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 12, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...
> a newly designed 24mp full frame image sensor.


  
Seems like Canon wants to give each FF body its own sensor. (If that's not the same as in the 5D4)
I don't understand why they don't want to use some synergy effects in development and production :



> Expect 3 to 5 new EF-M lenses to be announced before the close of the year. There will be *faster prime lenses * along with new zooms, but nothing beyond 300mm.


T'was 'bout time for EOS M/EF-M ...


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But as much as the catcalls of 'mirrorless is supposed to be small' are completely pooped on by large aperture / FF / longer FLs needed sort of realities (aka 'physics' aka 'there is no free lunch'), _being thin still defines this market_ to *the consumer*...
> ...



For canon to jump in "to the game", they will either need lots and lots of EF-M lenses and a thin body, or a thick body and the well established EF (and EF-S) lens lineup....

And for many people, the established "thick" form factor is familiar and seems like a "real camera" to them. There just has to be a market there.... plus, with the larger body comes space for a larger battery and you really need that when you bump up the power consumption.....


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2016)

Pitbullo said:


> I am wondering how they implement the FF mirrorless with the EF mount. One idea is, instead of having an adapter letting you use EF lenses, it could be in reverse. The adapter would be a part of the camera, fully implemented, so the mirrorless camera would have an EF mount. However, once the number of FF ML lenses increase, one can remove the EF part of the mount, leaving you with the mount for mirrorless.
> Does this makes sense? Removing a part that is a natural part of the body to get to the mirrorless mount instead of adding an adapter making the camera body bulky and oddly shaped.



SL1 becomes basically a full frame mirrorless.

including the registration distance for the EF mount does not really add any to the size of a camera, if there is a grip.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But as much as the catcalls of 'mirrorless is supposed to be small' are completely pooped on by large aperture / FF / longer FLs needed sort of realities (aka 'physics' aka 'there is no free lunch'), _being thin still defines this market_ to *the consumer*...
> ...



100% agree with you, but trying to sell a chunky FF mirrorless rig alongside the A7 platform will have an overwhelmingly negative 'first glance' appeal. Look at EOS-M as an example -- that thing was absolutely stripped down for size.

So as much as this forum (largely) gets that FF mirrorless probably ought to be a chunky workhorse so that photographers with a ton of Canon glass can relatively seamlessly crossover to this new platform, I'm not sure _Canon_ has given up on a skinny FF rig with its own mount, adaptor to EF, etc.

If it's aimed dead set on professionals, I think we'll get the full EF mount. If they are courting 'prosumers' with an FF offering, it very well might be something skinny and need an adaptor.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds good enaugh for me. 2 grand of very free money waiting for some usable Canon MILC. 80D sensor is about acceptable upgrade. I would prefer new one, non DPAF, 28-30Mpx piece with on-chip ADC.
> ...



transplating the 80D sensor would be a disaster, the corner shading and color casting is already a problem with the current 24mp. 

Then let's talk battery life.

the 80D gets what in life view and that is with a battery with 80% additional capacity?


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



do they care about it against the A7 series?

the A7 series isn't exactly selling.

canon's current EF bodies outselling it, and that's 3+ year old cameras.

also if you consider the A7 II series cameras, the depth of the camera isn't that far off an EF mount SL1.

I would not expect though the 5D or the 6D models to switch. IMO, if canon does this it will be another camera all together.

Keeping it the EF mount makes sense, and there's more than enough adaptability to handle most people - also and most importantly if they keep it the EF mount, they don't have to make a special sensor for it.







if you ignore the flash housing (which the A7RII doesn't have) the size factor is about the same.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



that's one benefit of an EF mount mirrorless - it can use EF-S lenses.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 12, 2016)

Pitbullo said:


> I am wondering how they implement the FF mirrorless with the EF mount. One idea is, instead of having an adapter letting you use EF lenses, it could be in reverse. The adapter would be a part of the camera, fully implemented, so the mirrorless camera would have an EF mount. However, once the number of FF ML lenses increase, one can remove the EF part of the mount, leaving you with the mount for mirrorless.
> Does this makes sense? Removing a part that is a natural part of the body to get to the mirrorless mount instead of adding an adapter making the camera body bulky and oddly shaped.



Hopefully Canon does it that way - camera delivered with an adaptor which fits nicely into the camera design. It has an additional advantage: The camera can be used with older lenses like FD lenses - I am very interested in using that glass. The very boring FD 3.5 135 S.C. has remarkable resolution and contrast on the EOS M and I think it would excel on a ~ 24 MPix full frame sensor. The 3.5 50 S.S.C. Macro has great IQ, is very compact and flexible with 1:2 max reprod. ratio.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

I feel like I'm a market segmentation person explaining the pie chart right now, apologies. I'm just representing the 20 percent of folks who truly _do_ want a tinier FF rig, wouldn't mind shooting f/2 primes and f/4 zooms to build a more compact overall setup, etc. They are out there, I'm sure. 

Personally, a full EF mount makes sense for a ton of reasons (non-trivially, I am committed to EF glass) and I will likely own one someday.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> Hopefully Canon does it that way - camera delivered with an adaptor which fits nicely into the camera design. It has an additional advantage: The camera can be used with older lenses like FD lenses - I am very interested in using that glass. The very boring FD 3.5 135 S.C. has remarkable resolution and contrast on the EOS M and I think it would excel on a ~ 24 MPix full frame sensor. The 3.5 50 S.S.C. Macro has great IQ, is very compact and flexible with 1:2 max reprod. ratio.



Canon wants to sell new lenses a lot more than it wants goodwill for leaving the flange distance small enough to allow FD lenses to stick around, but I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> 100% agree with you, but trying to sell a chunky FF mirrorless rig alongside the A7 platform will have an overwhelmingly negative 'first glance' appeal.



From Canon's perspective, I suspect not enough people are glancing at the A7 platform to matter.



ahsanford said:


> I feel like I'm a market segmentation person explaining the pie chart right now, apologies. I'm just representing the 20 percent of folks who truly _do_ want a tinier FF rig, wouldn't mind shooting f/2 primes and f/4 zooms to build a more compact overall setup, etc. They are out there, I'm sure.



Canon knows about the 20% (by which I suspect you mean 20% of FF consumers, which is a pretty small fraction of the overall market), and they might get around to them eventually. But as you know, they're mainly concerned with the majority. While I think a FF 6D M would be interesting, I believe we'll see a mirrorless Rebel/xxxD body first.


----------



## shutterlag (Apr 12, 2016)

Sigma has already shown with the Quattro H you can build a mirrorless body to use existing DSLR lenses successfully. You combine that with DPAF already on hand from the 80D sensor and you've got a recipe for a prosumer milc.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm still quite skeptical it will happen, but I am intrigued by the idea of a 6D M. Chassis of the 6-series (comparatively small for a FF dSLR), sans mirror. DPAF, decent EVF, priced like a 6D. It would be novel, integrate directly with current lenses, and be in a line amenable to 'consumer' features like WiFi/GPS/NFC, and at a level where DPAF tracking will be sufficient.



Indeed, quite intriguing.. I'd enjoy seeing that and likely enjoy adding it to the corral! ;D :


----------



## traveller (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I feel like I'm a market segmentation person explaining the pie chart right now, apologies. I'm just representing the 20 percent of folks who truly _do_ want a tinier FF rig, wouldn't mind shooting f/2 primes and f/4 zooms to build a more compact overall setup, etc. They are out there, I'm sure.
> 
> Personally, a full EF mount makes sense for a ton of reasons (non-trivially, I am committed to EF glass) and I will likely own one someday.
> 
> - A



+1

I think that there is real potential for compact full frame bodies, mirror or no. The beauty of a larger (than APS-C or m4/3rds) sensor, is that you don't need such crazy fast lenses to get depth of field control. Sony isn't really helping this cause at the moment by trying to target pros with exact equivalents to DSLR lenses, but hey -it's their marketing strategy and their money, so who am I to complain. This doesn't diminish the fact that there are some nice compact primes out there that sacrifice a bit of maximum aperture, for both mirrorless and DSLR systems (e.g. Canon 35mm f/2 IS, 40mm f/2.8, Sony FE 35mm f2.8 the Zeiss Loxias -albeit manual focus). 

There is room out there for everyone and not everyone needs large fast or long lenses and full size bodies. Even those who do, maybe don't need them all the time. I have a 5D Mk.3 kit, but I still enjoy using my Fuji XT-1 kit when I don't need a 70-200mm f/2.8 etc. (BTW, I'm glad that Fuji seem to be cottoning on to this as well with the rumour that they've switched their 2016 lens development priorities to expanding their f/2 prime lineup). It would be even better for me if I could achieve this within the Canon ecosystem. I would love to see a small EF mount body that I could use as a backup to a full size body, along with some more high quality f2-2.8 primes.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon knows about the 20% (by which I suspect you mean 20% of FF consumers, which is a pretty small fraction of the overall market), and they might get around to them eventually. But as you know, they're mainly concerned with the majority. While I think a FF 6D M would be interesting, I believe we'll see a mirrorless Rebel/xxxD body first.



What do you think will happen, and in what order?

A) An FF mirrorless camera with a full EF mount will be released.

B) An FF mirrorless camera with a thinner than EF / thinner than EF-S mirrorless mount will be released similar to an A7 in form factor. It will come with 1-2 starter FF mirrorless lenses and an adaptor.

C) An 'enthusiast' APS-C mirrorless camera is released with an integral EVF, DPAF, not tiny grip, etc.

D) The lower-end SLR line will abandon mirrors/OVF altogether in favor of an EVF setup. Another words, an EF-S mounted mirrorless setup will _replace_ the Rebel-level EF-S SLRs. Rebel SLRs RIP.

For me, I would have guessed: C (this year), then A or B* (next 12-24 months) then D (3-4 years from now). 
*one or the other, highly doubt they'd do both

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

traveller said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like I'm a market segmentation person explaining the pie chart right now, apologies. I'm just representing the 20 percent of folks who truly _do_ want a tinier FF rig, wouldn't mind shooting f/2 primes and f/4 zooms to build a more compact overall setup, etc. They are out there, I'm sure.
> ...



Thanks for showing up. I knew you folks were out there!

- A


----------



## archiea (Apr 12, 2016)

I luv the size of the M3. just allow the multi-function button to be used as a zoom to focus short cut. also enable that half tapping on the shutter button with a MF lens snaps you out of the zoom Surprise that it doesn't. Also user adjustable focus peaking clipping: I find the focus peaking a bit to low in showing the clipping point for the actual focus areas. Sony and Fuji do this better. 

Most important though, make it a speed demon. Focus speed has it limits, but there is a definite shutter lag with the M3. I use manual lens in AF and even in JPG, theres a shutter lag. I don't see that with the sony or the Fuji. And the M3 has a way more powerful processor than my 20D from 2008 and it had no shutter lag!! Shutter lag has got to go because that s what has mede me miss more shot than the AF Lag! 

Also make the menu full EOS, np eos powershot hybrid. Round up don't round down. I should be able to set my WB K to a number, I should be able to shoot tethered, I should be able to fine tune my Focus eating indicator. 

Give it a small hump in the middle for a EVF, keep the little bouce-able flash, make it more weather sealed, throw a metal shell on it, price it at $999 to reflect the above tech but it HAS to be fast.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon knows about the 20% (by which I suspect you mean 20% of FF consumers, which is a pretty small fraction of the overall market), and they might get around to them eventually. But as you know, they're mainly concerned with the majority. While I think a FF 6D M would be interesting, I believe we'll see a mirrorless Rebel/xxxD body first.
> ...



I think C first makes sense, _not_ as an 'EOS M Pro' but rather as a small 'mirrorless dSLR'. 80D sensor in an SL1 body, marketed around a really high frame rate (above 7DII). They could call it the Little Speed Demon, because the younger set thinks the Beatles were singing about a spangled flying girl named Lucy. Then A. 

Of course, my crystal ball may have a crack or two.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I feel like I'm a market segmentation person explaining the pie chart right now, apologies. I'm just representing the 20 percent of folks who truly _do_ want a tinier FF rig, wouldn't mind shooting f/2 primes and f/4 zooms to build a more compact overall setup, etc. They are out there, I'm sure.
> 
> Personally, a full EF mount makes sense for a ton of reasons (non-trivially, I am committed to EF glass) and I will likely own one someday.
> 
> - A



20% .. where's that market data?

a smaller EF mount camera? certainly. if it takes mirrorless to do it, I'm all for it.

however Canon certainly does not as far as we know, the sensors capable of full frame short registration distance mirrorless.

the 24mp APS-C sensors aren't even really capable of short registration distance operation.

IMO.

I'd be all over a SL1 sized full frame with a 24MP DPAF sensor and a tilt screen.

give me the 24,28,35mm IS USM primes and the 16-35/4, 24-70/4 and 70-300L and there's really not much I could not shoot with that setup.

if it takes mirrorless to do it - then do it, if they can do it leaving the mirror in.. I really don't care either.


----------



## archiea (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like I'm a market segmentation person explaining the pie chart right now, apologies. I'm just representing the 20 percent of folks who truly _do_ want a tinier FF rig, wouldn't mind shooting f/2 primes and f/4 zooms to build a more compact overall setup, etc. They are out there, I'm sure.
> ...



It's not hard market data at all, but the ~29% of the respondents to this survey speak to a group of photographers I'm sure we've each heard elsewhere in our travels. They represent an enthusiast camp of shooters who rally to the anthem of 'Mirrorless is about being smaller/lighter'.

Though many on this forum have painfully thought Canon's FF mirrorless future through and come to the conclusion that a full EF mount FF mirrorless is the inevitable outcome (count me among this group), some do believe in the A7 approach with 'some restraint' on large aperture and long FL lenses absolutely do exist. Some folks would love a 2nd thinner mount FF rig with (say) a high quality + small 24, 35 or 50mm f/2 lens on it. 

- A


----------



## j-nord (Apr 12, 2016)

Mirrorless or DSLR I don't care as long as it takes EF lenses, FF, 30-50mpix, a little smaller and lighter than the 6D.


----------



## canonographer (Apr 12, 2016)

I would love to see the FF rumor turn into reality.

- M3 styling, with a bump in size/ergonomics to handle more like a smaller dslr (slightly smaller than the 6D would be great)
- Integrated/hybrid EVF - throw in the built in flash for good measure
- EF mount is fine with me, the lens options are a great selling point. The physics of lens design is going to keep things that size anyway, so let's go with what we already have.
- Include all the functionality of a dslr, handling, and controls of a dslr, but the added abilities of a mirrorless (zebras, focus peaking, live shooting, etc.)
- Add a sensor that can compete w/ Sony, and I think you have a real winner

That would be perfect for me.


----------



## TeT (Apr 12, 2016)

Any chance that the upcoming APC M will have custom shooting modes?

I will assume that the prosumer FF model will, but was kind of looking forward to going with smaller "M" sized glass along with the smaller sized M.

I know picky picky, right...


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2016)

TeT said:


> Any chance that the upcoming APC M will have custom shooting modes?
> 
> I will assume that the prosumer FF model will, but was kind of looking forward to going with smaller "M" sized glass along with the smaller sized M.
> 
> I know picky picky, right...



the M3 has one custom mode .. I suspect we'll see more out of the next M.

the M3 prototypes and test units had 2 custom modes.. that got cut down.


it's actually one thing that hardly anyone picked up on.. all the leaked images at the start showed two custom modes. the M3 was released with one.

here's the leaked M3:










you can clearly see two C modes after the "M".

on an actual M3, there's a gap where that second C mode would have been.

one of many clusterfu**ed things about the M3.


----------



## ichiru (Apr 12, 2016)

I understand all the excitement over getting a new _smaller _ mirrorless full frame Canon camera...

...but honestly how many people in this here forum, interested in such a camera, would put size as the reason for getting a mirrorless camera?

I would love an EVF with on sensor autofocus for better accuracy with wide apertures... personally I wouldn't care if it's as big as my 6D as the average lens I use are massive anyway. If I want a more compact full frame camera I can just slap a sweet 40 mm pancake on my 6D and there you go. Fantastic travel camera .


----------



## scrup (Apr 12, 2016)

EF mount would be a no go for me. 

I prefer if they used the EF-M mount, but it may not be possible to fit in a full frame sensor?. 

If they want to use the EF Mount, why not just make a full frame SL1 instead.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 12, 2016)

"This camera will be designed to use EF lenses"

My 2cents: that is the primary key for DSLR users to add to their kit. Just add more native compact primes and pop-up EVF


----------



## dak723 (Apr 12, 2016)

ichiru said:


> I understand all the excitement over getting a new _smaller _ mirrorless full frame Canon camera...
> 
> ...but honestly how many people in this here forum, interested in such a camera, would put size as the reason for getting a mirrorless camera?



There have been many threads here regarding mirrorless vs. DSLR. Lots of people - including me - think the smaller size of mirrorless is the ONLY reason for getting mirrorless. Any other advantages of mirrorless are minimal and the disadvantage of EVF (vs. OVF) is very real.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> that's one benefit of an EF mount mirrorless - it can use EF-S lenses.



Right - it seems a tad perverse that I can use the same adapter to attach EF and EF-S lenses to my a7rII (which has high enough resolution for EF-S to work nicely) but can't attach EF-S to my 6D. (Similarly, while only some manual Nikon F mount lenses fit on a Nikon dslr without being modified, they all fit on a F-SonyE adapter.) Assuming any of this Canon FF mirrorless speculation pans out, I hope the mount they use will be workable with a wide range of third party lenses + adapters (plus, of course, Canon FD).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2016)

ichiru said:


> ..but honestly how many people in this here forum, interested in such a camera, would put size as the reason for getting a mirrorless camera?



42. ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

dak723 said:


> ichiru said:
> 
> 
> > I understand all the excitement over getting a new _smaller _ mirrorless full frame Canon camera...
> ...



We all would benefit from seeing both sides of the coin.

OVFs are terrific, of course, but can they...


Amplify brightness in a very dark room?
Give you focus peaking?
Give you a realtime histo?

EVFs have a long way to go from a responsiveness standpoint, I agree. But even today, they can do some things that OVFs cannot.

- A


----------



## sdsr (Apr 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Yes, they can be small but for most people that buy them, they won't be. Today's higher resolution sensors + the obsessive cult of sharpness + the pursuit of small DOF work = massive lenses. Unless you are prepared to stay in a small sensor / large aperture / standard focal length world, your size savings with mirrorless really are tiny. Consider: people don't pay thousands of dollars only to settle for f/2 primes and f/4 zooms.



You may be right (I have no idea), but those buying a smaller body so they can have less bulk may indeed be willing to have smaller apertures to keep the size and weight down. The Sony FE 55 1.8, 50 1.8, 35 2.8 and 28 f2 are all small and light, as are the Zeiss mf f2 series; they're plenty sharp on the a7rII's high resolution sensor - as is the even smaller Canon 40mm. (And of course the RX1's built-in lens is only f2; besides, lots of fast old mf lenses work just fine on such a sensor too, and they're smaller than their modern counterparts - aside from the Mitakon f0.95, the 1.2 and 1.4 lenses I use on my a7rII are all "vintage".) How high is the demand for the biggest, newest 1.4 lenses anyway? If there's a problem, I suspect it will instead be with those who like big zooms and long telephoto primes; I could be wrong, but I doubt many would enjoy using a 70-200 2.8 on a Sony a7-size body (but even then it's not so hard to adapt to the rather different ergonomics).


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 12, 2016)

sdsr said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, they can be small but for most people that buy them, they won't be. Today's higher resolution sensors + the obsessive cult of sharpness + the pursuit of small DOF work = massive lenses. Unless you are prepared to stay in a small sensor / large aperture / standard focal length world, your size savings with mirrorless really are tiny. Consider: people don't pay thousands of dollars only to settle for f/2 primes and f/4 zooms.
> ...



Again -- _here, at this forum_ -- there was a pretty strong consensus (approx 2/3 of us from surveys) that people wanted a chunky grip as they planned to bolt all their Canon glass on to these rigs.

And Canon may be much more interested in selling (say) one Canon FF mirrorless rig to every five Canon FF SLR
owners and completely disregarding the competition here, i.e. they probably have more money to make selling these to current Canon SLR customers than they do in courting 'the general mirrorless aficionado', but I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## bp (Apr 12, 2016)

dak723 said:


> ichiru said:
> 
> 
> > I understand all the excitement over getting a new _smaller _ mirrorless full frame Canon camera...
> ...



I moved from the 5D3 to the A7Rii, after comparing it to the 5DS. Size had zero impact on the decision. 

I don't shoot sports. I spend most of my time working at wide apertures either shooting portraits (where the Sony's Eye-AF is absolutely amazing), or shooting live theatre (where the wider DR of the Sony sensor is huge). I don't miss having to microadjust lenses, or having to toss huge numbers of shots because focus was inexplicably off, despite perfect placement of the focus spot. I don't miss explaining to a headshot client that they really shouldn't pick that shot as one of their finals because the camera didn't quite nail it. My keeper rate, in terms of focus accuracy at least, has gone through the roof. I've also been spoiled by the possibilities that open up with an EVF. I sold my 5D3, but still have a 5D2 and a 7D, and in dimly lit situations they are downright painful to use now.

That said, in some circumstances, what I do miss is Canon color science. Skintones, in particular, require more fiddling in post. I've gotten the hang of it, but I'm still not crazy about that.

If Canon does come out with a FF mirrorless, with more DR (and ideally, facial recognition with Eye-AF), compatible with EF mount lenses, I'd jump back over in a heartbeat, regardless of how big or small it is, just to get back to Canon colors. (you listening Canon? probably not, sigh)


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2016)

scrup said:


> EF mount would be a no go for me.
> 
> I prefer if they used the EF-M mount, but it may not be possible to fit in a full frame sensor?.
> 
> If they want to use the EF Mount, why not just make a full frame SL1 instead.



EF-M is the same size as the E mount, so yes. however does canon have full frame sensors that would work on a short registration distance camera?

considering the APS-C 24Mp is poor at that scaling, probably not.

a full frame mirrorless would be basically a full frame SL1.

outside of using rangefinder/lecia lenses on it.. the need to supplant the EF mount with a short registration distance is pretty minimal.


----------



## nads (Apr 12, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> Lost in the anticipation of the EOS 5D Mark IV announcement in August, is the likelihood of new EOS M camera(s) in the fall for Photokina. We’ve been told that there will definitely be 2 ILC EOS M cameras announced before the end of 2016.</p>



All EOS-M bodies are going to have native EF-M mount. Particuarly with 3-5 new EF-M lenses announced this year. The risk of lost market share isn't in FF. It is in the Fuji, M43 and Sony crop. The only thing smaller than percentage of new users buying into a system with a FF body first is the percentage starting with a Sony Mirrorless FF body as first entry.

Marketshare is built from entry up, not pro down. Canon's isn't tech limited in their ability to build a mirrorless body that can compete. They are self limiting due to strategy. They aren't going to cut the legs out of their existing FF market to stem the trickle away to Sony FF mirrorless. They will reduce the draw to other mirrorless options with the minimum spec body they believe they can put to market in order to accomplish that goal.

Look toward E-M10, E-M5, XT-2, E6300 etc. Do no look toward best of all worlds... look at a middling, compromise therein. As with the C2 function on the M3... what is included won't be determined until last possible moment. It will not even include all potential functionality granted by the hardware. Just as the original Digital Rebel intentionally lacked RAW, Servo and several other features that were purely decided by software elimination.


----------



## scrup (Apr 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> EF-M is the same size as the E mount, so yes. however does canon have full frame sensors that would work on a short registration distance camera?



If they can physically fit a full frame sensor into the EFM mount why would the short registration distance matter.
They did with with the rebel sensor, so I don't understand how a full frame sensor would be any different.

The issue i see is from the lens side, the current efm lenses most likely wont cover (image circle) a full frame sensor, so they would need to release ones that do. This could involve new designs if they want to get it smaller, or use the SLR design and add the extra spacing as what an adapter would do.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 12, 2016)

Nothing like a mirrorless rumor to get the forum juices flowing.

A few thoughts:

1) I'm skeptical about a full-frame mirrorless Canon rumor. People always ignore the fact that Sony is a niche player in the camera world. They went all in on mirrorless simply because that was the only niche available to them – they could not compete against Nikon and Canon in the DSLR market. It was the only route available and the market statistics that we have access to would indicate that they haven't been all that successful. Sony market share is flat.

2) I've always said that if Canon were to go mirrorless full frame, it would use the EF mount. Nothing magical there, just build the body with sufficient spacing to allow for EF lenses. 

3) I used to think that an effective viewfinder was critical to the long-term success of mirrorless. But, I have to admit I am beginning to doubt that. Dual pixel autofocus, touch-screens, improved tracking and face-recognition software make a viewfinder less critical. Plus, there is the fact that the vast majority of pictures being taken today use cameras that don't have viewfinders. With each passing year, we have more and more people who have only used a rear screen. People who will only know cameras that use rear screens are being born every day, while people who use viewfinders are dying every day. 

4) For me personally, the only mirrorless that has any appeal is the Fuji X-Pro series and that is mostly because they are cool looking. My ideal mirrorless would be a fixed lens 15-90 mm APS-C in a classic rangefinder retro-style.

5) All the strongly expressed opinions on this thread only confirm something that I've observed every time the subject of a mirrorless Canon interchangeable lens camera comes up – what Canon releases, it will satisfy 10 percent of the people on this forum and the other 90 percent will be convinced Canon is ******* because they didn't build exactly the camera they were hoping for. 

6) The most interesting aspect of this rumor is this:



> ...the camera will use a newly designed 24mp full frame image sensor.



Interesting because, if true, it almost certainly means the 5DIV will use the same 24 mp sensor. *We finally know an important specification for the 5DIV.*


----------



## nads (Apr 12, 2016)

scrup said:


> If they can physically fit a full frame sensor into the EFM mount why would the short registration distance matter.
> They did with with the rebel sensor, so I don't understand how a full frame sensor would be any different.



Sensors perform best when light hits them as close to perpendicular as possible. Short registration distance means light hits the sensor at a bad angle. Beyond the sensor issue receiving the light, light fall off is significantly more difficult to design a lens around as registration distance is shortened. It is a double whammy of poor light at the edges of the image. 

Light hitting at an angle also exacerbates color shifts and aberrations.

Most importantly... to do it right, lens design has to change completely. 50+ year old lens designs that have been used on every 50mm lens out there have to be redesigned to work properly with such a small registration distance. Canon has done with the EF-M lenses, Fuji with the X, M43 has done the work. You're on a sight that posts new patents all the time.... where are the patents for FF sensor designs that go with sub 40mm registration distances? A massive patent library of FF lenses isn't going in the trash to put out new FF optics this fall that have not been patented.

If Canon puts a FF sensor in one of these bodies, it is adapter city.


----------



## ichiru (Apr 12, 2016)

I moved from the 5D3 to the A7Rii, after comparing it to the 5DS. Size had zero impact on the decision. 

I don't shoot sports. I spend most of my time working at wide apertures either shooting portraits (where the Sony's Eye-AF is absolutely amazing), or shooting live theatre (where the wider DR of the Sony sensor is huge). I don't miss having to microadjust lenses, or having to toss huge numbers of shots because focus was inexplicably off, despite perfect placement of the focus spot. I don't miss explaining to a headshot client that they really shouldn't pick that shot as one of their finals because the camera didn't quite nail it. My keeper rate, in terms of focus accuracy at least, has gone through the roof. I've also been spoiled by the possibilities that open up with an EVF. I sold my 5D3, but still have a 5D2 and a 7D, and in dimly lit situations they are downright painful to use now.

That said, in some circumstances, what I do miss is Canon color science. Skintones, in particular, require more fiddling in post. I've gotten the hang of it, but I'm still not crazy about that.

If Canon does come out with a FF mirrorless, with more DR (and ideally, facial recognition with Eye-AF), compatible with EF mount lenses, I'd jump back over in a heartbeat, regardless of how big or small it is, just to get back to Canon colors. (you listening Canon? probably not, sigh)
[/quote]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I am really tempted to switch over to Sony but I'll hold off until September-October hoping Canon is indeed listening!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> The most interesting aspect of this rumor is this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think this forum would go absolutely insane if the 5DIV was mirrorless  Boy would that get people going......


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 13, 2016)

scrup said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > EF-M is the same size as the E mount, so yes. however does canon have full frame sensors that would work on a short registration distance camera?
> ...



because the angle of incident of light hitting the microlenses and pixels.. you get corner color casting. the 24Mp APS-C sensor in the M3 is already prone to this.

that's why shoving the 80D sensor would be a meh move. the sensor isn't optimized for short registration distances. a full frame? even worse.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Nothing like a mirrorless rumor to get the forum juices flowing.
> 
> A few thoughts:
> 
> 1) I'm skeptical about a full-frame mirrorless Canon rumor. People always ignore the fact that Sony is a niche player in the camera world. They went all in on mirrorless simply because that was the only niche available to them – they could not compete against Nikon and Canon in the DSLR market. It was the only route available and the market statistics that we have access to would indicate that they haven't been all that successful. Sony market share is flat.



Agreed, but canon can then build a smaller and lighter full frame camera. that would be the only reason I could see them doing it - think SL1 sized full frame.

I can't see it replacing anything in thier lineup (ie: WHY would they make the 5D mirrorless or the 6D?) - but canon said they were going to create more cameras to hit specific markets. so making a camera for this market would certainly be an idea and not unheard of.

one of the keys that canon did on the 80D that doesn't get much press is that AF in liveview and in video is quick / smooth even for L lenses.

if DPAF works well for any EF lens, the time is pretty ripe to toss a full frame sensor into a very small body and see if it sticks.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2016)

Bolted-on adapter nozzle. Plus huge lens. Way to go! : 
Luckily it's not from Canon. 

Upcoming Sigma SD quattro MILCs [APS-C and APS-H]. 
Really cannot understand why a few people would prefer a camera-nozzle over a much more versatile detachable adapter which can be used with both: 
A) compact native short flange-distance lenses 






B) with existing EF-lenses - as needed and preferred.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Bolted-on adapter nozzle. Plus huge lens. Way to go! :
> Luckily it's not from Canon.
> 
> Upcoming Sigma SD quattro MILCs [APS-C and APS-H].
> ...



I could see it both ways:

*Why you'd want a skinny body + modular EF adaptor:*


With some slower native lenses (say an f/2.8 prime), you'd have a smaller construct to carry around. (with faster / larger lenses, this advantage appears to get watered down as the lenses are about as large as FF SLRs.
It would be possible to adapt some older lenses and use focus peaking through the viewfinder.
*
Why you'd want an integral EF mount *(i.e. AvTvM called it a 'camera nozzle' like in the Sigma pic below):


If you already own a boatload of EF glass, you probably aren't buying some mirrorless mount only lens.
Less pieces, less things to fail, less seams/gaps to let in dust/dirt/moisture, etc.
It's simpler. When the mount is integral, _you can never leave the adapter in another bag at home by mistake_. 
One would think an adaptor _might_ slow the AF as compared to a full/native EF mount? (someone please correct me if this is not true and I'll edit this)

I'm sure others can build on both of these lists: from Canon's perspective, from a videographer's perspective, etc.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Apr 13, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The most interesting aspect of this rumor is this:
> ...



Umm...maybe the sarcasm went over my head. But, I meant that it is highly unlikely that the mirrorless camera will get its own sensor. So, the obvious choice would be to use the same 24 mp sensor in the 5DIV and the mythical mirrorless full-frame camera. I would have to be smoking something really strong to believe the 5D would go mirrorless. (Maybe in three or four generations if electronic viewfinders improve sufficiently, but not anytime soon.)


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


No Sarcasm from me.... I think you are right.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Apr 13, 2016)

Would not be suprised both new mirrorless canons will have EF-M mounts, one will be full frame and use the current Canon EF-M to EF adaptor for EF lenses. The other will be APS-C sensor, just like the current line. The new EF-M lenses will have the EF-M mount but be usable on full frame, and when an older EF-M lense is used, the camera will just crop to APS-C. 
If you want to make a compactish camera, it makes sense to have compactish lenses. The EF mount lenses are not compact at all.

Whatever it becomes, it will be interesting, lets just hope they can lead this segment instead of playing catch up. Living in Japan, you see more and more mirrorless cameras here every day literally. Japanese population demographic is getting older, and lighter cameras are appreciated.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Really cannot understand why a few people would prefer a camera-nozzle



because we're using our brain.

- the vast majority of people that purchase an EF mount mirrorless would use EF lenses on it, and canon really doens't care two bits if you can use leica lenses on it (which you can some anyways) 
- no adapter maintains a higher precision of alignment than using an adapter.
- there is no difference in actual depth having the EF mount native to the camera.
- also ergonomically, it keeps the wider part of the lenses further away from your hand grip.
- it simplifies canon's development of a sensor, since they can use the same glass stack, and same microlens / sensor design for both mirrorless and OVF cameras.

and finally .. the EF mount has a significant amount of adaptability if that's your thing. little range finder lenses, no. but in reality what percentage of the population blows their load in their pants over that? 

canon can create a smaller, quieter, fairly half decent ergonomic mirrorless full frame camera using the EF mount and it will suit the majority of people just fine.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Really cannot understand why a few people would prefer a camera-nozzle
> ...



But for AvTvM, it won't be the PERFECT CAMERA to MEET HIS EVERY NEED. :


----------



## d (Apr 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I could see it both ways:
> 
> *Why you'd want a skinny body + modular EF adaptor:*
> 
> ...



I'll take the version with the camera nozzle, please, for the reasons you've given above (durability, simplicity, already own a bunch of EF glass). I think if like the Sigma SD Quattro picture earlier, the "nozzle" protrusion distance is equal to or less than that of the grip, you can't really complain about any size penalty for "including" the adaptor as part of the body.

One possible benefit of a modular EF adaptor might be the inclusion of a tripod mount in its design, to better balance the small body with a potentially much heaver lens, if needing to mount on a tripod.

d.


----------



## d (Apr 13, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> because we're using our brain.
> 
> - the vast majority of people that purchase an EF mount mirrorless would use EF lenses on it, and canon really doens't care two bits if you can use leica lenses on it (which you can some anyways)
> - no adapter maintains a higher precision of alignment than using an adapter.
> ...



Agreed. Canon's goal isn't to create a body for users to mount their third-party lenses onto; they want those users to buy Canon lenses instead. Likewise, releasing a body that compels an existing Canon shooter to add it to their arsenal would seem to me a greater initial priority over trying to attract existing mirrorless users from other systems. But I admit my insight is very limited 

d.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



And you know this because??? Let me guess, you read something on the internet.



dilbert said:


> If this mirrorless camera has 24MP and the 5DIV has 24MP, Canon will lose money if the mirrorless is significantly cheaper than he 5DIV. Thus if the mirrorless gets 24MP then the 5DIV will have more MP to maintain its position and price.



Because more MP means higher price? Not.

Why would a full-frame mirrorless be cheaper? 

And suddenly people will migrate from DSLRs to Mirrorless? Nope. Only a small percentage of customers are interested in mirrorless. Putting the same sensor in both models will not impact 5D IV sales in the least.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2016)

d said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > because we're using our brain.
> ...



With respect to d and rrcphoto -- who I very much agree with -- allowing someone to use older lenses is value-add whether you personally think adapting old glass is worthy or not. Some customers (say AvTvM?) will value this, and in turn, that makes it valuable to Canon in the form of keeping people in the ecosystem, raising loyalty, happiness, etc.

Now will *I* do this? Do I have a crate of old FD lenses lying around? Did I inherit my Dad's old lenses? No. But some people dig that, and surely this was folded into one of (presumably at least) two really detailed business plan scenarios in this very very very important decision for Canon.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Apr 13, 2016)

> the camera will use a newly designed 24mp full frame image sensor. This camera will be designed to use EF lenses


That's awesome - no converters BS. Need dis. Exciting times lie ahead!


----------



## j-nord (Apr 13, 2016)

I vote that if canon releases an EF mount mirrorless body the first model is going to suck and will be very cut down compared to a similar dslr body. By suck I mean 1-2 major compromises that will be addressed in later generations.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I vote that if canon releases an EF mount mirrorless body the first model is going to suck and will be very cut down compared to a similar dslr body. By suck I mean 1-2 major compromises that will be addressed in later generations.



That's more a prediction than a vote, but yes, that seems pretty likely. There is enough pent up 'I want FF mirrorless in the Canon ecosystem' interest that the first offering will likely have a large number of early adopters, even with a simple, stripped down FF setup.

Expect the compromises to be pretty obvious given what they've already fielded in the APS-C space -- general responsiveness, AF speed and the EVF will be far off the pace from Sony. 

But I expect the handling/ergonomics to be good right out of the gate. Whether they opt for a full blown DSLR ergonomic/UI/menu/knobs experience or not remains to be seen, but they'd be wise to leverage a chunky grip, top LCD and knobs in 'Canon-familiar' places. This is one area they may not surprise us so much as reassure us.

- A


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 13, 2016)

I feel like the most satisfied photography gear collectors right now are going to be D810 owners. That body is probably going to stay near top of the line for quite a while.

Of course most of the professional photographers out there are still happily clicking away with their 1Ds3's.

I'm still kind of confused about why Canon doesn't put the 50MP sensor in a 1D body.
Maybe they're saving that for the 1DX MkIII so that they can keep the number 3 in common for their premium portrait/landscape body.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2016)

9VIII said:


> I'm still kind of confused about why Canon doesn't put the 50MP sensor in a 1D body.



Agree. I think people with $7k in their pocket shouldn't have to choose between a 1D feature set _*OR *_a 50 MP sensor. It makes sense to go back to the 1D# and 1Ds# setup and offer a high-res sensor in a studio/landscape-oriented body.

But if I had to guess why they did this -- and this is mere speculation -- perhaps Canon thought through all the 1DX goodies a 1Ds3 person _*can't*_ get on their 50 MP 5DS rigs aren't that important to a studio/landscape photographer:

* They don't need a shutter rated for 400k cycles
* They don't need a machine gun framerate
* They don't need an integral grip
* They don't need a world class servo AF setup

Now I've obviously omitted a ton of juicy 1-series goodies that have nothing to do with shooting sports at 16 fps that a prior 1Ds3 owner would love to have back. But with the only show in town (FF) with 50 MP, perhaps Canon feels the 5DS might be good enough for 1Ds3 owners.

...or the sports market continually evolves and asks for more and has the money to pay for a new 1D rig every four years and the landscape/studio crowd doesn't. This could solely be a financial call.

- A


----------



## d (Apr 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> With respect to d and rrcphoto -- who I very much agree with -- allowing someone to use older lenses is value-add whether you personally think adapting old glass is worthy or not. Some customers (say AvTvM?) will value this, and in turn, that makes it valuable to Canon in the form of keeping people in the ecosystem, raising loyalty, happiness, etc.



I agree with you it's a value-add that would help raise loyalty, happiness etc, but I don't see Canon thinking that way, certainly not to the point where they're in any way proactive in providing features or solutions that facilitate a positive experience when using third-party (vintage or modern) lenses.

Two examples: Third party AF lens manufacturers supposedly don't have access to Canon's AF algorithms, hence why there are often issues with the accuracy/repeatability of AF'ing of third party lenses on Canon bodies (purely speculation on my part, based on anecdotal reports from the 'net). If Canon wanted a user of its bodies to have as positive a shooting experience as possible, allowing other manufacturers to fine-tune their AF to be as effective as possible would surely be one way to achieve this, and would require little effort on Canon's side. But obviously it's in Canon's best financial interests for their lenses to be better performers compared to those from a third party.

Second: As best I can tell, you're not able to perform an AFMA adjustment for a vintage lens mounted on a Canon body via an adaptor. If you're relying on the in-VF focus-confirm dot to indicate when a manually focussed vintage lens is actually focussed, it would no doubt to useful to assign a correction value under the AFMA menu to fine-tune the focus accuracy. Again, something very easy to enable in the software/firmware of the camera, I would think.

Bonus third example: One I just thought of - the lack of a built in intervalometer in Canon bodies for so long. I don't think anyone has felt happy about being required to purchase and carry an external piece of hardware in be able to perform this kind of shooting, especially when many Nikon bodies have offered it built in for years, and once more, it's not something that's difficult to implement. Thankfully, Canon seem to have "seen the light" on that one. Funnily enough, they've helped build a market of third-party intervalometers due to the price of theirs being so high! But neither fact engenders positive feelings in the user.

Anyway that's my thinking!

Cheers,
d.


----------



## lw (Apr 13, 2016)

What about a hybrid? I would like a hybrid
Hybrid OVF+EVF (a la fuji)
Hybrid conventional + off-sensor AF - that you can switch without having to go to live view - and so get accurate off-sensor focusing even when using viewfinder. Or switch to conventional for fast action tracking moving objects. (though off-sensor is catching up in this area)

Canon did recently pattent the hybrid viewfinder. They also have excellent dual pixel focusing.

Surely Canon's best strategy to outgun Sony would be to provide a camera that is the best of everything. Best of conventional DSLR and best of MILC features in one body - so no reason to chose one or the other.


----------



## Plainsman (Apr 13, 2016)

Why no proper grip with this camera?
With 24Mp this is no toy or pocket camera.
Fashion fad or what!


----------



## Stuart (Apr 13, 2016)

Silent shooting with no Mirror Shake.
High FPS only limited by electronic transfer speeds
I assume much faster flash sync speeds too 

Can't afford it, but yes I want it, even with the new Lens system that will replace EF. Keep a decent grip on it though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> If Canon launch an EF-MILC and set it so that its price is at or higher than the A7RII, it will sink like a dead duck with only 24MP.



Hate to break this to you, dilbert, but dead ducks float. :


----------



## scyrene (Apr 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon launch an EF-MILC and set it so that its price is at or higher than the A7RII, it will sink like a dead duck with only 24MP.
> ...



Very good  Although is that a duck? Its feet aren't webbed. Looks more like some sort of rail.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 13, 2016)

I'll leave it to others to debate the new camera specs. While the sensor from the 80D would appear to be ideal for an improved M, unless the lag speed and FR (including buffer) are greatly increased, I will keep my M3. I have no interest in a FF mirrorless at this time. That is still the realm of DSLRs. But please Canon, do roll out some fast primes so the M will feel more like a "system" and not just an oddity.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon launch an EF-MILC and set it so that its price is at or higher than the A7RII, it will sink like a dead duck with only 24MP.
> ...



So, if the camera weighs the same as a duck...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Don't make me turn you into a newt!


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 13, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Very good  Although is that a duck? Its feet aren't webbed. Looks more like some sort of rail.


By the shape of the feet and the bits of color of the feathering you could guess through the water i agree with you that it could be 
a rail, a moorhen (almost the same) or a coot.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 13, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> So, if the camera weighs the same as a duck...


... it must be a witch? And therefore burned? (cf. "Monty Python and the Holy Grail")


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2016)

A detachable adapter does everything a built-in nozzle does and additionally you can go small if wanted/needed using compact native short flang-distance lenses built for mirrorless ... applies to wide-angle to standard focal lengths, not to tele or tilt-shift lenses, of course. This benefit is only avalaible with a detachable adapter, that's why I want one. "Smallest possible package" that gets the job done ... for me please. 

If done right those adapter are mechanically very solid. Canon EF/EF-M adapter for 79 Euro is perfectly fine and stable. Yes, there will be additional FLEX ... in theory, but not in practice ... unless someone were to attach an EF supertele via that adapter and not use the lens tripod ring/foot but clamp the camera body onto the tripod head. But would we ever do that? 

Canon-to-Canon Adapter needs no chip/CPU, just electrical wire-through for fully functional lens-mount protocol including IS, ETTL-distance information and full-speed AF operation. No difference in functionality compared to a stupid bolted-on nozzle. 

Weather-sealing is easy too, all it takes is one (1) O-ring/gasket. Cost: 50 cent.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 13, 2016)

Oh man, I'd love to completely derail this thread with Monty Python and the Holy Grail quotes, but I will attempt to stay on topic. I will just comment though that my 13 year old son referenced that exact scene just this past weekend by starting it with, "ahhh but what also floats in water". It was a proud papa moment. 

I question for you adapter fans out there. I must ask, do you change lenses in the field at all? I personally already find a quick lens change a pain, especially if 5 minutes later I'm switching it back. But throw in mounting and unmounting an adapter, it just starts to get a bit ridiculous. Only if you're shooting all one lens type, and the adapter is always mounted (Sony A7 with all Canon EF glass) then it's equal. But at that point wouldn't you just want a native mount?

I own a couple Canon M's. I have the adapter. Frankly it's more something to have some fun with then to seriously use in most cases. Cue the guy with a shot of his great big white and a tiny M hanging off the end. Most the EF (or EF-S) lenses just don't balance well physically on the M. Many others work at reduced performance. Realistically it's a compromise and what one really wants is a native lens.

Not that any of this matters as it is a moot point. I think any thoughts of Canon introducing a full frame mirrorless camera that is *not]* an EF mount is very naive. They are not going to abandon all that glass. Just look at the new Canon and Sony mounts. They've been out for years and the amount of native glass available is still quite small. If Canon had any thoughts of a new full frame mount we would not be seeing them continue to invest so heavily in new EF lenses as we have these past few years. Maybe many, many years from now they'll do it, but not today. Heck, I'm quite skeptical they'll even come out with a FF mirrorless camera at all this year.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2016)

Plainsman said:


> Why no proper grip with this camera?
> With 24Mp this is no toy or pocket camera.
> Fashion fad or what!



That's not what the camera will look like. That's an edited snap of this one of the Leica Q.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> I own a couple Canon M's. I have the adapter. Frankly it's more something to have some fun with then to seriously use in most cases. Cue the guy with a shot of his great big white and a tiny M hanging off the end. Most the EF (or EF-S) lenses just don't balance well physically on the M. Many others work at reduced performance. Realistically it's a compromise and what one really wants is a native lens.



Agreed. I have the M2 and four native lenses (counting the M55-200 that's arriving today), along with the mount adapter. I do bring the M kit on trips where I'm also bringing the 1D X and multiple lenses, but I use them exclusively – the former for carrying with me on walkarounds (often just the M2 + M11-22 in a Dashpoint 30), the latter for going out at blue hour, etc. I bring the mount adapter when I travel, but solely so the M can serve as a backup in case the 1D X decides to stop working.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> Not that any of this matters as it is a moot point. I think any thoughts of Canon introducing a full frame mirrorless camera that is *not]* an EF mount is very naive. They are not going to abandon all that glass. Just look at the new Canon and Sony mounts. They've been out for years and the amount of native glass available is still quite small. If Canon had any thoughts of a new full frame mount we would not be seeing them continue to invest so heavily in new EF lenses as we have these past few years. Maybe many, many years from now they'll do it, but not today. Heck, I'm quite skeptical they'll even come out with a FF mirrorless camera at all this year.



I don't think either the [integral EF mount / "barrel nozzle"] camp or the [keep it thin + adapter] camp is arguing Canon will abandon EF lenses. Both visions of a mirrorless future involve EF glass sticking around. The adapter camp simply wants a few wide to standard 'thin mount' lenses that lead to an aggregate smaller rig+lens combo to carry around, like the A7 + 35mm f/2.8 combo everyone uses as an example.

Yes, Canon has a lovely pancake in rebuttal, but that's about it. Sony simply has more native E-mount options to create a very compact kit at a number of focal lengths. Again: if you want smaller and you are prepared to give up length and aperture, you can have a smaller kit with the thin mount + adapter path. 

I just don't think Canon will do that. I think there's just too much common sense on the full EF side of the ledger, and it will trump any move to go thin. (But I very well could be wrong -- perhaps Canon is geeking out to unveil yet another new mount to push new lenses at us.)

- A


----------



## scyrene (Apr 13, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Very good  Although is that a duck? Its feet aren't webbed. Looks more like some sort of rail.
> ...



Not a coot - they have weird lobed feet. A moorhen or a sora or some other rail (there are a lot!).


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



You birders are overthinking it. 

Those aren't feet -- they're _antlers_. That's a zombie deer rising from the depths to feed on brains.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2016)

Of course EF-lenses will stay for a long time to come. For focal lengths of about 90mm and up, there is no size advantage for "native mirrorless" (= short flange distance) lenses. Similarly for fast lenses and f/2.8 zooms. 

I use the following EF lenses via detachable EF/EF-M adapter on my EOS M:
* EF 40/2.8 STM ... great lens, STM works very well on M, very nice "street" setup ... people often dont notice or mind being captured "cell phone style" with a smallish camera ... but as soon as I take my mirrorslapper to the eye everybody either starts posing and/or swearing at me ;D 
* EF 50/1.8 STM ... a bit more reach and faster aperture ... great lens, inexpensive, small, light, faster than any EF-M lens; will not buy a native EF-M 50/1.8 unless it is as small, good and inexpensive as the 22/2.0 
* EF-S 60 Macro ... great lens, got it, keep it. will never buy another crop-only macro lens, even if Canon were to bring a native EF-M version
* EF 50/1.4 ... even faster, but AF not so great on EOS M, especially in low/available light 
dont mind images taken with a small camera held like a mobile phone ... as soon as a mirrorslapper is brought to the eye everybody starts posing ... or swearing at me!  

So basically all situations, were I am not allowed to bring a mirrorslapper in [museums, castles, club concerts and the like] or were I want the gear to be as inconspicuos as possible and when I cannot what i want with EF-M 22/2.0 

"Detachable tube adapter" for me please, no "bolted-on nozzle".


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> You birders are overthinking it.
> Those aren't feet -- they're _antlers_. That's a zombie deer rising from the depths to feed on brains.
> - A



LOL! Exactly what I was thinking. Zombie deer coming after Neuro ... since he has shot it. With his camera. ;D


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > I own a couple Canon M's. I have the adapter. Frankly it's more something to have some fun with then to seriously use in most cases. Cue the guy with a shot of his great big white and a tiny M hanging off the end. Most the EF (or EF-S) lenses just don't balance well physically on the M. Many others work at reduced performance. Realistically it's a compromise and what one really wants is a native lens.
> ...



I tend to use the adapter most when taking video and stills at the same time. The DSLR is used for stills and the M is used for video. I use the adapter with L lenses to drop the ISO for video.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



I genuinely laughed out loud at this ;D


----------



## jedy (Apr 13, 2016)

So Canon either produce a smaller FF mirrorless camera with a new lens mount or a bigger mirrorless to accommodate the EF mount. Maybe they're working on both. Either way, Canon have to have a decent mirrorless system otherwise they'll keep loosing out to the likes of Fujifilm and Sony. Even if the EF mount is to continue for years to come, I'm sure the advantages with mirrorless technology will eventually overtake DSLRs. Saying that though, Canon have some serious catchup to do if we are to favour them over Fujifilm and Sony.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 13, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > So, if the camera weighs the same as a duck...
> ...



I shall say Ni! to you a second time, if you do not switch to Sony.


----------



## nads (Apr 13, 2016)

d said:


> Likewise, releasing a body that compels an existing Canon shooter to add it to their arsenal would seem to me a greater initial priority over trying to attract existing mirrorless users from other systems. But I admit my insight is very limited
> 
> d.



In terms of market strategy... the target for this body is much more likely to be a user choosing between a competitive mirrorless and a Canon mirrorless. Current Canon shooters are are already established customers and are much more likely to purchase additional canon products in the future than a buyer that chooses a competitors product.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2016)

jedy said:


> Saying that though, Canon have some serious catchup to do if we are to favour them over Fujifilm and Sony.



1) _Favour_ them in a head to head context as if you were a consumer who owned no photography gear at the time? Yes. You are 100% right.  Their EVFs are better. Their cameras are more responsive. Their sensors are lovely.

2) But we own Canon lenses and enjoy Canon's erognomics/menus/handling, and we appreciate Canon service and quality. 

3) We don't like adapting non-native lenses and hoping the AF works.

4) We don't want to buy a boatload of new lenses for another mirrorless mount.

(2), (3) and (4) utterly obliterate (1) as far as buying priorities go unless you have a ton of money to burn or only want 1-2 lenses to use with mirrorless. *And Canon knows this.* They can deliver a decent but not mindblowing offering and we will come running to it. 

- A


----------



## nads (Apr 13, 2016)

With respect to d and rrcphoto -- who I very much agree with -- allowing someone to use older lenses is value-add whether you personally think adapting old glass is worthy or not. Some customers (say AvTvM?) will value this, and in turn, that makes it valuable to Canon in the form of keeping people in the ecosystem, raising loyalty, happiness, etc.

Now will *I* do this? Do I have a crate of old FD lenses lying around? Did I inherit my Dad's old lenses? No. But some people dig that, and surely this was folded into one of (presumably at least) two really detailed business plan scenarios in this very very very important decision for Canon.

- A
[/quote]

Canon isn't likely to focus on a customer value proposition that involves use of items Canon has already sold. They are focused on future sales of Canon lenses. A user that is already has glass that they will reuse is no more valuable than a user that buys a Sony and Sony lenses going forward. 

FD glass on eBay is on Canon's list of competitors and threatens future revenue.


----------



## nads (Apr 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jedy said:
> 
> 
> > Saying that though, Canon have some serious catchup to do if we are to favour them over Fujifilm and Sony.
> ...



A new user not invested in any system will not be swayed by 2,3, or 4. The vast majority of Canon buyers get in via the Rebel series and never own more than 3 lenses for the system. 

I agree that Canon is looking to offer a decent but not mindblowing offering. But their goal is to have enough of a presence in mirrorless to mitigate erosion of new customers to competitors while minimizing the erosion of their cash cow DSLR market.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Again -- _here, at this forum_ -- there was a pretty strong consensus (approx 2/3 of us from surveys) that people wanted a chunky grip as they planned to bolt all their Canon glass on to these rigs.
> 
> - A



Are the tiny portion of the camera-buying public who respond to surveys here representative? There should be s survey of that!


----------



## sdsr (Apr 13, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> I question for you adapter fans out there. I must ask, do you change lenses in the field at all? I personally already find a quick lens change a pain, especially if 5 minutes later I'm switching it back. But throw in mounting and unmounting an adapter, it just starts to get a bit ridiculous. Only if you're shooting all one lens type, and the adapter is always mounted (Sony A7 with all Canon EF glass) then it's equal. But at that point wouldn't you just want a native mount?



I'm probably atypical in that most of the time I prefer using older MF lenses, for which adapters are cheap and (usually) work very well; so I buy enough adapters that whenever I go out with more than one lens, each has its own adapter already attached (with a spare emount rear lens cap sealing the back - they cost almost nothing). If I'm short of space, I'll try to stick with just one mount type so I only need one adapter. Either way, it makes no difference compared to changing native lenses (though taking the one-mount approach is rather a bore with screw-mount lenses - not the fastest experience...). Getting funny looks from other photographers, should there be any nearby, is an added bonus!


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 13, 2016)

sdsr said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Again -- _here, at this forum_ -- there was a pretty strong consensus (approx 2/3 of us from surveys) that people wanted a chunky grip as they planned to bolt all their Canon glass on to these rigs.
> ...



Hence the italics I originally wrote -- I have no delusions that we _are_ the market. 

But that does not mean the arguments raised here are any less true: 


In the FF space, size isn't the driver it is in APS-C or m43. Ask Sony, who just rolled out enormous FF pro glass that eliminates any meaningful space savings. FF mirrorless is only 'small' for a fraction of the lenses FF shooters use.


Canon is behind in mirrorless tech (compared to 2nd / 3rd gen competitors that have improved the responsiveness andAF speed), so they are logically staring at existing Canon EF lens owners as the 'pilot' market to get their feet wet and improve over time.


Existing EF lens owners probably are less inclined to try a FF system out if they have to re-buy similar lenses in a skinny mount design.

So forget this forum's denizens for a moment. What makes more sense for a company like Canon with a boatload of EF glass readily available? Go through the trouble of making a skinny mount/system so a handful of lens + body combos might fit in a smaller bag? Or is it better to drop something seamlessly into the EF continuum without adapters or new glass to buy?

Again, it all boils down to one simple question: is mirrorless all about size, or is it about surpassing what an SLR can do? The long view (especially in full frame) is the latter, which would imply sticking with EF.

- A


----------



## nads (Apr 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> [*]Canon is behind in mirrorless tech (compared to 2nd / 3rd gen competitors that have improved the responsiveness andAF speed), so they are logically staring at existing Canon EF lens owners as the 'pilot' market to get their feet wet and improve over time.
> 
> 
> [*]Existing EF lens owners probably are less inclined to try a FF system out if they have to re-buy similar lenses in a skinny mount design.






ahsanford said:


> So forget this forum's denizens for a moment. What makes more sense for a company like Canon with a boatload of EF glass readily available? Go through the trouble of making a skinny mount/system so a handful of lens + body combos might fit in a smaller bag? Or is it better to drop something seamlessly into the EF continuum without adapters or new glass to buy?
> 
> Again, it all boils down to one simple question: is mirrorless all about size, or is it about surpassing what an SLR can do? The long view (especially in full frame) is the latter, which would imply sticking with EF.
> 
> - A



The fact that Canon has not put a mirrorless body to market of the same specification as the competition has does not, whatsoever, mean that they are behind in mirrorless tech. There isn't a technology out there in a mirrorless body that is beyond Canon's ability to produce. On the opposite side, Canon has AF technology that the competition does not have access to. 

It does not boil down to a question of size or surpassing SLR. For Canon, it boils down to profitability. To that end it means protecting existing market on DSLR and accessories. These are mature products and cash cows. Their goal is not, and will not be to lead the direction of the mirrorless market that has the potential to disrupt their established revenue stream. Their purpose is to do enough in the mirrorless market to maintain a presence to the point they mitigate the deterioration of new user entry. 

Sony FF is such a small part of the total mirrorless market that they have no reason to act. You will find a near zero percentage of new buyers who start directly with sony FF rather than any of the crop bodies as a starting point.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Apr 14, 2016)

As I posted here a couple of years ago, the killer app for the M series of cameras is the 11-22mm lens (which I purchased from Canada when it was unavailable in the US). This lens more-or-less permanently resides on my M2, and the M2 + 11-22mm package (along with the 270EX) is my family's go-to rig for vacationing (where small size and light weight are paramount).

I leave the 22mm pancake on our original M--it gets used as an semi-pocketable device in situations where only pocket-sized cameras are allowed (concerts and other events that would never allow a standard-sized DSLR).

I seldom use the 18-55mm native-M lens.

Sometimes I chuckle out loud when I read CR comments about the M, and mirrorless in general. It seems obvious to me that photographers with much more experience and expertise than me, in my opinion, don't really 'get' the M. And I'm not trying to insult anyone.

In my view Canon will not change the size-and-weight profile of the M-system all that much--to me that means the M4 will look much like the M3 size-wise and feature-wise.

Faster and more accurate focusing that an 80D sensor inside the current M-sized package would provide?

Winner winner chicken dinner (for my usage pattern with the M).

I hope that Canon doesn't add anything that adds much to the size and weight (although the M3's onboard fill-flash was tempting).

None of what I've written here applies to a full-frame mirrorless Canon. Heck I don't even think Canon will designate their full-frame mirrorless as an 'M'--it will by necessity be a much larger camera and may include a viewfinder.

Neat stuff to think about...


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 14, 2016)

nads said:


> The fact that Canon has not put a mirrorless body to market of the same specification as the competition has does not, whatsoever, mean that they are behind in mirrorless tech. There isn't a technology out there in a mirrorless body that is beyond Canon's ability to produce. On the opposite side, Canon has AF technology that the competition does not have access to.



I've heard this a lot: "there's nothing Canon can't pull off" / "Canon could drop a AAA mirrorless product on the market whenever it gets around to it" / "just take* DPAF + an amazing EVF + some new lenses, and POW." Personally, I think it's one thing to _have_ all the Lego pieces of tech in a big pile and it's another thing entirely to Frankenstein all of that together into a highly performing package on a first try. Only so much of the EOS-M experience will apply as it currently lacks DPAF, an integral EVF, a chunkier body design, etc.

Do you (or anyone else in this forum) honestly believe Canon's first FF mirrorless offering will be as responsive as 2nd/3rd gen mirrorless rigs from the competition? Will the control layout make sense and not frustrate us? Will it have an EVF that lays everything out just the way you'd like it? Will it be free of peculiar lens compatibility issues or battery conservation problems? I don't think so at all.

I'm not saying 'Canon is behind in mirrorless tech' as a rant that the sky is falling, 'I'm leaving the fold', etc. -- far from it. I'm just saying that they need to walk before they run -- regardless of how well they run in more the mature SLR segments today. 

(Agree with the rest of what you said, btw. Good post, thx.)

- A

* In full disclosure, I've certainly alleged this a few times, but more as an aspirational statement for a much better camera, not that Canon would nail that Frankenstein on the first offering.


----------



## jedy (Apr 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jedy said:
> 
> 
> > Saying that though, Canon have some serious catchup to do if we are to favour them over Fujifilm and Sony.
> ...


All valid points but you seem to only speak for existing Canon users who have lots of expensive glass. That's why I suggested perhaps a high end mirrorless with EF mount for those customers. For other photographers, you have to agree that smaller mirrorless cameras are more appealing than the lower end aps-c DSLRs. Canon need to invest in a decent, smaller mirrorless, either a much better EOS M and/or a FF. Don't forget, Canon have already changed their lens mount completely (back in the late 80's) and I think there's room for a new mount in addition to the EF mount. Whilst I agree people are reluctant to buy into a new camera system, it's not totally unheard of for people to jump ship. I also stand by my comment that Canon will be playing catchup. Don't just assume if Canon produce an EF mount mirrorless, their first attempt will be at a level good enough for the pros. Whatever state the mirrorless tech is in at the moment, it can only keep on improving and the lens lineup will keep on growing. Canon (and Nikon) by not getting involved in it are really missing out and will have a lot of catching up to do.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 14, 2016)

For a Canon mirrorless FF system, my expectations of what they realistically are *technically able* at the moment:
* sensor -> 1 or 2 gen behind Sony
* AF -> yes, Canon has DP AF, but so far they have not delivered superior AF-performance in practice with it, especially tracking-AF; 80D is an improvement but still clearly behind Sony A6300 and A7/R II series, not to mention possibly upcoming Sony A9 ... 
* UI - Canon clearly in the lead, I don't think they'd botch that one ... unless they again decide to put things on bloody Powershot firmware [like EOS M3] 
* Touch LCD - Canon currently better than the rest; as long as they buy whatever Apple is buying, the'll be fine;
* EVF - as long as they buy the best they can get [latest gen Epson OLED or the like], things will be fine
* Battery charge - if grip is just slightly chunkier than on M3, they should and could just stick the same battery in as in the 5D IV - meaning 12+ Whrs, hopefully; that should yield 500+ shots. Canon has the tech savvy and can buy the cells ... no technical problem here

Now that's my thought to Canon being "able". "Willing" is an entirely different story.


----------



## Zv (Apr 14, 2016)

josephandrews222 said:


> None of what I've written here applies to a full-frame mirrorless Canon. Heck I don't even think Canon will designate their full-frame mirrorless as an 'M'--it will by necessity be a much larger camera and may include a viewfinder.



I guess if it doesn't have an EF-M mount it can't really be classified as an M! I hadn't thought of that! Maybe it will have its own number designation like 8D or 9D? Or a version of the 6D - 6DM?


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 14, 2016)

naming 'em? no prob, here goes:
Canon full frame FF MILCs: EOS X series ... X7, X5, X3, X1 models ... depending on level, then Mk. II, III etc.
Native lens series: EF-X and EF-X L 
;D


----------



## Zv (Apr 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> naming 'em? no prob, here goes:
> Canon full frame FF MILCs: EOS X series ... X7, X5, X3, X1 models ... depending on level, then Mk. II, III etc.
> Native lens series: EF-X and EF-X L
> ;D



"X" won't work as that is what they name the Rebel cameras in Japan (Kiss X5, X6, X7 etc.) would be too confusing. It's also too close to the G series with all their X's in the name like G7X.


----------



## Plainsman (Apr 14, 2016)

jedy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > jedy said:
> ...



Well said!!

BTW the EOS M10 has come down in price significantly and if you use the very sharp 22/2 STM pancake with it you get a nice low profile little general purpose APS-C camera for an affordable price...


----------



## nads (Apr 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> nads said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that Canon has not put a mirrorless body to market of the same specification as the competition has does not, whatsoever, mean that they are behind in mirrorless tech. There isn't a technology out there in a mirrorless body that is beyond Canon's ability to produce. On the opposite side, Canon has AF technology that the competition does not have access to.
> ...



I honestly do believe they could drop such a product and make it just as reponsive. They can physically build the package and put the software together to make it go. 

The company that has years of experience dropping a camera that is only barely better than Nikon's best, and inferior in at least a few key specifications isn't going to do that though. 

Canon does not need to walk before it can run. It could go from stand still to sprint between prototype and production. Canon simply has no reason to run and has long proven that the preference is to pass the competition by the slightest margin possible (when even interested in passing the competition).

I do believe this: FF Mirrorless isn't coming in the next 18 months from Canon. They aren't even going to stand up on the FF front. Any statement that they are is a rumor in my book. There will be movement in mirrorless and Canon leadership has said as much. What is missing is any meaningful statement from Canon leadership regarding FF mirrorless.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 15, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> things will be fine
> could just stick the same battery in as in the 5D IV - meaning 12+ Whrs, hopefully; that should yield 500+ shots. Canon has the tech savvy and can buy the cells ... no technical problem here



want to explain how you pulled that out of your ass when the 80D only does 300 shots on liveview with a smaller sensor and the same battery?


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Do you (or anyone else in this forum) honestly believe Canon's first FF mirrorless offering will be as responsive as 2nd/3rd gen mirrorless rigs from the competition? Will the control layout make sense and not frustrate us? Will it have an EVF that lays everything out just the way you'd like it? Will it be free of peculiar lens compatibility issues or battery conservation problems?



I think they are close. if you see the 1DX and the 80D liveview systems.

as far as control layout and design.

Sure they can come close. the smaller rebel chassis. the Sl1 chassis are form factors that are probably a good starting point.

IF they are sticking with an EF mount - which makes sense on so many fronts, then ergonomically Canon has decades of experience there. how much frustration would depend on the focus. is it prosumer ie: 80D/6D ergonomic patterns, consumer (rebel), professional (7D/5D).. 

if they go short registration distance and more of an M brick.. well who knows really.


----------



## TeT (Apr 15, 2016)

I think the only thing holding Canon back was an acceptable (to them) AF system (speed tracking etc) ; That seems to have been everyone else main problem as well. So yes, I believe their first FF offering will be on par with the industry.


----------



## hmatthes (Apr 15, 2016)

It might be as simple as a mirrorless 6D (small FF) with Canon's unquestionably superior interface, controls, glass and support. They already have the glass, the infrastructure, the sensor (1dXII), the network of dealers and support, the quality control.
The usability means that all users of Canon APS-c cameras know how to use the FF models.
Enough of all this stuff... I want a Canon FF sensor with Canon firmware, user interface, and support.
Just do it Canon -- all this "small camera" crap is just that -- crap. Put a 70~200 on it and the body size disappears. Even a 100 f2.8 Macro makes it a mute point.
Keep complaining, all I want is a FF Canon.


----------



## TAF (Apr 15, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> SL1 becomes basically a full frame mirrorless.
> 
> including the registration distance for the EF mount does not really add any to the size of a camera, if there is a grip.



Keep the price in the same range as the SL1, and they'll get my money.

The SL1 is right at the minimum of what I consider a comfortable to hold camera. Anything smaller is simply too small for me.

(I have an M, and while it has its place, I find it is not that useful, and mine may shortly become an IR model)

Camera ergonomics - perhaps the biggest challenge to meet.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 15, 2016)

TAF said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > SL1 becomes basically a full frame mirrorless.
> ...


A FF (full frame!) mirrorless camera in a pricerange of the SL1?
Man, I'd really like to get what you take.

Sorry, for beeing offensive, but if the cheapest Canon FF DSLR offering in the market is at about 1.400,- €/$ 
you cannot expect them to cut off some 1.000,- €/$ in a mirrorless offer. 

Please wake up!


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Apr 15, 2016)

We've been hearing about how Canon will introduce competitive mirrorless products for several years. 2015 was supposed to be the year Canon launch a pro-sumer camera and we know how that turned out. Now we have a repeat where 2016 will be the year (with new product available in 2017?).

Looking at this from a market/marketing perspective, Canon may not have any incentive to add new products to their lineup, even if the technologies were well within their reach to develop (which it must be, afterall these are just imaging system, right?). 

One answer as to why Canon is not introducing new products at the rate other companies are may be in the sales data - http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html

"speedy fisher" over on Mirrorless Rumor's forum had (in part) this to say - "_For anyone with the slightest analytical background the raw CIPA data recently is incredibly interesting. As a taste, here's Jan 2015 to Jan 2016 direct comparison figures with a bit more detail:... 

DSLRs sales down 12% in volume but a whopping 29% in value. Average camera selling price 50.1k in 2015, 40.4k yen in 2016 (19% drop).

Mirrorless sales are up 22% in volume, and 49%(!!!) in value. Average camera selling price 40.7k in 2015, 49.6k yen in 2016 (22% increase)..._"

What's going on here? In falling markets (such as DSLRs are currently experiencing), sellers are dropping prices to keep their volumes up. Their gross margins are being hit, but I'll bet the volumes are keeping their production lines open, even as their sales channels are being stuffed. This is a common strategy for companies wishing to "ride out" a downturn in their markets.

What we might not know is what Canon's R&D is as a percentage of sales. If their R&D investments increased, we could guess that Canon believes the market will turn around, _or_ that by introducing new products they could swiftly recoup their R&D investments _and_ increase their Gross Margins. In a down market.

However, if Canon's R&D as a percentage of sales is steady or dropping, then we could easily guess that they'll "ride out the storm" with their current product offerings. As of late 2015 Canon reportedly still owned 40+ percent of the overall consumer imaging market.

Looked at differently we could ask: What would a Canon mirrorless system do for Canon that they don't already have in their current product offerings? What marketing or technical advantage would mirrorless bring them that would turn into sales? 

Would it be better Banner Specs than current their product offerings? Sony is a real tough competitor in this space. I can't imagine Canon investing nearly what Sony has in sensor development and networked electronics.

Would it be that Canon could bring real technological distinction in ways their DSLRs currently don't? It seems difficult to believe. Canon is an old fashioned camera company, and not a network-aware/network-capable electronics company.

Would Canon feel that better Gross Margin would improve their Bottom Line? If so, there are many ways of improving Gross Margin _without_ introducing new products. Remember, new products are expensive in terms of R&D, new tooling, new manufacturing processes, marketing, and sales generation.

Would Canon feel the need to have a "me too" product so as to claim they're competing in the mirrorless market? Possibly. If Canon's R&D, tooling and ramp-up costs can be kept acceptably low, they might try to float a new product just to see if it'll "catch on". Looking at their current EOS-M strategy, this is where I'm placing my bet.

Lastly, it was only a few short years ago that Canon's marketing was hugely visible. Now? I have to be honest and say I don't see much advertising. 

What do I see? I see HUGE ad placements for Apple's iPhone 6 imaging capability. They're not promoting anything but photography. No cell phone capability. No fancy whizzy apps. Nothing. Just pure imaging. And I'm talking poster sized back-lit scrolling ads _and_ poster-sized LCD displays. I know, this is commercial printing on a massive, perhaps low quality (by 'netizen standards) advertising scale. But walk up to one of these huge images and look at the image quality. It's shockingly good. Talk a stroll through the Paris Metro system right now and you'll see what I mean.

If you want to know who your Next Great camera company is, look no further than highly integrated highly networked highly "systems" aware (well beyond simple optics and sensors) electronics companies. If you don't think Apple and Sony are deadly serious about "winning" the imaging markets, you're wrong.

I'm left with the strong impression that even if Canon does introduce a fancy new mirrorless camera that it will be, in the end, a meaningless gesture.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 15, 2016)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> We've been hearing about how Canon will introduce competitive mirrorless products for several years. 2015 was supposed to be the year Canon launch a pro-sumer camera and we know how that turned out. Now we have a repeat where 2016 will be the year (with new product available in 2017?).
> 
> Looking at this from a market/marketing perspective, Canon may not have any incentive to add new products to their lineup, even if the technologies were well within their reach to develop (which it must be, afterall these are just imaging system, right?).
> 
> ...



snip.

I would expect someone from mirrorless rumors to use such a small sample size on shipment data. (it's SHIPMENT, not sales).

so what's really amusing is that he states anyone with the "slightest analytical background" .. and he doesn't even know what the data is that he's looking at.

talk about blowing up the "analytical background".

at the time of January / February CIPA data neither the 80D nor the D500 are shipping. so far as DSLR's are concerning, it's simply keeping up with inventory, or in the case of Nikon and Canon, shipping the lower end units that sell by scale.

also looking at "value" there is a little difficult. as anyone with a "analytical background" should know .. as it's the FOB price of the unit, not really what it sells at.

both nikon and canon main / top units are nearing EOL (5D, 6D, D810 ) are all rumored to be replaced this year or next in their larger lifecycles. the FOB usually would decrease during the end of their lifecycles, so it's very much cyclic.

then we have Sony themselves - as they continue to basically cripple / ignore the SLT side of their camera line, that would also make CIPA data for DSLR's look "worse", and what's amusing is that going by the shifting marketscape, it's hard to suggest that Sony has EVER regained it's full 13% marketshare that it had before going crazy and trying to make spaghetti stick to walls.


----------



## jedy (Apr 15, 2016)

Plainsman said:


> jedy said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Glad you appreciate my $1's worth!


----------



## brad-man (Apr 15, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > things will be fine
> ...



Good question. Looking forward to the reply.


----------



## nads (Apr 16, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > things will be fine
> ...



671

That is the number of photos I took on a single LP-E17 battery on the M3 on August 17-18 of 2015 at Disneyland. We left Arizona with my charger and spare battery plugged in over the sink in the hotel room. The single battery without any means of recharging survived 2 days, 671 shots and allowed me time to connect via WIFI on the plane ride home to view and download pictures with the ipad.

Granted, I knew the moment we went into the park that I was up a creek. I powered down quickly between shots. Still, 671 is a good figure for the M3.

Again, forget FF. It isn't happening. Not a single patent for a lens design for FF on short registration distance. No point in a mirrorless body to cut into DSLR FF sales without at least a couple of designs for wide or standard lenses to take advantage of the format.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 16, 2016)

nads said:


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



yes, but that's not how CIPA is calculated Sir.

I get alot out of my M3 as well, butgwe're talking CIPA numbers just to keep it on an equal playing field (well, somewhat..)


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 16, 2016)

nads said:


> Again, forget FF. It isn't happening. Not a single patent for a lens design for FF on short registration distance. No point in a mirrorless body to cut into DSLR FF sales without at least a couple of designs for wide or standard lenses to take advantage of the format.



what you MEAN to say is forget short EF-M registration distance full frame mirrorless.

EF mount mirrorless can happen easily. heck, turn on liveview.. volia. mirrorless.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 16, 2016)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> If you don't think Apple and Sony are deadly serious about "winning" the imaging markets, you're wrong.



I didnt know anyone was arguing about smart phone cameras dominating the imaging market.... In volume of cameras sold and volume of images taken they far surpassed the dslr/mirrorless market a long time ago. Whats your point? 

In the world of prosumer/professional dslr/mirrorless will be around for quite a while.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Apr 16, 2016)

Keeping it short and sweet, I fail to find a compelling reason for Canon to introduce a mirrorless camera.

Here's why - https://photographylife.com/a-few-thoughts-about-the-camera-market

Can anyone give me a reason that makes sense, given current market conditions?




ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> We've been hearing about how Canon will introduce competitive mirrorless products for several years...


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Apr 16, 2016)

My point is: There is no compelling marketing reason for Canon to introduce a serious "professional" mirrorless system.

My second point is well made by many other people: We've heard "mirrorless" rumors for years and have seen little to nothing out of Canon.

My third point is: Canon is not an electronics company and may struggle to keep it's place as imaging leader.

Any other questions? Thank you.



j-nord said:


> ChristopherMarkPerez said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't think Apple and Sony are deadly serious about "winning" the imaging markets, you're wrong.
> ...


----------



## nads (Apr 16, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> nads said:
> 
> 
> > Again, forget FF. It isn't happening. Not a single patent for a lens design for FF on short registration distance. No point in a mirrorless body to cut into DSLR FF sales without at least a couple of designs for wide or standard lenses to take advantage of the format.
> ...



40mm + registration distance of EF mounted optics is not short.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 16, 2016)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> My point is: There is no compelling marketing reason for Canon to introduce a serious "professional" mirrorless system.
> 
> Most are not asking for a "professional" mirrorless, merely one that is a solid overall performer. I think most people would be satisfied with performance somewhere between xxxD and xxD with DPAF.
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 16, 2016)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> My point is: There is no compelling marketing reason for Canon to introduce a serious "professional" mirrorless system.
> 
> My second point is well made by many other people: We've heard "mirrorless" rumors for years and have seen little to nothing out of Canon.
> 
> ...



Point 1 - Market share.... and before someone jumps on me about the market share of mirrorless cameras, I think that we all can agree that the market share of mirrorless cameras is bigger than the market share of the 1DX2, yet Canon still produces it... If they make a mirrorless FF or even a mirrorless Rebel (I think that's the first step) it should sell sufficient quantities to be profitable, and for a business, that's what it is all about.

Point 2 - Mirrorless rumours. You certainly got that one right.... but remember, Canon has no incentive to market a miorrorless DSLR until they become superior to the optical ones..... That day is getting close. All the parts are starting to fall into place and I believe that it will be soon.

Point 3 - Not an electronics company? Seriously? Designing VLSI chips... semiconductor research... several fabrication lines.... circuit boards... processors.... A/D circuitry..... programmers..... and one heck of a pile of patents from the R+D labs to prove that what they do is breaking new ground..... ??? What do they have to do to be an electronics company?


----------



## nads (Apr 16, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> nads said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I don't give much of a damn about CIPA numbers. If a 1040 mah battery can pull almost 700 shots then the idea of pulling 500 shots out of a 1800 mah battery isn't pulling something out of one's backside. Battery life is not a technical problem that is hurting the format. I'd prefer to keep the battery and body size down. No reason to stick a larger cell in there. 3rd parties routinely stick 20-25% more capacity in the same size case.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 16, 2016)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> Keeping it short and sweet, I fail to find a compelling reason for Canon to introduce a mirrorless camera.
> 
> Here's why - https://photographylife.com/a-few-thoughts-about-the-camera-market
> 
> Can anyone give me a reason that makes sense, given current market conditions?



well from the get go.. perhaps understanding what CIPA records would be a good thing.

a) it's shipments.
b) the price is FOB

also .. consider in your analysis the shipment effects when sony switched over from a 13% ILC / DSLR marketshare to next to nothing on DSLR's and went "all in" on Mirrorless. start your timeline on that with the A7 release.

you'll find some even more interesting data points.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 16, 2016)

nads said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > nads said:
> ...



battery life in relation to others is, and the only credible way to measure is by CIPA. so 500+ cipa is pulling it out of his ass. 

and why do you care.. you weren't the person i was responding to anyways.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2016)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> Keeping it short and sweet, I fail to find a compelling reason for Canon to introduce a mirrorless camera.
> 
> Here's why - https://photographylife.com/a-few-thoughts-about-the-camera-market
> 
> ...



So, you imply that Canon has _not_ introduced competitive mirrorless products, and reference an article that states, "_If Canon and Nikon do not enter the non-SLR (mirror-less) interchangeable camera market with a good complement of APS-C and/or full frame cameras by the end 2017 they will likely miss an important strategic window of opportunity._"

I guess that means that Fuji and Panasonic have failed in the mirrorless market, since Canon already outcompetes both in a large demographic for MILC sales.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 16, 2016)

@rrcphoto: watch your own ass and what you pull from it. Canon Defense League fanboy. 

500+ CIPA shots are definitely for a MILC powered by a standard mirrorslapper battery like Canon LP-E6N instead of those wimpy sh*tty toy batteries Canon cuerrently sticks into their EOS-M, Rebels and Powershot G's. 
Even EOS M3 grip could as well fit a grown up LiIon battery. 
Things din't have to be BIG to be powerful ... these days.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> @rrcphoto: watch your own ass and what you pull from it. Canon Defense League fanboy.



right and that's why the 80D with a smaller sensor in liveview is rated for CIPA 300 shots, with that same.. "non-wimpy battery"

Hell - even the 1DX Mark II and it's battery is rated for 240-260 - which obviously means full frame and performance causes a hit there.

So want to explain that one again? especially including the concept that an EVF uses more power than the LCD?

or are you saying that the 80D and 1DX Mark II have wimpy batteries?

here's a news flash .. DPAF is CPU intensive. think about calculating distance from 20 million AF points and then doing AI servo on those.

obviously common sense and logic has no bearing on you, nor reading.

try harder.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 17, 2016)

Measuring battery life must be done in a standard way to get meaningful numbers.....

For example, even sticking the the same model of camera, you can get HUGE variation based on how you shoot.

If I shoot in bursts, I get more pictures per battery than if I take one every minute. Every time I turn the camera off, it goes through a dust cycle and uses more power.... Turning the camera on and off after every shot, I will be lucky to get 500 pictures, I bursts I should see 2000.....

What lens is on the camera..... It takes a lot more energy to focus a 600F4 than a shorty forty.... Do you have IS turned on.... Are you tracking a bird for 30 seconds per shot, or is it a quick snap on a stationary target?

Unless you control the variables and compare camera with equivalent lenses used in a similar manner, the numbers are meaningless.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Measuring battery life must be done in a standard way to get meaningful numbers.....
> 
> For example, even sticking the the same model of camera, you can get HUGE variation based on how you shoot.
> 
> ...



the only thing I don't like about CIPA is there should be two numbers. one with flash and the other without.

it's impossible to compare cameras that have flash to ones that don't.


----------



## nads (Apr 17, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> nads said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I've yet to meet somebody who chose a camera based on CIPA rating or battery life. Spares are cheap and easy to carry. At any rate, M3 is rated at what, 250 shots CIPA? That would be over 400 shots with an LP-E6 battery. Test without using the built in flash and you'd be up to 500 shots with the 1800 mah battery. Go to a 3rd party 2600 mah battery and get rid of flash requirement and you'd have 650-700 shot life via the precious CIPA standard.

The reality is that people routinely blow the doors off what the CIPA figures state. Its as meaningless as the window sticker for fuel mileage. It is a rough guideline that nobody actually hits on the number.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 17, 2016)

Rumors say 2017. Is this a joke? :-D


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2016)

nads said:


> I've yet to meet somebody who chose a camera based on CIPA rating or battery life.



so? it was the topic of discussion, try to pay attention.



nads said:


> Spares are cheap and easy to carry. At any rate, M3 is rated at what, 250 shots CIPA? That would be over 400 shots with an LP-E6 battery.



That's nice, but it really isn't relevant, for starters the CIPA measurement for the M3 isn't with EVF, and nor is the M3 a DPAF sensor, and the M3 is slow as #$(O&*. 1 FPS AEB burst rate? lol.



nads said:


> Test without using the built in flash and you'd be up to 500 shots with the 1800 mah battery. Go to a 3rd party 2600 mah battery and get rid of flash requirement and you'd have 650-700 shot life via the precious CIPA standard.



Except they aren't really 2600mAh.

and again, you and the friend you're defending can't grasp this concept. the 80D with a DPAF sensor is rated around the SAME as the CIPA rating for the M3, and that's WITH a larger battery.

Now think about that for a second - and also realize that the GN of the M3 flash is HALF of the 80D.

1) Performance of the M3 is less than the 80D even in liveview - but that's immaterial because a full frame mirrorless that the person was discussion was AS HIGH as the 80D.

2) the 80D uses a far more advanced sensor, that probably has alot more power requirements.

and your friend that you are defending or arguing without even realizing the freaking conversation.. suggests that a full frame DPAF sensor based camera should be able to EASILY get 500+ CIPA.

This .. considering that NO canon camera to date even with LP-E6N batteries gets even close to that. THAT was the point. 

So frankly I don't freaking care of you run eco mode, do a dance around your M3 and get 772 shots - it wasn't the freaking point of the conversation. 

The point was how did the poster get from 300 CIPA shots in an equivalent mode of canon's latest camera, to a larger DPAF sensor getting 500 shots with the same bloody battery, with even a higher power drain because he also wants an EVF.

Can you grasp that or is some crayons needed?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> and again, you and the friend you're defending can't grasp this concept.



I didn't realize that MABS* was contagious...




* mirrorslap-addled brain syndrome


----------



## Zv (Apr 17, 2016)

What kind of arguments are these?? Don is right, there are too many variables when it comes to battery life. CIPA is just a guide number. It's not the bible of batteries (or is it? ??? ), some people can squeeze out more juice than others depending on shooting style. Just use the CIPA standard to figure out how many batteries you'll likely need and move on. If you have 2 DSLR batteries like the LP-E6 you'll probably need 4 EOS M ones. If you need more shots maybe you should stick to the DSLR as its more efficient. Who shoots over 1000 shots in a day with their EOS M anyway?? Well done if you do, I kinda want to shake your hand! 

I miss the good old days when we argued about UV filers and FF vs crop


----------



## nads (Apr 17, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> nads said:
> 
> 
> > I've yet to meet somebody who chose a camera based on CIPA rating or battery life.
> ...



Try to grasp this concept you pious onager. My "friend" (What, because I didn't disagree with somebody you want to condescending towards makes us friends?) never claimed that such a camera would achieve 500 CIPA. They clearly stated that with a 5D battery the mirrorless body would hopefully achieve 500 shots. 

The point was never getting from 300 CIPA to 500 CIPA. That was a twist you added to go on a rant about battery life. Nevermind that CIPA rating is piss poor when it comes to estimating real world life for a user. Nevermind that CIPA constantly compares apples to oranges. Nevermind that CIPA has them use the flash for every other shot. 80D has a more powerful flash going off every other shot, of course its going to burn the battery. 

My "Friend" hoped for a 500 shot battery life. He said nothing about 500 CIPA. Turning off the flash he should easily achieve that with his 'proposed' camera (aka one that isn't coming anyway).

You want to have a pissing contest about a bad standard that nobody takes seriously. There is no oversight on testing and everybody's tests miraculously seem to end on a multiple of 50. Good for you. 

My point remains... nobody makes a purchase decision based on CIPA rating. You respond by saying "so, it was the topic of discussion". The hell it was. Somebody hoped for 500 shots and you went on a tirade about CIPA ratings. Instead of arguing about achieving a bad standard, just shut up and recognize that most people blow CIPA away just by not using flash.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 17, 2016)

nads said:


> nobody makes a purchase decision based on CIPA rating.
> 
> (snipped the rest)


reviews very much mention CIPA battery ratings and it's the only way to have a judge from camera to camera within reason, and your "friend" confirmed in his last post that he most certainly did mean CIPA as I expected him to based upon other conversions we've had over his "ideas" on what canon should be able to "technically" do.

and just because you don't follow it, fine - then why the hell are you even mention it. Not to mention I could give a rats ass what an M3 does because an M3 doesn't have DPAF sensor in it and it's slow as #$(&* - so it's not even relevant to this conversation.

while CIPA could expand their battery test suite to include two numbers with or without flash, it's the only consistent measure we have. the only one.

So really that's the point of the matter; that CIPA shot count is the only way to consistently measure battery life.

try to keep up though .. he posted yesterday and confirmed 500 CIPA - hard to read I know.

and it still doesn't get around the fact that an 80D and 1DX Mark II boast far less than 500 shots CIPA rating and the 1DX II has a MUCH bigger battery AND doesn't have a flash.

and this miracle full frame camera is going to use a LP-E6N battery that the 80D does, AND be quick performing, AND have a 500 shot CIPA battery spec.

one thing that CIPA battery specs gives us an idea - is how much it's costing as far as power to run liveview.

while the 80D is better than the 70D, it's still very low considering the size of the battery.

consider that the 5D Mark III doesn't even have flash NOR a DPAF sensor and it boasts 200 shots CIPA, the 6D 220 shots.

kind of get where this is going?

--

Looking at the power consumption of canon's DSLR's running liveview is a VERY good indication why they haven't implement some features in the EOS-M sized cameras.

people just think it's as easy as shoving an 80D guts into a EOS-M, add an EVF and it's up and running. sure. if you want 100 CIPA rating on the camera.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 17, 2016)

nads said:


> I've yet to meet somebody who chose a camera based on CIPA rating or battery life. Spares are cheap and easy to carry.



I care about battery life! Good quality (especially genuine Canon) spares are not always cheap, and you have to remember/be disciplined enough to charge them all up regularly. It's obviously easier to have fewer batteries each with higher capacity. It's not a deal breaker, but it matters.

I agree that CIPA figures are not all that useful though (to clarify: it is good to have a standard measure to compare between models and brands, but this measure does not bear much relation to real world performance, in my experience - but then as stated above, there are so many variables it might not be possible).


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 18, 2016)

Fact 1: Sony A7R II is a mirrorless camera with the followin battery-drenchers built in:
a) 24 MP FF sensor, 5fps continuos 
b) built-in hi-rez EVF
c) in-body IS (!)
d) WiFI + NFC 
e) good AF-system (superior to Canon 80D in liveviw, DPAF is still not up to snuff)
f) 3" LCD

Fact 2: Sony battery NP-FW50 (same battery since NEX-3 in all Sony MILCs) is rated with 1040 mAh @ 7.4V = 7.7 Wh. 

Fact 3: Sony A7 II is rated at 300 CIPA shots - for whatever that's worth 

Remark: I don't really trust CIPA either, but in *my real life usage* i do reach CIPA number with any of my past and present digital cameras most of the time, unless I chimp excessively etc. 

Conclusion: if Sony A7 II was not equipped with that wimpy stupid 7.7 Wh battery but with a regular mirrorslapper battery that is not much larger and would fit into a grip only slightly chunkier ... meaning 
a) Sony NP-FM500H [used in many Sony SLTs like A99] rated at 7.2V * 1650 mAh = 11.9 Wh or similar sized and capacity or even better, a 
b) Canon LP-E6N [7.2V * 1865mAh = 13.4 Wh ] or 
c) Nikon EN-EL14 [7.0V * 1900 mAh = 13.3 Wh]
so between 54% to 74% more charge than that whimpy 7.7 Wh toy battery ... 

... then Sony A7 II should achieve 500+ shots [+66% vs. 300]. Both CIPA and real life. Not in all usage scenarios, of course. But in many or most that are relevant to real-world users.  

No amount of badass Canon Defense League behaviour changes this. And yes, to me Sony is as stupid as Canon ... for not sticking a proper battery into their A7 series. Wonder, what battery the rumored Sony A9 will come with.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 19, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Fact 1: Sony A7R II



snipped right there.

we're talking canon and canon technology. try to pay attention or go join SAR. so that babble isn't fact here.

and you conveniently ignored everything.

including the fact that DPAF sensors are quite different than what sony foists on people.

so when you are ready to come back to reality .. still try to explain how you are going to get a CANON full frame DPAF sensor that right now runs at 260 shots on a 1DX Mark II to hit 500 shots.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 19, 2016)

Zv said:


> What kind of arguments are these?? Don is right, there are too many variables when it comes to battery life. CIPA is just a guide number. It's not the bible of batteries (or is it? ??? ), some people can squeeze out more juice than others depending on shooting style. Just use the CIPA standard to figure out how many batteries you'll likely need and move on. If you have 2 DSLR batteries like the LP-E6 you'll probably need 4 EOS M ones. If you need more shots maybe you should stick to the DSLR as its more efficient. Who shoots over 1000 shots in a day with their EOS M anyway?? Well done if you do, I kinda want to shake your hand!
> 
> I miss the good old days when we argued about UV filers and FF vs crop


The most batteries I have consumed in a day's shooting (stills and video) is 3. That's why there are three spares in my bag. It really does not matter how many shots you get per battery in your particular shooting style with your camera(s) and your choice of lenses. What matters is that you have more batteries than you need.


----------



## slclick (Apr 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of arguments are these?? Don is right, there are too many variables when it comes to battery life. CIPA is just a guide number. It's not the bible of batteries (or is it? ??? ), some people can squeeze out more juice than others depending on shooting style. Just use the CIPA standard to figure out how many batteries you'll likely need and move on. If you have 2 DSLR batteries like the LP-E6 you'll probably need 4 EOS M ones. If you need more shots maybe you should stick to the DSLR as its more efficient. Who shoots over 1000 shots in a day with their EOS M anyway?? Well done if you do, I kinda want to shake your hand!
> ...



Warm weather = 1 more battery than I think I need
Cold weather= 2-3 more than I think I need


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 19, 2016)

slclick said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...


Very wise, batteries don't last as long when they are cold....

In cold weather my spare batteries are in a pocket on the inside of my coat..... but I am sure that they quickly drop down below freezing when they go into the camera....

BTW, one of the things I like about Canon is how prevalent the LP-E6 is..... There are a lot of cameras that it fits!


----------



## TAF (Apr 19, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



No offense taken.

I guess I haven't been keeping up - my recollection (which may be in error) was that the SL-1 was introduced at around $1K. Perhaps I recall incorrectly, but that was the range I was imagining (similar to the EOS-M's introductory price of around $800).

I see the SL-1 is now down under $500. That would be a bit low for a FF.

Although one can hope


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 19, 2016)

TAF said:


> No offense taken.


Thank you.



> I guess I haven't been keeping up - my recollection (which may be in error) was that the SL-1 was introduced at around $1K. Perhaps I recall incorrectly, but that was the range I was imagining (similar to the EOS-M's introductory price of around $800).
> 
> I see the SL-1 is now down under $500. That would be a bit low for a FF.
> 
> Although one can hope


AFAI can remember the camera was introduced at about 650 to 700 $/€, and I believe that was with 18-55 STM kit lens included. Here in Germany you can get it with kit lens for about 400,- €.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Fact 1: Sony A7R II
> ...



oh, looks like Canon Defense League is out of arguments and has to resort to personal attacks. Nothing new around here.

The facts i stated are facts. And I am Canon customer ... with currently 3 Canon cameras and a number of lenses, most of which cost much more and are much heavier to lug around than I would like. I am not paid by Canon or by Sony for posting on internet forums. And I have as much right to post my opinion and speculations here as everybody else does. I have even more right ot post facts related to Canon products and related competitor products. Just deal with it, Canon Defense League [aka "Canon fanboys"]. 

Since Sony [Leica does not exist in my world] is currently the only vendor of FF mirrorless cameras, their products are the benchmark and current "gold standard" against which all and any possible future Canon entries into this market segment - undoubtedly then termed "the future of photography" by Canon ;D - will be measured. 

Personally I don't care, how a camera achieves AF, as long as it happens rapidly and precisely and I have a User Interface that gives me full and intuitive control over *where* the plane of focus is in my captures ... Canon Eye Control AF v2.0 .. where is it? 

While DP-AF holds some theoretical promise, Canon has not yet been able to deliver (Live-View) DP-AF performance superior to the hybrid CD+PD-AF systems implemented in Sony mirrorless cameras like A6000, A6300, A7 II series or some Fuji and Olympus offerings. To me DP-AF certainly does not look like the holy grail of AF systems. Especially if it turns out that DP-AF sensors are battery drainers. A rating of only 260 shots for Canon 1DX2 in liveview sounds really dismal to me (if true). 

Anyway, I would consider it "fail", if future/possible Canon FF-sensor mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras - as well as future emanations of Sony (A7 III, A9?) or other brand's MILCS - would not come with a 14+ Whrs battery that allows for 500+ shots in "regular use". Not in antarctic freezer temperatures or in otherwise extreme usage scenarios ... but "in regular use" = as encountered by >90% of "regular" users more than 90% of the time.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> BTW, one of the things I like about Canon is how prevalent the LP-E6 is..... There are a lot of cameras that it fits!



Yep! 
LP-E6 and latest emanation LP-E6N got good power density ... a bit better than similarly sized batteries used by Sony [NP-FM500H] or Nikon [EN-EL15 ]. 

Size & weight of these 14Whr batteries is not only acceptable for fat mirrorslappers but would also fit into a MILC handgrip only slightly chunkier than EOS M3. Which would be acceptable to me, if it were to power my next camera ... Canon! mirrorless! FF! 8)  ... for a solid 500+ shots in "regular use" in "moderate climate conditions".


----------



## Zv (Apr 19, 2016)

In the last two years I've had to change batteries (as in it was going to die) only once while on a shoot. That was a studio setting with my 6D connected to my iPad via WiFi. After about two hours of shooting I noticed the iPad getting a bit laggy then it hit me -hey maybe I should change the camera battery! By that point the shoot was nearly over but a fresh battery in the bag saved the day. 

Can't recall any other time outside of weddings where one LP-E6 wasn't sufficient. Man those things just keep on going for days even! 

One day I will be so impressed with myself for using all three of my batteries in one day! Not looking forward to organizing that collection on Lightroom but impressed all the same!


----------



## Woody (Apr 19, 2016)

I am curious if Canon is really going to offer a FF mirrorless camera.

And if they do, will it come equipped with dual-pixel AF and touchscreen, complete with AF servo in multishot mode (like 80D)?

What about on-board flash and built-in EVF?

Curious mind wonders....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2016)

slclick said:


> You can do better than that.



Well, slapping your mirror too frequently and too hard can apparently lead to social problems. I guess we should view his search for the perfect MILC FOR HIS EVERY NEED as a mental cry for help.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 19, 2016)

AvTvM said:


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



nope, more like .. common sense defense league something you lack.

an LP-6N will not get anywhere close to 500 CIPA with a DPAF sensor. that is fact. on the 80D it only gets 220 shots, on the 1dx Mark II and it's huge battery only 260 shots full frame.

you keep skirting around that. you ignore common sense and facts and then will be the first one to sit in your little corner and snivel.

what's funny is you quoted me and STILL didn't answer how you expect a DPAF sensor to get that with the LP-E6N battery.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 19, 2016)

Woody said:


> I am curious if Canon is really going to offer a FF mirrorless camera.
> 
> And if they do, will it come equipped with dual-pixel AF and touchscreen, complete with AF servo in multishot mode (like 80D)?
> 
> ...



I honestly doubt it, they don't seem to have the power management under control yet.

it could be that DiGiC 7 will provide the necessary power / performance boost necessary (supposedly it processes 14x the data as DiGiC 6)

however with an EVF, touchscreen, DPAF,etc it's looking like it would be quite a poor CIPA rating (easily sub 200 shots)


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 19, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


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


It's not just Canon.... on any DSLR you get considerably less shots per battery in "live view" than you get in the normal viewfinder mode, and this number should be LESS than a mirrorless camera of equivalent circuitry because for most of the time, the mirror mechanism will be energized and sucking back power and instead of powering up a large display on the back of the camera, you are powering up a tiny EVF on the mirrorless.

So the answer is YES, the CIPA numbers for mirrorless cameras are better than the CIPA numbers for DSLRs in live view, and the reason has little to do with sensors and processors, but a lot to do with electro-mechanical mirror systems and large rear displays. Take any of those DSLRs, remove the mirror, and view through an EVF, and you should see a considerable improvement in the numbers.

It is very hard to compare apples and oranges and get meaningful results....


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


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



well, it's still hard to judge. a case and point would be the T6 versus the M3, same sensor, processor, liveview and battery. the only difference is a higher GN flash.

it's 180 versus 250. however shot to shot the T6 is quicker than the M3.

however, you have to counter that by if the camera has an EVF, that draws more than a back LCD as well.

however the person i was debating with suggested that canon would magically double performance and that it was easily technically possible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ... instead of powering up a large display on the back of the camera, you are powering up a tiny EVF on the mirrorless.



Sorry, Don…you seem to be suggesting that the rear LCD takes more power than the EVF, when the opposite is actually true. For example, the a7RII gets (based on CIPA) 290 shots with the viewfinder, 340 shots with the rear LCD. 

That 'tiny EVF' is a powersucker.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ... instead of powering up a large display on the back of the camera, you are powering up a tiny EVF on the mirrorless.
> ...


I thought it was the opposite, and the EVF used less power to run, but the camera used a higher refresh rate on the EVF so there was more processor drain..... But I am probably wrong on that one.....

However you slice it, we ( or at least I) don't know enough details about how things are done in the various cameras to make valid power comparisons and until we see a Canon mirrorless DSLR running off of an LP-E6 battery, we will not be able to compare battery life against a DSLR running the same battery....


----------



## TeT (Apr 20, 2016)

If Matt Damon can drive a space buggy all the way around Mars on a LP-E6N, than I am sure Canon can get 423 shots out of one.

Right, that really happened right???

Anyways... I would assume that one of the many possible things holding up Canon on the FF mirrorless release was being comfortable with the battery life in all modes. I would assume that they somewhat conquered it...

We shall see...


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 20, 2016)

@rrcphoto: i don't want Canon DP-AF. So far [Live-View] AF performance on Canon DP-AF cameras is inferior to Sony/Fuji/Oly AF performance. If it is really true that DP-AF also sucks power like mad, then Canon better abandon it. Not needed. 

500+ Shots on a 14Whrs battery charge with an FF MILC is easily possible. Including "Retina"-EVF and 5-axis in-body stabilizer. really looking forward to what Sony A9 will deliver. Yes, they can. 
*Ca-non can-not.* 8)


----------



## TeT (Apr 20, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> @rrcphoto: i don't want Canon DP-AF. So far [Live-View] AF performance on Canon DP-AF cameras is inferior to Sony/Fuji/Oly AF performance. If it is really true that DP-AF also sucks power like mad, then Canon better abandon it. Not needed.
> 
> 500+ Shots on a 14Whrs battery charge with an FF MILC is easily possible. Including "Retina"-EVF and 5-axis in-body stabilizer. really looking forward to what Sony A9 will deliver. Yes, they can.
> *Ca-non can-not.* 8)



Sony has never done more than poor on battery life with mirrorless... great camera and all, but lets have some semblance of reality....


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 20, 2016)

TeT said:


> Sony has never done more than poor on battery life with mirrorless... great camera and all, but lets have some semblance of reality....



that's what I'm saying: Sony should use a real battery [14+ Whrs] rather than the toys currently used. Same goes for Canon ... EOS M series also uses whimpy batteries. M3 grip just a bit chunkier and a proper LP-E6N would fit nicely. 500+ shots. Skip DP-AF if all it can do is drain the battery.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 20, 2016)

Hey, Guys! 

Could we come to the agreement that a mirrorless systems should be able to reach 500+ shots, whether by using bigger batteries or more efficient components. 

I understand that discussing over far from reality CIPA numbers or 14Wh over XY Wh or which component inside a Camera is consuming more energy is some kind of fun. But fun ends when it becomes personal. 

Otherwise I'd propose a motion for renaming this thread to "*Energy Wasting Mud Fight over Canon Mirrorless Waste Of Energy [CR0]*"

(Of course I know that some people like mud fights, either watching or participating  )


----------



## eosuser1234 (Apr 20, 2016)

EVF powered by Solar.
Runs off battery when dark.
My solar paper YOLK solar cells are a nice matte black, that could be made into the camera body shell.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


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


That makes too much sense for this thread


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The lifetime of a battery is in proportion to its size. The size of the battery is governed by the size of the camera.
> Small camera = small battery = short lifespan.



of course. But ... 

* Sony A7 II series handgrips could hold battery size like Canon LP-E6N = 70% more juice = x% more shots, camera not larger. 

* APS-C MILCs like Sony A6300, Fuji XT-1 Canon EOS M3 could also fit such a battery, if handgrips are made just a bit deeper = minimal increase in size, not a big deal as soon as any lens is attached to camera. 

For really compact form factor MILCs - e.g. EOS M / M 2 / M10 - a physically larger battery is no option. There we should be looking at batteries with higher energy density = small battery, small camera, more juice. Maybe camera industry could tap into some of the progress made in cell-phone batteries over the last few years.


----------



## lettherebelight (Apr 22, 2016)

... I'd love to buy an EOS M with an EF-S/EF mount and use all my lenses - would perfectly combine with various primes and make really nice compact combos for use in situations when the SLR stays home. Canon would probably see me back in the mirrorless customer world if that really happens. I'm afraid this won't happen. Just doesn't fit the rumor of new M mount lenses


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 22, 2016)

lettherebelight said:


> ... I'd love to buy an EOS M with an EF-S/EF mount and use all my lenses - would perfectly combine with various primes and make really nice compact combos for use in situations when the SLR stays home. Canon would probably see me back in the mirrorless customer world if that really happens. I'm afraid this won't happen. Just doesn't fit the rumor of new M mount lenses



EF-M mount is perfectly fine. use of Canon EF/EF-M adapter allows use of any EF and EF-S lens on any EOS-M body! size of cam+adapter is exactly the same as a camera with fixed EF-mount "nozzle" would be. but detachable adapter brings the best of both worlds: 
1. use of very compact EF-M lenses (eg 22/2) as well as 
2. use of any EF-/EF-S lens ever made (best AF performance by lenses with STM AF drive). 

i really fail to see the issue some people have with EF-M mount.

what's not to like?


----------



## nads (Apr 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



It is and it isn't. Canon and others aren't putting the total emphasis into maximizing energy density in their batteries and phone manufacturers and others are. Canon could supply higher capacity cells in the same form factor than they currently offer.

But it is no different than their mirrorless offerings so far. They could build a FF mirrorless, but it is not needed from a business strategy and marketing perspective.

Instead of building batteries that last longer, Canon is investing time and money into making batteries with technology that 3rd parties can't make direct replacements for. 

From Canon's perspective it is better to market a battery that is sized just right so that: 1) most people will need to buy one or more backups, and 2) People will need to buy a Canon battery at a high price.

Canon makes more money if they don't put a massively dense cell in the camera. It always amazes me when people act like Canon doesn't have the technological know how to produce mirrorless products on the same level as companies that have far fewer consecutive profitable quarters than Canon has profitable years.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 22, 2016)

It is and it isn't. Canon and others aren't putting the total emphasis into maximizing energy density in their batteries and phone manufacturers and others are. Canon could supply higher capacity cells in the same form factor than they currently offer.

But it is no different than their mirrorless offerings so far. They could build a FF mirrorless, but it is not needed from a business strategy and marketing perspective.

Instead of building batteries that last longer, Canon is investing time and money into making batteries with technology that 3rd parties can't make direct replacements for. 

From Canon's perspective it is better to market a battery that is sized just right so that: 1) most people will need to buy one or more backups, and 2) People will need to buy a Canon battery at a high price.

Canon makes more money if they don't put a massively dense cell in the camera. It always amazes me when people act like Canon doesn't have the technological know how to produce mirrorless products on the same level as companies that have far fewer consecutive profitable quarters than Canon has profitable years.
[/quote]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKBRtdp2e98


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 25, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> Hey, Guys!
> 
> Could we come to the agreement that a mirrorless systems should be able to reach 500+ shots, whether by using bigger batteries or more efficient components.



not really. more efficient components that may not even exist in canon technology means squat.

canon's never had a liveview or a mirrorless camera come close to 500+ shots with CIPA.

not even with an LP-E19!


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> canon's never had a liveview or a mirrorless camera come close to 500+ shots with CIPA.



We know, THAT is the problem!  

But we all would be more interested in a solution. No matter, how exactly Canon does it. They should do it. If they can do it. Which is ... doubtful indeed.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > canon's never had a liveview or a mirrorless camera come close to 500+ shots with CIPA.
> ...



I am sure they could..... just design a body that takes a pair of LP-E6's


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 25, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I am sure they could..... just design a body that takes a pair of LP-E6's



well, I'd prefer one (1) LP-E6 Mk. II ... with 20 Whrs charge. 8)


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 26, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, Guys!
> ...


It really seems that you like talking about batteries and CIPA standards and like to fan the flames to keep them burning. Either you didn't get me right the first time, or you didn't want to. Because:
1. I was trying to calm things down again.
2. I never was referring to CIPA standards when I was talking about 500+ shots (I meant real world perf., to make it clearer)
3. I said a system should be able, not that it easily could be able.
4. I never said that Canon is/should be able to built such a camera on the spot without any effort. 
Because I don't know what their R&D has in their labs.

So with you statement you should turn your back on Canon because you state that you never believe in them to build any mirrorless coming anyway from close to your desires.


----------



## lettherebelight (Jul 21, 2016)

... seeking a "compact", potentially pocketable camera, adding the size and weight of the adapter kind of defeats the purpose.

Moreover, focus acquisition with the adapter is significantly slower compared to without.

Hence two reason, why I don't like the adapter.



AvTvM said:


> lettherebelight said:
> 
> 
> > ... I'd love to buy an EOS M with an EF-S/EF mount and use all my lenses - would perfectly combine with various primes and make really nice compact combos for use in situations when the SLR stays home. Canon would probably see me back in the mirrorless customer world if that really happens. I'm afraid this won't happen. Just doesn't fit the rumor of new M mount lenses
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 24, 2016)

AF performance of all Canon EOS cameras and mirrorless-suitable (!) STM lenses is not negatively impacted by use of the EF/EF-M adapter. AF with EF-S STM lenses on EOS-bodues is fully on par with comparable EF-M lenses: eg 18-55 STM IS or EF-S 55-250 vs EF-M 50-200.

non-STM lenses - especially older designs - perform not as well, neither on EOS-M (via adapter) nor in liveview on EOS DSLRs. it is a restriction of the lenses relative to hybrid/contrast-detect AF-systems. not caused by the adapter.


ps: canon teleconverters (1.4x and 2x) do cause slower AF performance (consviously implemented electronically that way by Canon) - but they are a totally different story compared to a simple "extension tube mount adapter" used to mount dslr lenses on mirrorless cameras with shorter flange distance.


----------

