# Canon's FF Mirrorless Camera Will Have Same Internals as EOS 6D Mark II



## pedro (Jan 20, 2017)

Hi, maybe you've seen this as well over at the CW site
For what it's worth...

Contains a claim for a mirrorless FF body based on the upcoming 6DII...
Also contains the recent rumored specs published here

_After yesterday’s rehash of all our EOS 6D Mark II rumors, I am glad I’ve got a new and fresh rumor. This rumor should also redefine (=nullify) a weird EOS 6D Mark II rumor I got some time ago.

I’ve been told (thanks) that the upcoming full-frame mirrorless camera we are sure Canon is working on, will have the same internals (bar the mirror box etc) as the upcoming EOS 6D Mark II. That’s to say that Canon’s full-frame mirrorless camera will most likely have the same specifications as the EOS 6D Mark II. They will relate like the EOS M5 and the EOS 80D.

This rumor is credible. Building a full-frame mirrorless camera using the EOS 6D Mark II components makes a lot of sense. Taking a successful DSLR and stripping it of all the mirror box related stuff worked with the EOS M5, it will work again with the full-frame MILC. This must work fine for Canon: taking the sensor, circuits, electronics, AF etc from a DSLR and fitting everything in a mirrorless camera body.

So far, this is the rumored specification list for the EOS 6D Mark II, which we think will also apply to Canon’s full-frame mirrorless camera.

All new sensor, rumored to have 28MP (we reported first here and here and here)
Dual SD slots (does not apply to MILC)
Tilting LCD (we reported first here)
Touchscreen (we reported first here)
DIGIC 7
Aiming for a sub $2000 USD body only price (we told you first here)
DPAF (we reported first here)
Possibly 4K in some capacity (we were told no 4K, 1080p 60fps instead)
Wifi, NFC & Wireless charging (we reported first in 2015)
Larger viewfinder (does not apply to MILC)
New AF system (we reported first here, does not apply to the MILC)
The EOS 6D Mark II is expected to be announced before Summer 2017. I not sure yet when Canon’s full-frame MILC will be announced. It may be towards the end of 2017.

Stay tuned…_

Kr Peter


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2017)

pedro said:


> _This rumor is credible._



Given the credibility of the site, their definition of credible is simply not credible.


----------



## ScottD (Jan 20, 2017)

I assume the Canon FF DSLR lenses would not work on this mirrorless or is this a wrong assumption.

Thank you.

Scott Dunham


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 21, 2017)

ScottD said:


> I assume the Canon FF DSLR lenses would not work on this mirrorless or is this a wrong assumption.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Scott Dunham



Very likely it would work with an extension tube


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2017)

There is absolutely nothing that says that a Canon FF mirrorless camera will not be the same form factor as existing FF cameras and will not use the EF lenses.

Look at your 6D, or your 5D4, and try to imagine where all the controls will fit on a tiny body.... Then think about how it will fit your hands and how it will balance once you put your L glass on it..... Then think about the ASTRONOMICAL expense of producing a whole new lineup of lenses, particularly when most of them are not significantly smaller than the previous lens mount.... and think about the buying public which has an expectation of what a higher level camera will look like..... and the odds of keeping the same form factor start to look like a certainty.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> There is absolutely nothing that says that a Canon FF mirrorless camera will not be the same form factor as existing FF cameras and will not use the EF lenses.
> 
> Look at your 6D, or your 5D4, and try to imagine where all the controls will fit on a tiny body.... Then think about how it will fit your hands and how it will balance once you put your L glass on it..... Then think about the ASTRONOMICAL expense of producing a whole new lineup of lenses, particularly when most of them are not significantly smaller than the previous lens mount.... and think about the buying public which has an expectation of what a higher level camera will look like..... and the odds of keeping the same form factor start to look like a certainty.



Don, I happen to agree with you (as does about 2/3 of the forum based on polling), but I also think there's enormous room for a devil's advocate position on this in which Canon goes with a new, thin 4th mount. 

Consider:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Just because it's ergonomically bereft doesn't mean Canon will prevent it from ever occurring: people adapt large glass on EOS-M, don't they?


[*]No one at all said that a thin flange decision with FF mirrorless would mean _a full clone of the EF portfolio_. If they went with a 4th mount, it's much more likely they'd only offer a handful of shorter FL lenses (where the aggregate camera + lens size could stay small), say in the 24-50mm range. Anything else you need would send you towards an adaptor and EF glass.
[/list]

Again, there are so many reasons Canon should go full EF with FF mirrorless, but not everyone agrees with that. Canon may actively try the 'small game' again with FF despite all common sense, perhaps in an effort to court a new generation of photographers.

- A


----------



## Crosswind (Jan 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Consider:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Just because it's ergonomically bereft doesn't mean Canon will prevent it from ever occurring: people adapt large glass on EOS-M, don't they?
> ...



I use my M5 exclusively with the EF/EF-M adapter and it doesn't feel bad at all to use EF lenses only, because the camera itself has so good ergonomics.

Canon - IMO - should definitely go full EF with their FF mirrorless - there's nothing wrong with that.
For example; if I'd buy into EF-M (while having several EF lenses), it'd be a hassle to quickly change lenses between two different systems (EF/EF-M), because of the adapter - I tried it myself with the EF-M 11-22. Great overall performance, but it didn't feel right alongside all my EF glass (too small, no IS on/off switch - had to go to the menu everytime I wanted to save energy or when on a tripod - and changing between lenses got a bit complicated). That's something you can only find out if you have it in your hands. Of course I knew that it is a smaller lens with no IS switch before I bought it, but I haven't thought that it would be such a drawback for me. I have sent it back. If the 11-22 would be EF-S mount type, so I have to use it with adapter, I would probably keep it (even without IS switch on the lens). There's the EF-S 10-18mm, but it's not convincing me regarding image quality. I wouldn't want to ever take off the adapter on my M5, because I do not want that extra step just for changing lenses. So that's why I hope that Canon will go for a full blown EF-mount type, regardless of what that means for camera size/weight. It's not just the size and weight why someone would buy into a FF mirrorless.

I'd like if they stay with the "kind of retro"-design. I like it a lot.

But... do you really think that Canon is actively working on a FF mirrorless? Don't get me wrong - I feel that'd be great, but I'm very pessimistic in that regard.

(and please excuse me for my not-so-perfect english or any grammar mistakes - I try my best)


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 21, 2017)

What is wrong with this scenario:
The FF mirror less camera has a flange distance that is exactly 25mm shorter then the EF mount.
People who have EF lenses attach the 25mm extension tube to the camera and leave it there permanently so they can use all the EF lenses all the time.

Canon makes some small FL lenses just for the mirrorless camera for people who want to save on size.

If 25mm is to much of a difference then substitute 12mm for 25mm in the above paragraph.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> and the odds of keeping the same form factor start to look like a certainty.



I for one agree and have said as much.


----------



## pokerz (Jan 21, 2017)

High refresh rate EVF, good battery life (1000shots) in a tiny body please


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 21, 2017)

The Sigma sd Q/H is a mirrorless camera that retains the mirror box depth of their DSLR cameras, so the design idea has precedent. The "built in" extension tube isn't removable. 

If Canon got the EVF right, I'd seriously consider one.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 21, 2017)

Once you get to FF, even a mirrorless camera is not going to be small - so size would not be the selling point for FF mirrorless. Pros and high end enthusiasts are going to want the same type of performance - which means a huge battery unless you are happy with 300-500 shots per charge since mirrorless is far more of a battery drainer. You can reduce the height and even the width of the body a certain amount, but reducing the flange distance is essentially meaningless as far as size reduction. The grip is already wider than the flange distance in a good ergonomic body, and once you put lenses on the body, the size savings in that direction are minimal. Plus, reducing the flange distance creates all sorts of issues as far as getting enough light into the corners of the larger FF sensor. It would seem absurd for Canon to create a new line of high quality L lenses for a new mount.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> There is absolutely nothing that says that a Canon FF mirrorless camera will not be the same form factor as existing FF cameras and will not use the EF lenses.
> 
> Look at your 6D, or your 5D4, and try to imagine where all the controls will fit on a tiny body.... Then think about how it will fit your hands and how it will balance once you put your L glass on it..... Then think about the ASTRONOMICAL expense of producing a whole new lineup of lenses, particularly when most of them are not significantly smaller than the previous lens mount.... and think about the buying public which has an expectation of what a higher level camera will look like..... and the odds of keeping the same form factor start to look like a certainty.



agreed.
if you look at a 6D, 5D,etc - the depth of the EF mount is the least of the camera's height / width / depth as an issue.

changing from the EF mount offers no size savings.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 21, 2017)

I understand different people have different requirements and priorities. Honestly I do not care about the size, I want the following features and I am willing to pay up to $3500 for such a Canon camera. certainly any weight reduction would be nice but I am OK if it weighs as much as 5d4.

50 MP FF sensor with the latest tech like the 80D and 5D4
EF Mount. No new mount please
At least 10 FPS shooting
DPAF
I don't care about AF points as long as the camera tracks moving subjects very well. Sounds like in the mirror less world and even in live view shooting there is no way to select individual AF points. I know this for a fact on the A6300 and even on M3. I shoot primarily Canon tried Sony but so not very happy with it. Could not stand M3 due to shutter lag so returned it.
Weather sealed
Flash Sync speed 1/250 seconds
ISO sensitivity 50-32000
Dual UHS ii SD card slots
Fully articulating touch screen
IBIS
NFC, WiFi and GPS
Battery life matching DSLRs. I know Mirror less consumes more power. Canon should come up with a larger capacity battery.
Shutter response as good as 5D4
Good ergonomics like a DSLR
4K @ 60 fps video with a better codec, i really do not care about C log
1080p @ 120 FPS
720 @ 240 FPS
4K video out in HDMI

I know I am day dreaming here  but given that we are in 2017 I guess this is not a unrealistic ask.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 21, 2017)

There seems little point to a mirrorless camera that has the same form factor, You could put any recent DSLR into live view and have a effectively mirrorless camera. So they take out the mirror and gut the autofocus system, and then add $500 to the price. How many would go for that? I expect that many would, but if they just called that switch a Mirrorless Mode switch rather than Liveview, many would figure it out.

Canon has been sitting in a quandary. The Asian Market likes smaller cameras, the US and European markets like larger cameras. As noted, a new body and mirrorless mount requires a large investment, both for manufacturing, but also for the customer. Its taken years to come out with just a handful of M lenses.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Jan 21, 2017)

So we'll finally get a full frame Canon camera that auto-focuses accurately with all Sigma lenses


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 21, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There seems little point to a mirrorless camera that has the same form factor, You could put any recent DSLR into live view and have a effectively mirrorless camera. So they take out the mirror and gut the autofocus system, and then add $500 to the price. How many would go for that? I expect that many would, but if they just called that switch a Mirrorless Mode switch rather than Liveview, many would figure it out.



The biggest advantage would be an EVF.

I have often found the rear LCD to be almost useless in bright sunlight. Then there is the whole holding the camera at arms length (certainly away from the normal position) to use the rear LCD as the viewfinder.

I would welcome a FF Canon mirrorless, as long as they didn't gut the feature set... and I don't want something teeny tiny either. A 5D size body would be nice and a 1D series body would be perfect for me.


----------



## slclick (Jan 22, 2017)

This could go to 12 pages but it will still be a canon timepiece rumor, take it as you will.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 22, 2017)

slclick said:


> This could go to 12 pages but it will still be a ********* rumor, take it as you will.



One of the dumbest ones at that. Why would a mirrorless camera have all the internals that are used for mirror control and PD autofocus? A whole bunch of stuff could go away, (and be replaced by new).


----------



## Crosswind (Jan 22, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> and I don't want something teeny tiny either. A 5D size body would be nice and a 1D series body would be perfect for me.



I'd clearly prefer the size and form factor of a Sony A7s.

If it is as huge as the 5D or 1D, there's no point for me buying it. In that case I'd stay with the APS-C M-series, even if that means a bit less quality than FF. Size/weight is much more important to me. But if it is only slightly larger than the M5, it'd be okay - kind of in between M5 and 6D.


----------



## YellowJersey (Jan 22, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There seems little point to a mirrorless camera that has the same form factor, You could put any recent DSLR into live view and have a effectively mirrorless camera. So they take out the mirror and gut the autofocus system, and then add $500 to the price. How many would go for that? I expect that many would, but if they just called that switch a Mirrorless Mode switch rather than Liveview, many would figure it out.
> 
> Canon has been sitting in a quandary. The Asian Market likes smaller cameras, the US and European markets like larger cameras. As noted, a new body and mirrorless mount requires a large investment, both for manufacturing, but also for the customer. Its taken years to come out with just a handful of M lenses.



Form factor: agreed. It makes no sense. 

You can basically use a DSLR as a mirrorless camera using liveview, and DPAF makes that quite nice. It makes me wonder if a hybrid viewfinder where you could alternate between OVF and EVF would be worth the trouble when you can just use liveview instead.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Don, I happen to agree with you (as does about 2/3 of the forum based on polling), but I also think there's enormous room for a devil's advocate position on this in which Canon goes with a new, thin 4th mount.



Again, there is no need for a 4th mount. The EF-M mount is perfectly capable of handling full-frame lenses, and unlike EF/EF-S there doesn't need to be any physical mount differences, existing EF-M lenses will fit and work fine on a full-frame EF-M body - albeit in crop mode (although you'll probably find that many of the existing lenses could work fine at 1.3 crop as well as 1.6 crop.)

To make a FF mirrorless camera compete with others on the market size and weight are a significant factor (and this includes the bundled lens). 

You wouldn't need a huge range of FF EF-M lenses in order to launch such a product. Two or three reasonably compact primes (35mm f/2.5 or 2.8 would be nice) and an inexpensive lightweight zoom - the Sony FE 28-70 is a super lens for the money & weight for example. All specialist lenses, fast zooms, fast primes, etc, can be handled by the EF-M -> EF adaptor. 

Otherwise, what would be the point? The EOS M5 is such a great camera because it is compact. It is the one big advantage of the 80D. Essentially, the M5 (and the mirrorless range in general) are the replacement for the 100D - so why would Canon go backwards by producing a mirrorless camera that only took EF lenses?


A smarter move, if Canon didn't want to create a real FF camera with the EF-M mount, would be either

a) Add a dual optical/electronic viewfinder for the 6D II and have a single camera
b) Add optional external EVF connectivity to the 6D II hotshoe.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 23, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There seems little point to a mirrorless camera that has the same form factor, You could put any recent DSLR into live view and have a effectively mirrorless camera. So they take out the mirror and gut the autofocus system, and then add $500 to the price. How many would go for that? I expect that many would, but if they just called that switch a Mirrorless Mode switch rather than Liveview, many would figure it out.


Those that want an EVF and also a better video experience would. they could also accomplish this by allowing the EVF-DC1 to be used with the 6D, but it'd be a little more cumbersome. 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon has been sitting in a quandary. The Asian Market likes smaller cameras, the US and European markets like larger cameras. As noted, a new body and mirrorless mount requires a large investment, both for manufacturing, but also for the customer. Its taken years to come out with just a handful of M lenses.



the beauty is that canon doesn't have to please everyone with one camera line. the M5 is there if you want small and light with small and light lenses to boot. you want something better to handle the size and balance of the EF lens portfolio, they would have that too.

in the end with a full frame camera, mirror or not, your lens kit will determine the size and weight of what you are travelling with, not necessarily the camera body.

they don't have to have this large investment if they roll with an EF mount camera.

a full frame EF mount camera can be as small or smaller then the SL1 if you are willing to forgo the ergonomics of the larger cameras.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 23, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Otherwise, what would be the point? The EOS M5 is such a great camera because it is compact. It is the one big advantage of the 80D. Essentially, the M5 (and the mirrorless range in general) are the replacement for the 100D - so why would Canon go backwards by producing a mirrorless camera that only took EF lenses?



people comment like this tend to forget the ergonomic differences between the camera systems.
an 80D has a top plate LCD, far more manual haptic controls a better grip, a larger battery, a fully articulating LCD, AF joystick,etc,etc than the M5.

Canon still sells the SL1, it's hard to say it's the replacement for it, when it came out after the M line was released.

the M5 is smaller, because it forgoes alot of the tactile and single handle operational characteristics of the 80D.

Take a look at the top view of any canon DSLR, the EF mount is not as deep as the grip itself. While shrinking the mirrorbox depth would save some internal volume, not spectacularly so.

you get more volume savings removing the pentaprism, viewfinder assembly and AF assembly.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> I have often found the rear LCD to be almost useless in bright sunlight. Then there is the whole holding the camera at arms length (certainly away from the normal position) to use the rear LCD as the viewfinder.



^^ This ^^. I didn't pay goodness knows how much money for a FF rig to have to wield it like a (3 lb) mobile phone. 

I want to hold it up to my eye unless I need to shoot at ground level or over the top of a crowd. I'm not going to use a loupe on the LCD either. The solution is an EVF.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 23, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > I have often found the rear LCD to be almost useless in bright sunlight. Then there is the whole holding the camera at arms length (certainly away from the normal position) to use the rear LCD as the viewfinder.
> ...



I have an M, M2 and smartphone. none of them I looked like a complete moron with and shot with at arms length.

seriously, this is so overused as an arguement and it's pretty silly.

I tuck my left elbow into my side, support the camera with my left hand, and control it with my right. the camera lcd is around 18 inches away from me.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 23, 2017)

People concentrate too much on whether the EVF will help them take their photos properly. In reality the one HUGE advantage the EVF has over using the rear screen is being able to more accurately review your existing photos when you're shooting in daylight.

Even on the 5D III and 5DSR, which have pretty good screens, trying to review an image to even figure out if things are in focus can be a real pain in daylight.

With the EVF, it is simple and easy. I'll happily use the screen for composing my shots and use the EVF every time to review them.


----------



## slclick (Jan 23, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > danski0224 said:
> ...



Overused as an argument can be read as 'Many people have this problem/situation'. I read it as an issue not as something to deny or alternative facts.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> I have an M, M2 and smartphone. none of them I looked like a complete moron with and shot with at arms length.
> 
> seriously, this is so overused as an arguement and it's pretty silly.
> 
> I tuck my left elbow into my side, support the camera with my left hand, and control it with my right. the camera lcd is around 18 inches away from me.



This isn't about not looking like a moron, it's about a more satisfying photography experience. With handheld shooting, holding the camera to your eye is more stable and more comfortable as you don't need to hold heavy FF glass away from your body. 

Show of hands: Who wants to bolt a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on a mirrorless rig only to hold it 12-18" away from your face while panning, zooming, changing focus points, etc.? That sounds like a nightmare to me.

In fairness, no one's saying LiveView shooting doesn't work. But it's laughable to imply that FF mirrorless doesn't need an EVF or FF mirrorless won't ever happen 'because LiveView is the same thing'. It's the same technological means to render an image, yes, but it's a fundamentally different photography experience for the user. 

Canon will (eventually) field a FF mirrorless setup with an EVF. Does anyone honestly doubt that? 

Keep in mind I'm no mirrorless fanboy -- I prefer SLRs and likely will for some time. I just feel that FF glass + handheld use necessitates a chunky grip and a viewfinder.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> People concentrate too much on whether the EVF will help them take their photos properly. In reality the one HUGE advantage the EVF has over using the rear screen is being able to more accurately review your existing photos when you're shooting in daylight.
> 
> Even on the 5D III and 5DSR, which have pretty good screens, trying to review an image to even figure out if things are in focus can be a real pain in daylight.
> 
> With the EVF, it is simple and easy. I'll happily use the screen for composing my shots and use the EVF every time to review them.









Hard enough to judge critical focus on a 3" LCD, much less a little EVF. Much more useful is checking overall composition and the histogram, and I've not ever had issues doing so on the rear LCD.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 23, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I have an M, M2 and smartphone. none of them I looked like a complete moron with and shot with at arms length.
> ...



to be honest, I wear glasses, so the eyepiece barely makes things more stable. I don't have the eyepiece rubbing over my glasses for a multitude of reasons. With an DSLR and with a mirrorless my arm support is the same. 

a long lens, my left elbow rests on my chest, and left hand supports the balance of the lens. That is the same regardless of LCD or EVF. there is no reason your left hand can't act like a monopod.

I'm for a 6D Mirrorless with an EVF, but the concept that you can't stabilize a LCD based camera, and have to hold it out at arms length is completely false.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> I'm for a 6D Mirrorless with an EVF, but the concept that you can't stabilize a LCD based camera, and have to hold it out at arms length is completely false.



Again, for emphasis:



ahsanford said:


> In fairness, *no one's saying LiveView shooting doesn't work*.



I'm saying it's less fun, less comfortable, and (certainly in my hands) less stable. Can you take sharp shots with it? Absolutely, but I personally might have to goose my shutter speed a bit in that case.

But consider: why does every single FF rig these days (leaving rangefinders out) have an integral TTL OVF or liveview from the sensor (EVF) viewfinder? It's because _people prefer them_, regardless of how slick liveview becomes. 

I believe that's because it's a more satisfying / immersive shooting experience that is more stable and more comfortable. But I could certainly be wrong. Others might find (totally speculating here) that focus peaking or DOF preview is more accurate / better appreciated with your eyes up close.

But I simply can't see Canon's first FF mirrorless offering going the first EOS M route and forcing LiveView shooting. They might make the EVF a separate component you bolt on for size reasons (I really hope not), but I have to believe that an EVF of some sort will be available on day one.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 23, 2017)

if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 23, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)


personal preference....

For me, If it involved a new mount and new lenses, I wouldn't buy it 

I see a need for a compact mirrorless camera, and also for a full sized mirrorless camera...

Don


----------



## slclick (Jan 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)
> ...



Another mount, wouldn't buy it either. That's my personal preference. Also, I do not expect Canon to make anything just because I want them to because I do not have gravitational pull.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)
> ...



Zero chance it _mandates_ new lenses. Zero. It will be a native EF mount or it will be a skinnier mount with an EF adaptor (possibly even in the box with the body, given the price they surely will ask for) -- in either case, your EF lenses will be good to go.

The billion dollar question on this front is / has been / will be until the day it's announced: go skinny with FF mirrorless or go EF?

There is a large list of pros and cons both ways, but broadly: 
*
Going skinny* reels in the small crowd and the adapt-other-mounts'-lenses crowd. This is the best move for the smaller-is-better crowd, the street shooters, travel/vacation shooting, people who like vintage glass, etc. Downside: if you want to maximize size savings, you'll need to buy new lenses (possibly smaller mount versions of EF glass your already own). Also, you could leave your house with a bag full of EF glass and a small FF mount lens attached to your body and accidentally leave that adaptor at home -- that could ruin an entire shoot.

*Going full EF* is a seamless move for existing FF SLR users (use all your existing lenses without added expense) and in this instance, you can never accidentally leave an EF adaptor at home if it doesn't exist. This is the best move for the bigger lens crowd, who want a sturdy / less modular pieces / chunky grip setup. But we would realize zero space savings from pulling the mirror out, which is blasphemy to the mirrorless market. 

Canon could redefine the FF mirrorless market with a big professional setup, but Japan loves them tiny little cameras, don't they?

I'm truly torn on this. I want full EF, but I'd completely understand Canon going small (at least at first).

- A


----------



## dak723 (Jan 23, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > danski0224 said:
> ...



It would be pretty sill except for the fact that in sunlight - especially when the sun is at certain angles to the rear screen - it is difficult to impossible to use the rear screen.

It would be silly aside from the fact that is is much easier to hold a camera still when up against your face.

It has nothing to do with how you look. It is about getting the shot. I could not get most of the shots I do without an OVF or EVF. I doubt I am alone.


----------



## slclick (Jan 23, 2017)

dak723 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



It may not be about how you look but it is about how you feel ergonomically and what you are conditioned to. Decades of looking through a VF on film and digital camera bodies as opposed to years of using a smartphone or a camera w/out a VF for someone much younger is a fine analogy. I tried the OG M series and nope, couldn't do it. Just doesn't work for me, like holding a phone in my right hand. YMMV


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2017)

dak723 said:


> It has nothing to do with how you look. It is about getting the shot. I could not get most of the shots I do without an OVF or EVF. I doubt I am alone.



No, you are not.

Just checking -- I wasn't sure -- here are the digital full frame mirrorless rigs released to date (that I am aware of):

Sony RX1/RX1R: Nothing onboard, but modular OVF and EVF were offered (both optional, I believe)
Sony RX1R II: EVF built-in
Sony a7 (6x models to date): EVF built-in
Leica Q: EVF built-in
Leica SL: EVF built-in
Leica M (not sure of the hard figure, but it's a number of designs): those have been 100% OVF over the years, correct?

Unless I've forgotten one, I am not aware of a single FF mirrorless rig that didn't have a VF of some sort.

Medium format are deeper waters for me that I am not well-read on. But I believe the Fuji and HBlad MF mirrorless setups have EVFs. There's also the nutty Alpa 'body' (more of a properly spaced out frame and mount) + MF digital back 'mirrorless' frankenstein rig. _That_ one might be VF optional.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 23, 2017)

slclick said:


> It may not be about how you look but it is about how you feel ergonomically and what you are conditioned to. Decades of looking through a VF on film and digital camera bodies as opposed to years of using a smartphone or a camera w/out a VF for someone much younger is a fine analogy. I tried the OG M series and nope, couldn't do it. Just doesn't work for me, like holding a phone in my right hand. YMMV



Good point. If camera bodies + lenses got dramatically lighter and took on a different ergonomic approach (two small handles like with underwater housings, handles moved forward for better balance with the lens), a full time liveview camera could 100% work. 

The Lytro Illum -- much like the first-gen Honda Insight some 20 years ago -- may not have set the world alight, but may been ahead of its time in some respects. No EVF, longer lens and it still clocked in under 1 kg. Granted, it wasn't a FF rig by any stretch, but its concept-car-like design might be a roadmap for VF-less higher end rigs.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Jan 24, 2017)

Mirrorless is so 2010s... It could be even less then mirrorless - sensorless, this is the real future.

Now wait for CW to repost this credible rumor.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)



that's okay .. because I'd preorder that baby so fast that it would make up for the dirty dozen in the AvTvM Universe©


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



look what happened to sony's SLT sales after going FE mount. they tanked. basically having two competing mount systems, adds alot more instability into their market.

Canon makes a big thing over their EF mount sales - I can't see them doing anything to add a level of consumer uncertainty on it's future.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



The thing is, if you want to go small, you have the EOS-M..... Going FF and going small is severely affected by the size of the mount required to have a large enough image circle, and the angle if incidence of the light from that wide image circle hitting the corners of a sensor if you try to shrink down the flange distance. Trade-offs are involved. You can have small, and you can have FF image quality, but you can't have both at the same time.... the sharper you bend light, the more problems you have and the more image quality suffers....


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> if Canon were to bring mirrorless in 6D shape and with EF mount I would not buy it. Not even Canon is so stupid to let that happen. So FF mirrorless will be with a new native short flange distance EF-X mount. With nice, powerful, ultracompact cameras and lenses for me. 8)



They have barely got a decent set of EOS-M lenses. What on earth makes you think they will introduce yet another mount? 
The only way I see that working is if they can design a lens with EOS-M mount and FF image circle. But that will be a real challenge.....unless the big thing is with a curved sensor !!


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 24, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ... You can have small, and you can have FF image quality, but you can't have both at the same time....



not quite true. 







Yes, that Sony RX-1R II has a 35/2.0 *bolted on*, but make it only slightly larger and it would nicely fit an FF mount. It is all about choosing right combo of throat width and flange distance. My guess would be 49mm diameter and about 22mm flange distance. Together with a clever microlens design on sensor, that should allow for a pretty compact camera body as well as some pretty decent, compact, modestly fast primes and some f/4 zooms anywhere between 21 and 85mm focal length. Unfortunately Canon made EF-M mount [48 x 18] about as jammed as Sony E-mount. Therefore FF image circle can be lit, but only with major compromise ... too large, heavy, complex and expensive lenses. See Sony FE lineup. 

Had Canon chosen those 2 parameters just a bit larger, they could not have made EOS M and M2 quite as small. But they could use EF-M mount for excellent APS-C and FF mirrorless systems today. 

They way they decided, will inevitably lead to a new fully FF-capable MILC lens mount. "EF-X" or whatever it is called. Looking back at transition from FD to EF I have no doubt, that Canon will do this whenever they finally see the right time has come. There will be a bit of whining in the forums, but not so much ... because EF lenses will remain fully functional via a simple adapter. And from then on, Canon will sell boatloads of new EF-X lenses, as people start migrating to new, improved native lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2017)

AvTvM has a point here -- it _can_ be done, though it may not deliver ideal performance.

But that's not the question. _Is Canon really going to embark upon an exodus from the EF mount?_ Because any pushing of the boulder down the hill on new lenses for a thin-mount design may be difficult to contain. Ask Sony. Despite the fact that once you get beyond (say) 50mm f/1.4 the size upsides of dedicated thin-mount lenses isn't really there, Sony folks are still asking for the big pickle jars. 

So, of the four possibilities:

1) Canon's FF mirrorless will have a Full EF mount and mails AvTvM a card that says "It's not you, it's me", a lovely breakup bouquet of flowers... and a Sony a7 catalog.

2) Canon's FF mirrorless will have a thin mount + adapter but only offer a handful of small / short FL lenses that will keep the system very small (I'll call this 'the wishful thinking approach')

3) Canon's FF mirrorless will have a thin mount + adapter and offer the 5-7 lenses any Canon system gets over the first few years -- slow standard zoom, slow tele zoom, one small prime, macro, possibly a slow ultrawide zoom (I'll call this 'the EOS M approach')

4) Canon's FF mirrorless will have a thin mount + adapter and steadily replace the EF portfolio over time (quickly becoming 'the Sony approach')

What does everyone think is going to happen?

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ... You can have small, and you can have FF image quality, but you can't have both at the same time....
> ...



except it's ergonomics would suffer greatly with anything larger than that 35mm. so it's not quite true to what you are saying.

once you get into a series of full frame lenses, a small camera is pretty awkward outside of the few outliers that only use twiddly little primes.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> What does everyone think is going to happen?
> 
> - A



1) is the only option that makes business sense in a declining market.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> except it's ergonomics would suffer greatly with anything larger than that 35mm. so it's not quite true to what you are saying.
> 
> once you get into a series of full frame lenses, a small camera is pretty awkward outside of the few outliers that only use twiddly little primes.



+1. As much as Sony could make the a7 platform small, they did. They did this with f/2 and f/2.8 primes and f/4 zooms of limited FLs.

...and then every enthusiast on the planet got tired of using adapters or third party glass and asked Sony for f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms.

And then the skinny little A7 sucked like a big SLR to carry around. As much as I appreciate the upside of removing the mirror for *non*-space-saving reasons, physics is still physics -- removing the mirror does not change that.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 24, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > except it's ergonomics would suffer greatly with anything larger than that 35mm. so it's not quite true to what you are saying.
> ...


and when you make the body real small, what happens to the controls?


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Insert SL1 user with large hands scenario. 

This large vs small debate drives me nuts. What I have found by using a 5D series on a regular basis and wanting something smaller (either ML or crop) is really small is too small and just a tad smaller (especially since I will invariably put a damn L plate on it and kill most of the smallness) will probably be just about right so yes, the 6D series body is a nice size for me. Do I represent a large enough portion of the potential Canon buyers? HTFDIK?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2017)

slclick said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > and when you make the body real small, what happens to the controls?
> ...



Personally, I decouple the three various size/form factor determinants. It's not going to simply be _big_ or _small_, it's going to one of (roughly) eight outcomes based on 3 questions:

Mount: Thin or EF?
Grip: Small or Chunky?
Height and width of the back of the body (i.e the rear view / looking at the LCD side): Tiny or Full-figured?

In truth, Grip and H/W of the back could a variety of answers, but here's my vote:

Mount: The impossible decision as I said, but EF makes sense for Canon, for folks like us with a lot of EF glass, etc.

Grip: Chunky as f---. Don't fool around if people will put big pickle jars on these rigs. As you can see below, unless you only use pancakes, making a grip smaller 'to make the rig smaller' to pack is somewhat useless as even pedestrian lenses will boss how you pack it away.

H&W: I'd keep it big, I really would. 5D3/4 sized would do it, and you'd have that sexy seamless ergonomic goodness of whatever SLR body you shoot, which is nice if you plan to use it alongside an SLR. Why they'd go in an SL1-ish direction here is simply silly -- that would kill the wheel, possibly the joystick and the thumb grip + controls would be a mess. 

- A


----------



## Crosswind (Jan 24, 2017)

By all respect, why don't you guys - who prefer bigger and larger bodys - stick with your DSLRs instead of talking how to improve a mirrorless camera in terms of size/ergonomics? They are meant to be smaller and meant to be used with smaller lenses* (while still _having the option_ to use larger glass via adapter when you really need it). This also means that they cannot and should not have the same amount of dials and controls as a regular DSLR. This is totally fine. 

*Smaller lenses also includes EF glass - there are several small sized FF primes for example; 24IS, 35IS, 50STM, 80 1.8, and so on... you name it... just to remind that there are viable options out there for those who want high quality in a (relatively) small package - if you don't want to invest in native (and even smaller) lenses.

Or is it because you miss a EVF on your chunky big 5D mirrorslappers? Maybe it is a solution to use Canons external EVF on the hotshoe of your camera. But I don't know if that's gonna work out or satisfy you.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> By all respect, why don't you guys - who prefer bigger and larger bodys - stick with your DSLRs instead of talking how to improve a mirrorless camera in terms of size/ergonomics? They are meant to be smaller and meant to be used with smaller lenses*



Except that's not the case. Olympus has larger PRO lenses now, Panasonic has larger lenses now, and the GM series is anything but small.

if they were meant to be used with smaller lenses, than why are manfacturer's making bigger cameras and even bigger lenses for mirrorless?

a 6D mirrorless *would* be smaller than it's OVF cousin.

and here's another tidbit for you .. not everyone likes primes. and primes on mirrorless is even more crazy. you should not really do field lens swaps in any sort of weather / mist / dust,etc especially with mirrorless since the shutter is always open and the sensor is exposed.. So zooms are best for mirrorless.. but wait .. back to the size and ergonomics then.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'd keep it big, I really would. 5D3/4 sized would do it, and you'd have that sexy seamless ergonomic goodness of whatever SLR body you shoot, which is nice if you plan to use it alongside an SLR. Why they'd go in an SL1-ish direction here is simply silly -- that would kill the wheel, possibly the joystick and the thumb grip + controls would be a mess.
> 
> - A



SL1 controls are simpilar really to the A7 series. .. lol.

some people tend to forget that ergonomics goes hand and hand with body size. nicer grip, haptic controls, visual controls .. and guess what? the body will be larger.


----------



## Crosswind (Jan 24, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Olympus has larger PRO lenses now, Panasonic has larger lenses now, and the GM series is anything but small.
> 
> if they were meant to be used with smaller lenses, than why are manfacturer's making bigger cameras and even bigger lenses for mirrorless?
> 
> a 6D mirrorless *would* be smaller than it's OVF cousin.



If that is what you want to buy, then go for it.

Yes - I can understand your point about switching primes in these extreme conditions. In this case, I'd stick with my favorite focal lenght prime and be creative. You can do a lot with just one prime lens. A 50mm can also be a 28mm for example when you do a short panorama with proper technique to avoid most parallax errors.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> By all respect, why don't you guys - who prefer bigger and larger bodys - stick with your DSLRs instead of talking how to improve a mirrorless camera in terms of size/ergonomics? They are meant to be smaller and meant to be used with smaller lenses* (while still _having the option_ to use larger glass via adapter when you really need it). This also means that they cannot and should not have the same amount of dials and controls as a regular DSLR. This is totally fine.



Yes, _right now_ it's about keeping it small, and in APS-C it will likely stay that way.

But I think you should take a longer view with mirrorless. Consider: mirrorless has a boatload of upsides over SLRs regardless of size, such as:


Less components and less moving components -- easier / cheaper to build products of the same quality
Amplified EVF in dark rooms
LiveView-like customizable viewfinders to give you exactly what you need while in the most comfortable/stable handheld shooting posture
AFMA = RIP. There is no secondary mirror for AF that you need to calibrate your lens to
All the AF points being clustered in the center = RIP. You can put AF points just about anywhere in the frame.
Focusing screens = RIP. Focus peak through the viewfinder
The mirror assembly is no longer rate limiting with FPS --> very high framerates are possible
(I'm sure I've forgotten a host of things)

And because of those reasons above -- not because of size -- FF mirrorless it will eventually replace everything other than the most exacting performance obsessed shooters (i.e. sports and wildlife). In X number of years, mirrorless will replace everything up to and including the 5D line. It might be 10 years, but it will happen.

Now in that light, should Canon still keep it small? Should it offer up a line of tiny lenses that will only create demand for more that Canon must maintain? My guess is 30-40% of this forum would still say yes because 'mirrorless is about being small' is a black/white _it is so _definition to that camp.

- A


----------



## Crosswind (Jan 24, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Consider: mirrorless has a boatload of upsides over SLRs regardless of size, such as:
> 
> 
> Less components and less moving components -- easier / cheaper to build products of the same quality
> ...



Exactly these are the things we like the most when using a MILC instead of a DSLR. But I would not make the housing bigger than it needs to be to get all the advantages of a MILC. I think Sony did a great job with their FF A7S for example. I'm excitedly looking forward for Canon to also produce something similar in the future. I do not want to jump ship, because I am very impressed by some of Canons outstanding lenses and I clearly do not want to miss them or adapt on a third-party-camera (wouldn't work out for me).

I'm not sure if DSLRs will ever be completely replaced by MILCs - one main reason being the OVF which is (and will stay) a strong PRO for DSLRs. But again, imo. a MILC shouldn't be bigger than it needs to be. Why Panasonic or Olympus are offering bigger PRO lenses for their MILCs is simply because they want to offer their customers something similar like Canon has had long ago with all their pro-grade L glass. They are playing catch-up and are doing this because they do not have the variety of lenses like Canon has in their portfolio.

You don't need to use big lenses - but you can, if you desire their advantages over the smaller lens options. It's not like they are producing bigger lenses because they think it is better to use bigger lenses on mirrorless cameras, but because to offer some variety. I still think that size/weight saving is one main factor as to why someone would use a MILC in combination with smaller, but still high quality lenses. Canon did everything right with their EF-M portfolio, they're just lacking some good primes there. 

I think Canon should go full EF with their first FF MILC, because they have such a great lens variety and they simply do not need an additional "EF-X" lineup.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> AFMA = RIP. There is no secondary mirror for AF that you need to calibrate your lens to



that's a fallacy, you still really need it for focus shift.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Olympus has larger PRO lenses now, Panasonic has larger lenses now, and the GM series is anything but small.
> ...



why would canon build such a camera, and invest in a entirely new lens system?

Repeat the sony mistake? the one in which saw their marketshare plummet and still not recover?

and again, it's usefulness degrades as soon as you have to carry more than one prime, or a faster zoom.

so for most use cases, it's entirely unnecessary to keep it as compact as possible at the expense of ergonomics.


----------



## Crosswind (Jan 25, 2017)

I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood. 

I can carry easily 2-3 small Canon EF primes in my small Mantona sling bag for a whole day without fatigue, plus camera - if it is not the size of a 6D. And I don't see any problems in terms of ergonomics with a Sony A7-sized MILC. Canon has always been praised not only because of their superior ergonomics, no matter what camera, small or big. They can certainly pull this off without repeating the "Sony mistake".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.



Not misunderstood, you've just fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. Not the most famous one (concerning land wars and Asia), nor the slightly less well known one (concerning Sicilians and death), but the one where you assume your needs/wants/usage are representative of the broader market.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 25, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.
> 
> I can carry easily 2-3 small Canon EF primes in my small Mantona sling bag for a whole day without fatigue, plus camera - if it is not the size of a 6D. And I don't see any problems in terms of ergonomics with a Sony A7-sized MILC. Canon has always been praised not only because of their superior ergonomics, no matter what camera, small or big. They can certainly pull this off without repeating the "Sony mistake".



As much I don't think they should do it, I think Canon _could_ offer new FF mirrorless lenses and get away with it. They are in a decidedly different boat than Sony:


Canon has put out 120 million EF lenses. Disregarding mobile phones, Sony hasn't put out even a fraction of that. That gives Canon considerable cover to offer a new line of lenses but with a clear reassurance that EF is here to stay.


Canon users are accustomed to multiple mounts with different levels of love from the mothership. Everyone knows EF-S and EF-M are distant 2nd and 3rd priorities for Canon, and the same would be true of a FF mirrorless lineup.


Since Canon has all the pros largely covered with other gear, I expect that Canon might try the Leica SL approach and market their FF mirrorless as a luxury / premium offering. I'm not saying it will be as big/pricey as the SL, but as the only of the two majors in the FF mirrorless space, I could see them charging a good 30% over the equivalent SLR rig. Sony, greedy for units once it had the photography world's attention with the A7, immediately 'system-ed up' the A7 and flooded the market with offerings to court new users. I doubt Canon will do the same -- I see this product as a very pricey show horse for the first 1-2 years, and in that light I could see 2-3 high quality standalone lenses materializing to support it.

Again, I don't want them to do this and I'm not convinced they should. But Canon is the 800 pound gorilla in this market, and they may choose to go after new business or higher margins with a sexy/pricey/small system with its own lenses. "It's not a Leica M10, but you're a s--- photographer and this has autofocus that you need. And it nicely fits in your distressed leather $5,000 travel satchel that you bought after the IPO."

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Crosswind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.
> ...


----------



## Crosswind (Jan 25, 2017)

Whatever they will come up with (except if it's a 5D or even 1D sized MILC), I will definitely have a closer look at it. Right now, I'm well served with the M5. 

Of course, I know that everyone has a bit different idea of the "ideal" camera for his/her own purposes, but I'm sure you know what I - and probably some other people - would prefer. That of course doesn't mean that I am on the side of the "broader" market, at least not in the US.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 25, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > AFMA = RIP. There is no secondary mirror for AF that you need to calibrate your lens to
> ...



Definitely no. 
AF in the sensor plane - be it PD-AF, CD-AF or hybrid - is always precise. [provided algorithms, firmware, CPU power are up to the task].


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



"Focus shift." I do not think it means what you think it means. 

In fairness, correcting for it isn't currently turnkey with AFMA, but it could be made so.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 25, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Crosswind said:
> ...



inconceivable.... INCONCEIVABLE!!!!


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 25, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



definately yes.

with sensor AF even more so than PDAF the lens focuses wide open, and then stops down to shoot. with spherical aberrations this causes problems with focus shift.

Sony "got around it" by AF'ing stopped down for most of their lenses on the A7RII and I think the A7II now. however that gimps the lenses ability to focus in lower light and with smaller apertures.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 25, 2017)

with 99% of lenses focus shift is no issue. None of my lenses suffers from it. if f/1.2 lens buyers accept such a flaw, it is their problem as far as i am concerned. 

So in practical terms, on-sensor AF does away with any need for AFMA.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 26, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> with 99% of lenses focus shift is no issue. None of my lenses suffers from it. if f/1.2 lens buyers accept such a flaw, it is their problem as far as i am concerned.
> 
> So in practical terms, on-sensor AF does away with any need for AFMA.



with 99% of the lenses AFMA is not required. so in practical terms PDAF doesn't need AFMA.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 26, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > with 99% of lenses focus shift is no issue. None of my lenses suffers from it. if f/1.2 lens buyers accept such a flaw, it is their problem as far as i am concerned.
> ...



I don't have a number for that. But there seems to be a much higher percentage of lens/body combinations in need of AFMA. Whether their owners know it or not ...


----------



## cayenne (Jan 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Crosswind said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see any reason why Canon should invest in an entirely new lens system. Maybe I've been misunderstood.
> ...



Inconceivable!!!


Cayenne


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 29, 2017)

I think canon should forget about a FF mirrorless and embrace medium format which is where the real benefits of mirrorless are to be found.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> I think canon should forget about a FF mirrorless and embrace medium format which is where the real benefits of mirrorless are to be found.



Canon has a mountain of FF glass. Do they sell a single medium format lens?

Sorry, I can't see Canon offering a new mirrorless system that _doesn't_ leverage it's #1 competitive advantage. They will go to FF mirrorless offer EF lens compatibility. You can take that to the bank.

- A


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 29, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I think canon should forget about a FF mirrorless and embrace medium format which is where the real benefits of mirrorless are to be found.
> ...



You are probably right. I didn't say what I think they will do. I said what think they should do. The full frame glass they already have just so happens to work perfectly with not surprisingly, their full frame DSLR cameras. Mirrorless however offers a real advantage when it comes to reducing camera size. Unfortunately any real benefits it has is lost when using big glass. MF on the other hand. Portable and affordable MF is something canon could really own if they decided to go for it. A lot of landscape photographers will in the near future be considering the fuji, pentax etc offerings in this area. It is a far bigger threat than FF mirrorless to canons sales.


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 29, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> A lot of landscape photographers will in the near future be considering the fuji, pentax etc offerings in this area. It is a far bigger threat than FF mirrorless to canons sales.



I doubt that for several reasons:

1. Landscape photographers are just a small fraction of Canon's customers, who include wedding photographers, sports, etc as well.

2. The Pentax 645Z and Fuji's new digital medium format cost almost twice as much as the 5DS R, and MF lenses are more expensive as well. That gives the 5DS R a certain edge.

3. New MF camera & lenses would require big investment in R&D and manufacturing facilities. With the small market for the equipment (pro high end landscape & portraits, ads printed to cover a large building's wall, and... did I miss anything?), that's a risk.

And by risk, that's not just losing money, but getting a lower ROI than it would get on other products as well.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 29, 2017)

uri.raz said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of landscape photographers will in the near future be considering the fuji, pentax etc offerings in this area. It is a far bigger threat than FF mirrorless to canons sales.
> ...



Actually. I would think lanscape phtographers make up a larger portion of canons customersa than you think. Especially in the cashed up enthusiast segment.

Yes. The current mirrorless FF cameras are more expensive than a 5 series but no more expensive than a 1 series. And they will get a bit cheaper yet.

As for Rnd. Any new camera and lens requires investment but with canons size it would be very managable at a fair price. And finally it would be a better long term investment IMHO than FF mirrorless which doesn't offer any tangible difference from FF DSLR.
Size is the real benifit of mirrorless. That is why MFT is currently its best offering. MF would be just as good


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> Actually. I would think lanscape phtographers make up a larger portion of canons customersa than you think. Especially in the cashed up enthusiast segment.



Actually, I think you're wrong. But more importantly, what you and I think is irrelevant – Canon has actual data. 




Aussie shooter said:


> Size is the real benifit of mirrorless. That is why MFT is currently its best offering. MF would be just as good



That's just nonsensical.


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 29, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> uri.raz said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that for several reasons:
> ...



The 1 series targets sports photographers (higher fps at the cost of lower resolution), why would a landscape photographer prefer it over a 5DS?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> Size is the real benifit of mirrorless.



You should speak to your optometrist. I believe they can treat myopia these days.

Size is the real benefit of mirrorless _*...to you*_. 

To others, being able to use LiveView, histo, focus peaking, etc. through the VF, use the AF over much more of the frame than with an SLR, etc. is an opportunity to expand what a camera can do. 

I fully admit that the tech isn't there yet on some fronts and may never be (responsiveness, battery life, etc.), and I still solely shoot SLRs today because of that. But there will come a time where mirrorless' drawbacks are sufficiently small that its upsides -- even if it was the _same_ size as an SLR -- would be worth pursuing. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 29, 2017)

uri.raz said:


> The 1 series targets sports photographers (higher fps at the cost of lower resolution), why would a landscape photographer prefer it over a 5DS?



The 1 series targets sports/wildlife photographers _*today*_. That was not always so. There is a contingent of studio and landscape photographers that want the highest resolution but also want that sexy 1 series feature set. Right now they have a choice of high-res _*or*_ a flagship-level feature set, and they aren't particularly happy about it.

So I 100% agree with Aussie shooter there's a place for a super-pricey landscape rig, but MF mirrorless isn't it. Canon simply needs to slap that 5DS R sensor (or more practically the _next_ high res sensor they develop) into a 1DX2-like form factor, and send a "Baby, come back" bouquet of flowers to the 1Ds Mk III crowd.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Size is the real benifit of mirrorless.
> ...


Personally, I like the ergonomics of the 5D series bodies best. There are enough controls to get the job done and placed where their use is easy without mashing several tiny buttons at the same time... There is a trade-off between size and ergonomics.... you can't have both. My personal feeling is that if size is so important to one, get an M.....


----------



## scyrene (Jan 29, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I can't picture that. I can't get my elbows to touch my chest :/ Can you illustrate?

Clearly you've found a method that works for you, and that's great, but many of us prefer looking through the viewfinder. And I doubt your style of shooting could work with the bigger lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 29, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> You don't need to use big lenses - but you can, if you desire their advantages over the smaller lens options. It's not like they are producing bigger lenses because they think it is better to use bigger lenses on mirrorless cameras, but because to offer some variety. I still think that size/weight saving is one main factor as to why someone would use a MILC in combination with smaller, but still high quality lenses. Canon did everything right with their EF-M portfolio, they're just lacking some good primes there.



For some types of shooting, long lenses are essential. Some such users (it seems, judging by these forums) enjoy the ergonomics of a DSLR-style body with such lenses.

If your thesis is that DSLRs won't be replaced by mirrorless cameras, then fine. But many do believe that, and if they are correct, a larger mirrorless body would cater to that market. Small size (as others have explained) can be a hindrance, as well as a help.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 29, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Size is the real benifit of mirrorless.
> ...



I would say size is the real benefit to the majority of photographers. All the other bits and peices are or could be considered handy but for most people wanting to take photos the reason they would consider mirrorless is the size benefits. And I agree that when ALL the drawbacks are dealt with that everyone will adopt mirrorless. Ask yourself. Why do you so desperately want FF mirrorless? Is it because of the advantage it offers over smaller sensors? Well. That advantage can be found in FF DSLR's already and if there is no size advantage to be found(which will be the case if we use current canon FF glass) then the advantages are not THAT big. So not that many people would adopt. If however they go the MF format taking advantage of the fact an MF camera can be produced at basically the same portable size as a FF DSLR then one can get the benefits of a larger sensor. The exact same benefits you desire over APS-c. The real benefits.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 29, 2017)

SIZE, SIZE, SIZE. Yes. 
It is so easy to make a small camera larger. Just add a grip - OEM or third party. Or put it on a tripod, to make it really big and stable - whenever needed or desired. 
It is not advisable to make a large camera smaller by chopping off bits. 

I want as small as possible a camera body. Sony RX1-R II would be exactly my thign, if it had a lens mount uüp front. I could go small with pancakes/small primes and I could go big with long teles. Not problem. With a large camera you can only go BIG, FAT, HEAVY and NERDILY CONSPICUOS.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 29, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> SIZE, SIZE, SIZE. Yes.
> It is so easy to make a small camera larger. Just add a grip - OEM or third party. Or put it on a tripod, to make it really big and stable - whenever needed or desired.
> It is not advisable to make a large camera smaller by chopping off bits.
> 
> I want as small as possible a camera body. Sony RX1-R II would be exactly my thign, if it had a lens mount uüp front. I could go small with pancakes/small primes and I could go big with long teles. Not problem. With a large camera you can only go BIG, FAT, HEAVY and NERDILY CONSPICUOS.



It's not the body that makes a camera 'nerdily conspicuous' but the lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> It's not the body that makes a camera 'nerdily conspicuous' but the lens.


It is the body as well. Even using my 5D3 + 40 pancake draws more unwanted attention than I want. And looking through viewfinder. That makes anybody around either nervous/disapproving or - even worse - striking some silly pose. 

Small camera with small lens = goes anywhere, no prob. 
Big camera = big problems in lots of places.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the body that makes a camera 'nerdily conspicuous' but the lens.
> ...



Small camera + big lens = big. Period. 

Well, not quite period...it's also an ergonomic PITA.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 29, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> Ask yourself. Why do you so desperately want FF mirrorless? Is it because of the advantage it offers over smaller sensors? Well. That advantage can be found in FF DSLR's already and if there is no size advantage to be found(which will be the case if we use current canon FF glass) then the advantages are not THAT big.



Good to know. Remind me, which FF dSLRs have an EVF, no mirror shock, etc. 

:


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Ask yourself. Why do you so desperately want FF mirrorless? Is it because of the advantage it offers over smaller sensors? Well. That advantage can be found in FF DSLR's already and if there is no size advantage to be found(which will be the case if we use current canon FF glass) then the advantages are not THAT big.
> ...



I think you missed my point. You already have APS-C mirrorless with those advantages. So why do you want FF? Is it because of the improvements in sensor performance? If that is the case then that improvement will be even more pronounced in MF won't it?


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 30, 2017)

This whole argument about size of the camera assumes that Canon would produce only one FF mirrorless body. Currently Canon has (if I'm not mistaken) 3 different sizes of FF DSLR (1D, 5D, 6D) and in APS-C even more variety of sizes. So why not a small and one large mirrorless FF body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> You already have APS-C mirrorless with those advantages. So why do you want FF? Is it because of the improvements in sensor performance? If that is the case then that improvement will be even more pronounced in MF won't it?



Sure...but at what cost in size, weight, and expense?


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 30, 2017)

kphoto99 said:


> This whole argument about size of the camera assumes that Canon would produce only one FF mirrorless body. Currently Canon has (if I'm not mistaken) 3 different sizes of FF DSLR (1D, 5D, 6D) and in APS-C even more variety of sizes. So why not a small and one large mirrorless FF body.



Late to this thread, but if Canon makes a FF mirorless with a battery drain like the 5M then it will need to be 1D size just for the extra battery capacity.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > You already have APS-C mirrorless with those advantages. So why do you want FF? Is it because of the improvements in sensor performance? If that is the case then that improvement will be even more pronounced in MF won't it?
> ...



Size and weight of a current FF DSLR with a cost somewhere between a 5 and a 1 series camera. ie affordable for a serious enthusiast and portable enough for a serious landscape photographer. Size benefits are relative of course and the new mirrorless MF offering from Fuji is looking to be a corker. If I had the money to spend on a camera for lanscapes i would take that over a similarly priced FF. But I do concede it will be a very specific tool.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2017)

kphoto99 said:


> This whole argument about size of the camera assumes that Canon would produce only one FF mirrorless body. Currently Canon has (if I'm not mistaken) 3 different sizes of FF DSLR (1D, 5D, 6D) and in APS-C even more variety of sizes. So why not a small and one large mirrorless FF body.



This could happen for the basic footprint of the body size (height and width from the back view, how chunky it is, etc.), but I don't think anyone believes they'll have a full EF mount mirrorless body *and* a skinny new mount for FF mirrorless being sold side by side. That would be like what Sony is suffering through with the A99 II vs. the A7 line -- Sony has users' mouths to feed in both the A mount and E mount.

I think Canon will make one decision on the FF mirrorless mount and stick with it for all the various models they sell.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aussie shooter said:
> ...



Well, that makes sense. Except for the fact that you'll also need lenses for that MF MILC. Big lenses. Heavy lenses. Expensive lenses.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > This whole argument about size of the camera assumes that Canon would produce only one FF mirrorless body. Currently Canon has (if I'm not mistaken) 3 different sizes of FF DSLR (1D, 5D, 6D) and in APS-C even more variety of sizes. So why not a small and one large mirrorless FF body.
> ...



Actually I think they could have 2 mounts, a 44mm EF mount and a 19mm EF-short mount. Just add a 25mm extension tube to the EF-short and you can use all existing EF lenses.

I really hope that they do a EF-short, it is much more flexible then having a standard EF mount. With EF-short you don't lose anything. And before somebody chimes in that they don't like an adapter because they may forget the adapter when they go out with a EF-short lens on the body, so they can't use EF lenses. It is no different they going out with an almost empty battery and not taking a spare.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Not questioning the need for lenses. But as a MF camera it won't need a huge lineup and won't need massive super teles. They would be managable and not all that costly in comparison to FF glass


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aussie shooter said:
> ...



Lol. The cheapest MF lens on B&H is a Pentax 75mm f/2.8 – that's the nifty-fifty of MF, and it's $700. The closest I could find to the popular landscape FF UWA 16-35mm range is the MF Pentax 28-45mm f/4.5 (21-34mm FFeq)...at double the weight of the EF 16-35/2.8 III (or the same weight as the EF 70-200/2.8 IS II, if you prefer, but without a tripod collar), 'manageable' is a stretch. And at $5,000 (close to 2.5x the cost of the 16-35 III), calling it 'not all that costly in comparison' defies logic and good sense. Oh, and please don't argue it would be cheaper if Canon made it, as you already admitted it's a niche market, so economies of scale belie that argument. 

But hey, keep on living your MFantasy.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 30, 2017)

Gonna lay off the quotes for a while but re the above cost estimate. The fuji is going for 6500US(body only with the 32-65? coming in at 1500US. Don't tell me that isn't managable for someone serious about their gear.


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 30, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> Gonna lay off the quotes for a while but re the above cost estimate. The fuji is going for 6500US(body only with the 32-65? coming in at 1500US. Don't tell me that isn't managable for someone serious about their gear.



Manageable? Yes.

Reasonable? When I can spend those US$8K on a 5DS R, TS-E 17mm, and 16-35mm f/2.8 III that would work with my existing 5DmkIII? Hell no.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2017)

Aussie shooter said:


> Gonna lay off the quotes for a while but re the above cost estimate. The fuji is going for 6500US(body only with the 32-65? coming in at 1500US. Don't tell me that isn't managable for someone serious about their gear.



I think you mean the 63mm f/2.8 prime (FFeq 50mm f/2.2 = nifty fifty) is $1500. Their 120mm f/4 OIS macro is $2700, a 'very reasonable' 3x the cost of the equivalent Canon 100/2.8 IS macro. On the bright side, their standard zoom, the 32-64mm f/4 (=25-51mm f/2.8 FFeq) is only $2300, so quite similar to the EF 24-70/2.8 (at launch) even though it's not quite as wide and not tele at all. It's all 'managable for someone serious about their gear', but the part you didn't quote was your prior statement that they are 'not all that costly in comparison to FF glass' which applies to one of three lenses for one brand so far. 

Want ultrawide? Wait for it. A prime, that is. UWA zoom? Who knows if or when. Sounds great. :


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2017)

kphoto99 said:


> Actually I think they could have 2 mounts, a 44mm EF mount and a 19mm EF-short mount. Just add a 25mm extension tube to the EF-short and you can use all existing EF lenses.
> 
> I really hope that they do a EF-short, it is much more flexible then having a standard EF mount. With EF-short you don't lose anything. And before somebody chimes in that they don't like an adapter because they may forget the adapter when they go out with a EF-short lens on the body, so they can't use EF lenses. It is no different they going out with an almost empty battery and not taking a spare.



+100 

This is a message, many people on this forum do not want to hear. 

Of course, Canon will have to go in this direction. Ever since the first Sony A7, the genie has escaped the bottle .. short flange distance lens mount and native lenses for FF-mirrorless system is going to happen, we just don't know when Canon will finally announce it. It may however, not be 19mm flange distance [EF-M] but rather 22 or 24mm [EF -?] ;-) 

For some transitional period, there will be 4 Canon lens series for DLSRs and mirrorless, each with FF and APS-C sensor. Over time, only the 2 mirrorless mounts for crop and FF will remain. EF and EF-S will become legacy. Just like FL and FD did.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jan 30, 2017)

What is gone fogotten in all this discussion about the benefits of MF vs FF:

2 aequivalent lenses for example 75mm 2.8 (MF) and 50 2.0 (FF) should produce the same picture, habe the same diffraction limit (in the meaning of max useful MPix of the sensor), the same field of view, same amount of bokeh etc.

The MF version is better only if the sensor has more resolution, is of better quality or if the Lens is of better quality.

For the lens, the question is which one is easier to design/produce, but for a fair comparision similar priced lenses should be compared. As high as the prices for MF lenses are, for FF Otus (or at least L) lenses sould be used for comparision.

For the sensors, yes typical MF systems have a higher MPix count. But Givn the pixel density of MFT or even compact cameras, 100MPix FF sensors should be producable easily, and the resulting cameras would be a compromise in speed and handling, as the MF cameras are all. If Canon would have used a state of the Art sensor for their 5ds the MF systems would be even more close to beeing obsolete.

It is true, that a Phase One system produces much higher resolution than any FF system, but the question is, what could be done in FF for this price. This we do not know. 

FF is not a physically evaluated optimum, it's a traditional format from old film days, but the huge numbers of systems produced keeps them comparatively affordable. We do not know, what mass produced MF systems would cost and what sensor size the optimal system for 10k$ (for example) would have. "Optimal" is meant with a big weighting of IQ and a small weighting of handling, speed, compactness etc.


----------



## sigh (Jan 30, 2017)

For those debating whether Canon will create a new mount for their first FF mirrorless, I think the answer is probably no. People seem to make a lot of the fact that the EF-M mount is APS-C only (or at least I don't think anyone has proved conclusively that you can fit a FF sensor in there) and so if Canon wanted to create a FF mirrorless, they'd also create a new mount to get a smaller flange distance. But this ignores the fact that Canon already has a range of mirrorless cameras with an EF mount, its Cinema range.

I'm aware the Cinema cameras all have Super 35 sized sensors, but I wouldn't have thought that means it is impossible to get a FF sensor behind there.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2017)

Recall the October CR post that Canon won't have a new mount for FF mirrorless:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31147.0

Which led to the following poll:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31154.0

2/3 of us (myself included) thought 'no new mount' = it would be a full EF mount for FF mirroless. But there was a decent-sized bunch that believed EF-M can support the FF image circle, and that's what we'd get for FF mirrorless.

Keep in mind, 10% didn't believe that CR post and were convinced an altogether new FF mount was still coming. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> +100
> 
> This is a message, many people on this forum do not want to hear.
> 
> ...



So you honestly believe Canon will 'A-Mount' the EF mount -- that it will be a dead man walking in parallel with the new mirrorless mount? You realize the transitional period of the FF side of the market you refer to above could be 10-20 years, right? And that some shooters -- the 1DX camp comes to mind -- may _never_ transition?

I think a thin FF mount is possible (others have said straight EF-M would cover it), but if they go this route I would seem them keeping EF alive ad infinitum. They'd just offer a 5-7 standard EF-M lenses offering for a 'smaller' FF system where the space savings would be appreciated by the customer:

A 24-70 zoom
A few wide & standard primes
Macro
Perhaps an UWA zoom

To offer more lenses than that is to reproduce EF glass just for the convenience -- no space savings would occur. At that point, an EF adapter makes much more sense.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2017)

yes, I believe Canon will maintain the EF-mount for some years. Not many new lenses though. Mk. III for all super-teles or so ... for the die-hard mirrorslapper types. And that was it then. 

There is no problem with that, since all EF lenses will be fully functional on the new FF mirrorless EF-? mount via a simple and inexpensive extension tube adapter [just like today with EF-/EF-M adapter]. 

Communication is simple and straightforward, even "stupid Canon" might be able to pull it off ... as oposed to stupid Sony, who were not capable to get the message across. Anyways, here goes: 

"Dear valued Canon customers and all of you folks keenly interested in photography, what do you prefer: 

1) DSLR camera or 2) Mirrorless camera
A) Full Frame sensor or B) APS-C sensor

depending on your indicated preference, here is the optimal Canon system solution for you:

1A) Canon 1D series, EF lenses
1B) Canon 7D II, III and EF or EF-S lenses
2A) Canon EOS ? mirrorless FF bodies and EF-? glass and EF lenses (with adapter)
2B) Canon EOS M bodies and EF-M, EF-? lenses and EF plus EF-S lenses (with adapter)

If this is too complex for some forum inhabitants and Canon fanboys, I will offer to program that extremely complex decision tree into an APP called CSCS : "Canon System Choice for Stupids"


----------



## Jopa (Jan 30, 2017)

sigh said:


> People seem to make a lot of the fact that the EF-M mount is APS-C only (or at least I don't think anyone has proved conclusively that you can fit a FF sensor in there).



Why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount

Canon EF-M	18 mm	APS-C 47 mm 
Sony E 18 mm	APS-C and 35 mm	46.1 mm (1.815 inch)

Same flange distance as the E-mount, ~1mm wider throat.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2017)

ff on EF-M mount would prob work, but be as compromised as it is for Sony FE: lenses too big, too complex, too expensive. i don't think Canon will take that route. they have demonstratef with EF and EF-S, that 2 separate lens lineups work well: one full lineup for FF and a limited lineup for APS-C, focused on compact size and consumer-grade lenses. i expect them to take the same approach for Mirrorless. my giess would be 49mm throat width and 22-24mm flange distance for EF-? mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ff on EF-M mount would prob work, but be as compromised as it is for Sony FE: lenses too big, too complex, too expensive. i don't think Canon will take that route. they have demonstratef with EF and EF-S, that 2 separate lens lineups work well: one full lineup for FF and a limited lineup for APS-C, focused on compact size and consumer-grade lenses. i expect them to take the same approach for Mirrorless. my giess would be 49mm throat width and 22-24mm flange distance for EF-? mount.



I disagree. Rather, I think parallel with EF/EF-S will be direct – a main line and a sub-line, both with the throat diameter and flange focal distance of the current EF-M line, but differing in image circle diameter. The EF-? mount bodies will take both EF-? lenses only (and EF via an adapter, of course), and the EF-M mount bodies will take both EF-? and EF-M lenses (and EF/EF-S with the same adapter as for the EF-?). 

They already have the 'limited lineup for APS-C, focused on compact size and consumer-grade lenses' – the current EF-M lineup (which will continue to expand slowly). I agree with ahsanford that for the EF-?, they'll develop only a limited series of lenses – standard and ultrawide zoom, a few primes, a macro, and for other needs they'll promote adapted EF lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I disagree. Rather, I think parallel with EF/EF-S will be direct – a main line and a sub-line, both with the throat diameter and flange focal distance of the current EF-M line, but differing in image circle diameter. The EF-? mount bodies will take both EF-? lenses only (and EF via an adapter, of course), and the EF-M mount bodies will take both EF-? and EF-M lenses (and EF/EF-S with the same adapter as for the EF-?).
> 
> They already have the 'limited lineup for APS-C, focused on compact size and consumer-grade lenses' – the current EF-M lineup (which will continue to expand slowly). I agree with ahsanford that for the EF-?, they'll develop only a limited series of lenses – standard and ultrawide zoom, a few primes, a macro, and for other needs they'll promote adapted EF lenses.



Probably a stupid question, but will crop factor work the same way if both the FF and APS-C mirrorless mounts have the same flange distance? I appreciate a crop sensor would be considerably smaller than a FF image circle, but I was wondering if the classic 1.6x Canon crop usage consideration was strictly a function of sensor size or if it also affected by flange distance. Please educate me, thx.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Probably a stupid question, but will crop factor work the same way if both the FF and APS-C mirrorless mounts have the same flange distance? I appreciate a crop sensor would be considerably smaller than a FF image circle, but I was wondering if the classic 1.6x Canon crop usage consideration was strictly a function of sensor size or if it also affected by flange distance. Please educate me, thx.



Yes, it would work the same way. AFAIK, the 1.6x crop factor was an arbitrary decision (vs. say the ~1.52x for Nikon/Sony/Fuji/etc. APS-C), although Canon's 1.6x is closest to the dimensions of a 35mm cinema film frame. If I had to guess, it's economics – the slightly smaller sensor allows Canon to eke out a few more sensors from a 300mm silicon wafer. 

Given that Canon uses the same size sensor with both 44mm and 18mm flange focal distances (FFD), and Sony has a full frame sensor with an 18mm FFD, the FFD would not seem to be a limiting factor.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Probably a stupid question, but will crop factor work the same way if both the FF and APS-C mirrorless mounts have the same flange distance? I appreciate a crop sensor would be considerably smaller than a FF image circle, but I was wondering if the classic 1.6x Canon crop usage consideration was strictly a function of sensor size or if it also affected by flange distance. Please educate me, thx.
> ...



Thx. Appreciated, Neuro.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 30, 2017)

kphoto99 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > kphoto99 said:
> ...



there's nothing stopping them - other than the stupidity of doing so.

the EF-M mount is nothing other then a smaller EF mount with a shorter registration distance, so why a third?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 30, 2017)

Jopa said:


> sigh said:
> 
> 
> > People seem to make a lot of the fact that the EF-M mount is APS-C only (or at least I don't think anyone has proved conclusively that you can fit a FF sensor in there).
> ...



one problem with that is that canon has shifted the electrical contacts to one side more, making it bloody hindering awkward to fit a full frame sensor in there. it's a real tight squeeze.

however, why would they repeat the mistakes of sony?

sony had at one time around a 15-18% marketshare in SLT's.. now they don't even have that combined.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> one problem with that is that canon has shifted the electrical contacts to one side more, making it bloody hindering awkward to fit a full frame sensor in there. it's a real tight squeeze.
> 
> however, why would they repeat the mistakes of sony?



+1 ... exactly! 

That's one of the reasons why i strongly believe in a separate, new native EF-? mount for Canon mirrorless FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > sigh said:
> ...



Was using the same mount for full frame and crop mirrorless a mistake on Sony's part? The problem is, I'm not sure how you can deconvolute that from all of their other gaffes (one of which was having too damn many mounts). 

But here's some food for thought… Consider the entire complement of EF (full frame) lenses...who buys more of them – full frame owners or APS-C owners? Then consider the number of APS-C owners who buy EF lenses compatible with their crop cameras _and_ full frame cameras, then upgrade to full frame cameras (a decision made easier by that compatibility). 

If I had to guess, I would say that more EF lenses (at least, non-kit lenses) are bought by crop owners than FF owners, and that a substantial number of people buy EF lenses before buying a FF camera. Of course, I don't have those numbers...but you can bet that Canon does, and that they're going to strongly influence the choice of mount for the (presumed) forthcoming FF MILC.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Probably a stupid question, but will crop factor work the same way if both the FF and APS-C mirrorless mounts have the same flange distance? I appreciate a crop sensor would be considerably smaller than a FF image circle, but I was wondering if the classic 1.6x Canon crop usage consideration was strictly a function of sensor size or if it also affected by flange distance. Please educate me, thx.
> ...


When they started making sensors, the yield rate was not very high. A FF sensor, with 2.5 times the area of the crop sensor, had a much lower yield rate than the crop sensors. I seem to remember hearing about yield rates of 6 or 7 good sensors per 300mm wafer and 38? good crop sensors per 300mm wafer. That makes a huge economic advantage for crop..... but as the quality has improved, the yield rates have gone up, and the cost of the sensor is now not as much of an issue. ( It used to be a FF sensor cost 10-15 times that of a crop sensor, now it is just 3)


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> But here's some food for thought… Consider the entire complement of EF (full frame) lenses...who buys more of them – full frame owners or APS-C owners? Then consider the number of APS-C owners who buy EF lenses compatible with their crop cameras _and_ full frame cameras, then upgrade to full frame cameras (a decision made easier by that compatibility).
> 
> If I had to guess, I would say that more EF lenses are bought by crop owners than FF owners, and that a substantial number of people by EF lenses before buying a FF camera. Of course, I don't have those numbers...but you can bet that Canon does, and that they're going to strongly influence the choice of mount for the (presumed) forthcoming FF MILC.



Totally buy that. I owned two L zooms before I jumped from crop to FF. But as much as "a substantial number of people by EF lenses before buying a FF camera" may be dead on, I also think FF people buy many more EF lenses than crop folks do on a per-person basis.

So what's the market? A massive userbase that has a passing fancy with EF that they might migrate full-time to, or a smaller userbase that buys a lot more EF glass per person?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...I also think FF people buy many more EF lenses than crop folks do on a per-person basis.
> 
> So what's the market? A massive userbase that has a passing fancy with EF that they might migrate full-time to, or a smaller userbase that buys a lot more EF glass per person?



Agree that FF shooters likely own more lenses per person. But there are likely a helluvalot more crop owners than FF owners. Lots of EF 50/1.8 and EF 75-300 lenses bought by croppers (the latter in kits). Lots of 70-300s too, and not much benefit to crop-only longer zooms. 

But like I said, those are guesses – Canon has the data.


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> But here's some food for thought… Consider the entire complement of EF (full frame) lenses...who buys more of them – full frame owners or APS-C owners? Then consider the number of APS-C owners who buy EF lenses compatible with their crop cameras _and_ full frame cameras, then upgrade to full frame cameras (a decision made easier by that compatibility).



IMHO, one should take into account the 7D w/ supertele segment as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2017)

uri.raz said:


> IMHO, one should take into account the 7D w/ supertele segment as well.



True for dSLRs, but in terms of implications for a MILC mount, I doubt they'llmake a mirrorless-native supertele, at least not until they stop producing dSLRs.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...I also think FF people buy many more EF lenses than crop folks do on a per-person basis.
> ...


Also, crop shooters who go long tend to do so with EF glass. The 70-200s are very popular lenses, anything longer is EF, the 100mm macros are quite popular, the 40 mm pancake, and of course, the 50F1.8......


----------



## moreorless (Feb 1, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> This is a message, many people on this forum do not want to hear.
> 
> Of course, Canon will have to go in this direction. Ever since the first Sony A7, the genie has escaped the bottle .. short flange distance lens mount and native lenses for FF-mirrorless system is going to happen, we just don't know when Canon will finally announce it. It may however, not be 19mm flange distance [EF-M] but rather 22 or 24mm [EF -?] ;-)
> 
> For some transitional period, there will be 4 Canon lens series for DLSRs and mirrorless, each with FF and APS-C sensor. Over time, only the 2 mirrorless mounts for crop and FF will remain. EF and EF-S will become legacy. Just like FL and FD did.



Honestly though I think the reality a lot of people don't want to face up to is that the size savings that were talked up for mirrorless FF lenses for years(mostly based on film era manual rangefinder lenses) really haven't come to pass at all. You look at the Sony FE system and its really only the original 35mm F/2.8 with its limited specs that provides an overall depth smaller than its DSLR equivalent. Elsewhere the tendency is actually for FE lenses to be significantly longer than their FF equivalents to correct light angles thus negating the advantage in flange distance.

What I think the Sony A7 system has done is show that is that with FF the size saving advantages of mirrorless become more focused on the body. Your talking removing a much larger prism/mirror as well as a larger AF sensor, the A7 cameras relative to a 6D with similar lenses really are not much shallower but they are significantly shorter and weight less. Those advantages would exist with an EF mount mirrorless camera just as well as one with a shorter flange distance.

Really I think the main thing they would miss out on is the gearhead market that still buys into the idea of much smaller lenses but really is Canon ever going to get much of this? I think a lot of the appeal also rests in the rejection of the traditional brands in Canon and Nikon.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 1, 2017)

moreorless said:


> Honestly though I think the reality a lot of people don't want to face up to is that the size savings that were talked up for mirrorless FF lenses for years(mostly based on film era manual rangefinder lenses) really haven't come to pass at all. You look at the Sony FE system and its really only the original 35mm F/2.8 with its limited specs that provides an overall depth smaller than its DSLR equivalent. Elsewhere the tendency is actually for FE lenses to be significantly longer than their FF equivalents to correct light angles thus negating the advantage in flange distance.



Sony E-Mount was intended for APS-C sensors only. Sony chose mount parameters geared towards slim cameras and compact lenses, almost identical to the paramters Canon chose for EF-M mount for EOS M system. 

A few years later Sony decided to also use E-mount for their mirrorless system, rather than to create yet an additional mount for A7 series. Due to narrow throat width [46.1mm] combined with very short flange focal distance [18mm] optical design of Sony FE lenses is severely compromised from he very start. Using a somewhat bigger mount and somewhat longer flange distance should certainly help to design less complex, more compact and less expensive native lenses for FF-sensor mirrorless. 

Sony FE lenses are a text book example of a poor lens design compromise, brought about by using less than ideal lens mount parameters. 

If lens mount is chosen wisely, compact, simple, optically very good and comparatively inexpensive, fully FF-capable mirrorless lenses are possible. Canon has demonstrated a lot of foresight and careful choice in their lens mounts - making them rather on the "oversize" side [e.g. EF vs. Nikon F] to facilitate lens design. 

I would be very surprised if Canon were to repeat Sony's mistake and use its "APS-C optimized" EF-M mount also for a FF mirrorless system. I fully expect Canon to launch a new, fully FF-capable native mount for FF-mirrorless and build their future system around it. 

EF-M will be relegated to exactly the same role EF-S has played for DSLRs: limited choice of - mostly - consumer grade lenses in the limited focal length range in which size-advantages for crop-sensor image circle can be utilized.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I fully expect Canon to launch a new, fully FF-capable native mount for FF-mirrorless and build their future system around it.
> 
> EF-M will be relegated to exactly the same role EF-S has played for DSLRs: limited choice of - mostly - consumer grade lenses in the limited focal length range in which size-advantages for crop-sensor image circle can be utilized.



That's not the same role. For APS-C dSLRs, the full EF lineup mounts natively. If they have two MILC mounts, they lose a major selling point for the APS-C line...and that line is likely to be a much bigger cash cow for Canon than FF MILCs.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 1, 2017)

Honestly AvTvM I have my doubts this is actually that big a factor with the FE lens system, perhaps it has an impact in terms of the high levels of light dropoff but the reality for me is that your simply not going to get the kind of ultra small lenses we'd always been told about that was based on manual lenses used on film. 

I can certainly see Canon releasing a new FF mount but equally I don't see it as nearly so important as APSC. There your talking an entire segment of ultra small cameras no DSLR can get close to, with FF though I think the size of lenses and the demand for a more advanced manual interface, EVF, etc means your not really playing to the same market. A reworked 6D without the mirror, prism, AF sensor and a smaller grip could I think get very close to the size of an A7 camera.

Even if we reach a stage were mirrorless lens design does start to offer much smaller/better lenses in the wide/normal range Canon would also have the option of following a more extreme version of EF-S. The lens mount is afterall already quite large and having a recessed rear element would likely be possible.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 1, 2017)

I am confident we will also get a lineup of very compact, optically good, moderately fast EF-?? primes for mirrorless FF. Basically an FF-equivalent to Canon EF-M 22/2 ... something like 15/4 - 24/2.8 - 35/2.0 - 50/1.8 - 85/2.8 ... I think, this is technically possible if mount parameters [and microlens layout on sensor etc.] are well chosen. 

First there will be zooms and big, fat, expensive f/1.4 lenses, that people here are often asking for. Canon will cream those buyers off and some time later I will smartly get myself a "pancake/compact" lens setup for little money. Plus a compact 24-70/4 IS STM. Tele stuff and specialty lenses? Just use EF glass + adapter. No problem.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I fully expect Canon to launch a new, fully FF-capable native mount for FF-mirrorless and build their future system around it.
> ...



If they use EF-M as common MILC mount Canon will face the same problems as Sony wioth their FE lenses. Severely limited lens design. Too many compromises. Too big lenses, complex design, high cost & even higher prices. I would really be surprised if Canon went this route ... they may be "stupid in many ways", but as far as lens mount decisions go, they have chosen throat and flange focal distance very well [to allow for anything, including f/1.2 FF glass] and shown excellent foresight, especially with EF mount in 1987. 

Had they planned to use EF-M for both APS-C and future FF MILCs, they would have made that hole a little wider and deeper. Since they did not, I take it as an indication for a 2-mount strategy, with EF-?? lenses probably and hopefully also usable on EF-M cameras with a small "adapter ring" to bridge difference in FFD and throat width. Really the same strategy that has worked well for EF and EF-S systems. 

But of course, I am only guessing. [Only] Canon knows, what they are really up to ... if anything.  ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 1, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ...I take it as an indication for a 2-mount strategy, with EF-?? lenses probably and hopefully also usable on EF-M cameras with a small "adapter ring" to bridge difference in FFD and throat width. Really the same strategy that has worked well for EF and EF-S systems.
> 
> But of course, I am only guessing. [Only] Canon knows, what they are really up to ... if anything.  ;D



I take it that they are not working on a FF mirrorless interchangeable system unless it uses native EF lenses.

Canon have stated many times that they see the overriding feature of mirrorless to be the smaller size, everybody knows a ff body and lens combination is basically the same size for both mirrorless and DSLR, ergo Canon see no point in ff mirrorless system of a quality that necessitates a larger than APS-C sensor.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 1, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ... everybody knows a ff body and lens combination is basically the same size for both mirrorless and DSLR ...



Have to disagree here. Everybody can see, that Mirrorless systems can be *significantly smaller* than DSLR-systems for the entire focal length range used to capture an [estimated] 99% of all images globally. [~ FF FOV equivalent 24-135mm]. 

The percentage of images captured at either 600mm FL or f/1.2 is rather small. 

Mirrorless offers both options: 
* full capability even for highly specialized tasks requiring big, fat 800mm lenses or big, fat f/1.2 lenses
AND
* slim camera plus pancake/ultra-compact lenses if they are sufficient to handle many tasks/situations

DSLR ... do not.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ... everybody knows a ff body and lens combination is basically the same size for both mirrorless and DSLR ...
> ...



I welcome pictures of same max-apertured FF 135mm lenses bolted on to and SLR and mirrorless rig taken side by side. At those FLs, what you call significant I'd call miniscule.

(Couldn't find a 135mm FF lens at camerasize, so fast 85mm lenses will have to suffice. You get my point.)

Yes, for some FLs, the 'dream of smaller mirrorless' can be realized. Say around 24-50mm, a thin FF mirrorless rig could be noticeably smaller than a FF SLR with the same lens on it. Around 85mm you are pushing it and the lens starts to boss the aggregate footprint in your bag. At 135mm, you must be joking -- you'll save a centimeter on the body width/height but your length (and resulting space you take up in the bag) will effectively be the same.

If Canon 'goes thin' with FF mirrorless, they should offer a 24 / 35 / 50 trio of small f/2 lenses, one smallish standard zoom (24-70 f/4, perhaps a 24-50 f/2.8 ), think about an UWA zoom, think about a macro...* and then put a cork in it*. See if it sells and then reassess, but until it does sell, Canon should fold its arms and mail EF catalogs to everyone who wants more glass.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 1, 2017)

showing the picture over and over does not change a thing. It just gets boring. 

Read my lips: 
1. Sony FE lenses are larger than necessary for FF mirrorless, because *stupid Sony* chose to use an APS-C moutn for an FF sensor system. 
2. With a properly designed lens moutn, FF mirrorless lenses up to about 100mm focal lens could be MUCH smaller than those behemoth Sony FE lenses. 

Got it now ?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 1, 2017)

Look to motion picture for some guidance here. 
Vistavision is close to 36x24mm sensor size (Canon back focus for FF and EF-S APS-C is 44mm), Motion picture back focus varies but the most popular is 52mm (Arri). Red back focus is 27.3mm but this still needs to cater for 36x24mm sensor image circle to enable the use of stills lenses. Canon EF-M back focus is 18mm and uses an adaptor to use EF lenses. An adaptor to use FF lenses to cover FF sensor but on a camera with 18mm back focus is perfectly possible as we see with the Sony E mount which is also 18mm. 

Not so silly if you view it this way and with very limited EF-M lens choice currently who is to say newer EF-M lenses could not cover FF as in the case of Sony?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> showing the picture over and over does not change a thing. It just gets boring.
> 
> Read my lips:
> 1. Sony FE lenses are larger than necessary for FF mirrorless, because *stupid Sony* chose to use an APS-C moutn for an FF sensor system.
> ...



Could they? Where is your evidence for that? (Outside of your own head, that is, because in there it's not worth the tiny number of ions moving around to drive your fanciful imagination.)

Unless you're suggesting that the difference between a 44mm and a 24mm flange focal distance, making the lens 20mm shorter, constitutes 'MUCH smaller'. :


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > showing the picture over and over does not change a thing. It just gets boring.
> ...



+1. If both a Sony 18mm flange distance and a Canon 44mm flange distance are generating similar sized FF lenses, I fail to see how a 22mm, 24mm, etc. flange distance will magically reduce the size of what we have to carry.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 1, 2017)

your sample image uses "behemoth" 85 f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses. i am not suggesting, those could be built [much] smaller for mirrorless FF.

But a series of moderately fast, very compact prime lenses is possible for sure. Whether or not an EF-? 35/2.0 will be smaller and if so by how much compared to EF 3572.0 IS ... to be seen. But the size advantage of a smaller bodies means a lot with lenses of about that size. Shorter WA lenses [anything from 18 to 28mm ? ] might even be more compact or even "pancakey" - due to shorter FDD. 

Size advantage of slim MILCs compared to DSLRs with same sensor size cannot be disputed. Compact lenses in the most frequently used focal length range are definitely possible - allowing for a small kit, whenever it is "sufficient" or "preferable" for a specific shooting situation and photographer's intentions.


----------



## slclick (Feb 1, 2017)

I'm hearing over and over it will be focal length limited and therefore shooting styles will be most often street and landscape. Well....puppies, kittens, kids and brick walls as well.

However give 12-15 more pages of this back and forth and I'm sure something other than flange sizes and 'Stupid Canon/Sony', amazing charts with colored arrows etc will bring forth some more reasonable enlightenment to the RUMOR. 


In the meantime, back to our regularly scheduled 'I want it now and I want it just the way I say it' programming.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Size advantage of slim MILCs compared to DSLRs with same sensor size cannot be disputed. Compact lenses in the most frequently used focal length range are definitely possible - allowing for a small kit, whenever it is "sufficient" or "preferable" for a specific shooting situation and photographer's intentions.



Again: from 24-50mm or so I agree with what you are saying but that's less about 'magical tiny mirrorless design' or anything to do with flange distance and much more about the notion that _smaller lenses lead to smaller looking aggregrate rig + lens size_, i.e. a 9" SLR vs. a 8" mirrorless rig doesn't do you much good, but a 4" SLR vs. a 3" mirrorless rig starts to matter.

But your point certainly can be disputed for a 135mm FF lens. I await your side by side comparison of SLR vs. mirrorless on that front. Leica FF digital rangefinders seem to offer nice size savings up until 75-90mm or so, but they don't offer anything apples to apples at 135 as far as I can tell. The inflection point for size savings would (to my eyes) appear to end around 85mm in classic lens FL terms.

- A


----------



## Crosswind (Feb 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> The inflection point for size savings would (to my eyes) appear to end around 85mm in classic lens FL terms.
> 
> - A



There's a quite compact 100mm f2 from Canon which is probably the most compact tele. Any longer than that, it gets much heavier and bigger, right? 

Maybe it is possible that you might even get a non-L 135 f2.8 with DO elements that is about the same lenght as the 100 f2. What would I pay for such a lens on a Canon FF MILC...


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2017)

I think up to about 100mm size advantages for mirrorless system lenses are fairly easily possible - provided lens mount parameters are wisely selected [width + FDD + microlens design etc.]. 

at 135mm ? Don't know, how compact an FF mirrorless EF-? 135mm/2.8 STM IS could be built? Smaller than EF 135/2.0 ... but by how much? Would definitely be worth a try, Canon!  

I really liked EF 100/2.0 for its size. Sold it however because of very pronounced loCAs. Would love to have a similar lens with updated IQ for a Canon FF MILC. Also for EF-M a short tele lens - something like 85mm/2.4 STM IS - would be much appreciated.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Size advantage of slim MILCs compared to DSLRs with same sensor size cannot be disputed. Compact lenses in the most frequently used focal length range are definitely possible - allowing for a small kit, whenever it is "sufficient" or "preferable" for a specific shooting situation and photographer's intentions.
> ...



Try comparing the following. Keep in mind also the Leica lens is ALL metal unlike the Canon, yes its slower. 

Leica APO-Telyt-M 135mm f/3.4 ASPH 

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Try comparing the following. Keep in mind also the Leica lens is ALL metal unlike the Canon, yes its slower.
> 
> Leica APO-Telyt-M 135mm f/3.4 ASPH
> 
> Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM



I've seen it, thanks, but that's more than a full stop slower and felt that was not an appropriate comparison. I will say that Leica M lenses are delightfully small, especially on their diameter. And Leica does have some very small 90mm FF lenses.

I'm not saying it can't be done, folks, I'm saying Canon probably not wade into a new and complete lens portfolio knowing that the size savings will evaporate in the middle of the needed focal range. I see 4-6, 5-7 FF mirrorless lenses happening and that would be it. A re-making of EF for a shorter flange distance is not going to happen, IMHO.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm not saying it can't be done, folks, I'm saying Canon probably not wade into a new and complete lens portfolio knowing that the size savings will evaporate in the middle of the needed focal range. I see 4-6, 5-7 FF mirrorless lenses happening and that would be it. A re-making of EF for a shorter flange distance is not going to happen, IMHO.



+1

Sure, select primes can be smaller. High quality wide and standard zooms, not so much – and zooms are the 'bread and butter' for Canon. 

A FF MILC from Canon will either use the EF mount or the EF-M mount, not something in between.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> +1
> 
> Sure, select primes can be smaller. High quality wide and standard zooms, not so much – and zooms are the 'bread and butter' for Canon.
> 
> A FF MILC from Canon will either use the EF mount or the EF-M mount, not something in between.



You are correct. I've never seen a small FF 24-70 zoom. Only a 'not huge' one.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#682.367,624.393,639.496,ha,t

Mirrorless could conceivably go with a Sigma like 'less than full range' zoom but not chase a fast aperture. Some weird design like a 24-50 f/4 could be 'small enough' for that size-is-everything crowd.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> A FF MILC from Canon will either use the EF mount or the EF-M mount, not something in between.



EF-? will not be "in between" EF and EF-M. It will be "successor" to EF mount. Although that sounds like blasphemy to many forum users' ears ... 

Just as they did in 1987 when Canon ditched its FD mount and replaced it with EF mount. For good reason, in order to enter the "electronic age" and get rid of mechanical stuff like aperture control levers. 

Now the time is here again, or very near ;D 
Canon will enter the "solid state digital camera age" with a new mount, optimized for their mirrorless FF future. Transition will be almost painless this time, since EF glass will continue to work just fine on new FF MILCS with a little, inexpensive adapter.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A FF MILC from Canon will either use the EF mount or the EF-M mount, not something in between.
> ...



It's not blasphemy at all, it's just financially ludicrous. Consider the size/scale of the EF brand now -- what is it, over 100 million lenses in the field now? That's got to be at least 10x what FD ever put out. At this stage, EF is less a line of products and more like a _country_ that needs to be staffed and maintained. You don't just walk away from that.

If they tried to do this:


They'd be at it for 10-15 years to build up even a fraction of what EF offers today (ask Sony)




Over that time, they'd be trying to sell two forms of the same lenses to (potentially/largely) the same customers. Is a lifelong Canon EF guy really going to buy a different mount 24-70 for his new mirrorless rig? No -- they'll use their EF on an adaptor. So sales for each individual mirrorless lens will be fractional of the EF version and therefore less profitable for Canon --> these mirrorless lenses will therefore have to be pricier to cover that and those prices will slow the brand's adoption (again, ask Sony)


EF won't go away overnight and need to be maintained / refreshed. So now Canon's lens development resources will be stretched terribly, terribly thin to cover all this parallel development (Again, Sony -- the A-Mount lives on)


Photographers worried that that EF might be going away might take their business to safe harbor in the form of Nikon, who might loudly and publicly state that F-mount glass is here to stay.


And then there's that whole bit about hundreds of millions of dollars of excess and obsolescence of the EF lenses. It's a writeoff Canon could never, ever take.

...and they are going to make this bold pyramid-building investment in a _contracting_ photography market due to the rise of cell phone photography? Absurd.

If it's a new mount, they'll pull an EOS M or Nikon 1 and offer a skeleton set of lenses and sit back and wait. If it roars to life, a few more lenses might be added. But a full EF replacement would only ever happen if it was a runaway grand slam for sales that was stealing large chunks of new/competitive users. I just don't see that happening as it's too easy for the rest of the market to follow suit.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> EF-? will not be "in between" EF and EF-M. It will be "successor" to EF mount. Although that sounds like blasphemy to many forum users' ears ...



It's not blasphemy...it's just ridiculous and asinine given that mirrorless sales for 2016 only constitute 27% of total ILC sales. Unless you're suggesting that Canon should wait until nearly all ILCs are mirrorless before launching a FF MILC?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2017)

Well, WHY it is 27% "only", Mr. Neuro? 
Correct answer is: because SUPPLY sucks!


Nikon offers no mirrorless ILC system [Nikon 1 is dead and does not count] 
Canon offers a limited APS-C system only 
The 2 companies together hold around 80% combined share of camera market
[*]Despite this situation mirrorless systems have already grabbed 27% of market ... 
[/list]

As soon as compelling APS-C and FF-sensored MILC systems are offered by Canon (and Nikon), market share will very rapidly eclipse "reflex systems" ... aka "mirrorslappers". Just to be sure: it will also happen - only a bit slower - should Canon and Nikon not come out with compelling mirrorless options in both APS-C and FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Well, WHY it is 27% "only", Mr. Neuro?
> Correct answer is: because SUPPLY sucks!
> 
> As soon as compelling APS-C and FF-sensored MILC systems are offered by Canon (and Nikon), market share will very rapidly eclipse "reflex systems" ... aka "mirrorslappers". Just to be sure: it will also happen - only a bit slower - should Canon and Nikon not come out with compelling mirrorless options in both APS-C and FF.



1) What makes you think that will change anytime soon? Consider that Canon and Nikon _are_ the status quo. 

2) Given the current rate of market evolution, your 'only a bit slower' is something like >15 years. Good luck with that. :


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1) What makes you think that will change anytime soon? Consider that Canon and Nikon _are_ the status quo.
> 2) Given the current rate of market evolution, your 'only a bit slower' is something like >15 years. Good luck with that. :



1) Sony A7 Mk. III and A9. 
2) Fuji's success - in only 3 years 
...
3) Nikon might just falter ... and/or be bought by Sony


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1) What makes you think that will change anytime soon? Consider that Canon and Nikon _are_ the status quo.
> ...



1) Just what Sony needs: _another body._ After the clearly nerfed and underwhelming A7R II landed like a dead turd with the photography market, I'm sure more fps and more pixels and more AF points will batter down the door *this* time. I can hear all the Canon faithful slamming down their well-built rigs that have excellent service and broad lens, lighting and third party accessory options in favor of the new toy with a sweet spec sheet. It's obvious. _Stupid forum._

2) How do you define Fuji succeeding? They are not even in the top 3 mirrorless sales _in their home country_. 

3) Down the dosage, son. 

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Well, WHY it is 27% "only", Mr. Neuro?
> Correct answer is: because SUPPLY sucks!
> 
> 
> ...






AvTvM said:


> As soon as compelling APS-C and FF-sensored MILC systems are offered by Canon (and Nikon), market share will very rapidly eclipse "reflex systems" ... aka "mirrorslappers". Just to be sure: it will also happen - only a bit slower - should Canon and Nikon not come out with compelling mirrorless options in both APS-C and FF.


actually.....
If the next Rebel came out as mirrorless, then the bulk of Canon DSLR sales would be mirrorless


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 1) What makes you think that will change anytime soon? Consider that Canon and Nikon _are_ the status quo.
> ...



Lol. Just lol. :


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 2) How do you define Fuji succeeding? They are not even in the top 3 mirrorless sales _in their home country_.



due to price. Oly mFT stills sells in JP, because they have a lot of older models on clear-out sale. 
In Europe Fuji seems to be doing rather well. Don't have numbers, just "personal, first hand observations". Judging from my photo buddies ... more than half of them have bought Fuji stuff over the last 2 years - mostly in addition to Ca/Nikon gear, but also some "switches for good" from Nikon, some from Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> In Europe Fuji seems to be doing rather well. Don't have numbers, just "personal, first hand observations". Judging from my photo buddies ...



No, of course you don't have the numbers. 

*LOL*


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, of course you don't have the numbers.



you don't either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > No, of course you don't have the numbers.
> ...



Revenues from ILC + lens sales last fiscal quarter were ~18 B¥ for Fuji, and ~180 B¥ for Canon. 

Your subjective observations are meaningless and irrelevant.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



maybe to you. Not to me. 

up to 10% of Canon's sales is not too shabby ... considering Fuji was basically at zero in ILCs only 4 years ago or so. And no mirrorslappers, only mirrorless. 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2017)

We are all guessing what will come, so here is my prediction.

I predict that before a mirrorless FF camera appears, there will be a new mirrorless crop camera.....

I think the 20D 30D 40D 50D 60D 70D 80D progression is about to end and will be taken over with an enthusiast MIRRORLESS camera with the same form factor as the current line, similar ergonomics, similar tilt/swivel touchscreen, similar knobs, and similar buttons.... and using the EF-S mount.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 2) How do you define Fuji succeeding? They are not even in the top 3 mirrorless sales _in their home country_.
> ...



You seem to be conflating two things:
Canon's move to mirrorless and whether this will come with a different mount. The former is highly likely, the latter is less so (signficantly so IM)). 

Who will the mirrorless be aimed at?
If cameraphones did not exist then the drive for a smaller body/ens combination would probably necessitate a different mount. But cameraphones do exist which means that if someone wants to go really compact then they have a phone. Or they have MFT. 
But once someone buys APS-C or 35mm sensor, they are de facto accepting a larger size and the difference in body/lens combination that the A7RII offers over something like the 1100D does not matter. I think you are obsessed with the idea of 'smaller' that you are losing sight of the fact that the real time saving is in practice not that much. So the real question is "does the size of the market justify all that expense of developing a new mount" - I have my doubts.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> So the real question is "does the size of the market justify all that expense of developing a new mount" - I have my doubts.



Development cost is nearly irrelevant. As soon as Canon stops production of EF lenses and offers new EF-? glass, they will sell another 150 million lenses over the next 10 years or so ... people will bitch a bit, but then they will migrate, just as they did from FD to EF. Not many customers lost. And many new ones gained. Bitching will be far less this time, because people will not be forced to migrate [EF will remain compatible], but can do so at their own leisure - whenever they are convinced a new [hopefully smaller and or better] lens is a worthwhile upgrade for their money.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 3, 2017)

And you totally voided the point.



> So the real question is "does the size of the market justify all that expense of developing a new mount" - I have my doubts.



You say people will bitch if they make a new lens mount that is compatible with EF lenses. 
Any sensible company looks at it from the other side - will people bitch if they don't produce a new mount. You still haven't made a compelling argument for them to do so.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

mirrorless camera systems do not need a compelling point from me. They've long made that point for themselves.  

In terms of business smarts, if you were Canon: would you rather just continue selling EF/EF-S kit lenses and upgraded + a few new EF lenses [forever?] or would you introduce a new lens mount and an entire range of all new lenses and have existing and new customers buying/upgrading all of their lenses ... over a number of years? Which one is more mones for Canon? 

If not sure, think about the tranision in music business: first consumers paid for music on shellack disks, then they paid again for music on vinyl singls and LPs, then they bought music again on CD, then they downloaded, now they pay for streamed audio. I consider myself a fairly astute buyer ... but (even) I have paid for many pieces of music 3 to 4 times already. 

The same holds true for any such transition. Horse cart - car - better car - better car - "newer car", marginally improved - iterated car - ... - .... - electric car


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> mirrorless camera systems do not need a compelling point from me. They've long made that point for themselves.



I was not talking about a compelling argument for mirrorless, I was talking about a compelling argument for a new mount (what were your scores in English comprehension at school?)

Then you seem to have a mental block on realising no-one (as far as I can tell) is saying mirrorless does not have advantages and it will not happen. The questions are:
- is there a compelling argument that Canon must release a 6D-level mirrorless right now 
- Does Canon (not you, not I, but Canon) believe the technology is robust and mature enough to meet the demands of current 6D users. You can see from countless fora that the merest smidgeon of a step backwards is mercilessly trashed and the excuse 'ah, but this is mirrorless' will not wash


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > mirrorless camera systems do not need a compelling point from me. They've long made that point for themselves.
> ...



... paid poster for Canon or unpaid fanboy? Why so defensive? Canon Defense League. I see that almost all of your postings are in defense of Canon. 

Mirrorless technology or "being stable" is not the issue. Even "stupid Canon" should be able to get an FF MILC to market that is better than a 6D. Maybe even a match for Sony A7/R/S Mk. II and maybe even before Sony introduces Mk. III. gen


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


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



er....I asked a question, I did not defend Canon at all - I merely posted a proposal as to why your sometimes ridiculous statements have not been met by Canon. 
Are you unable to comprehend someone can have a view of "I can understand why, but it doesn't mean I have to agree...'

Why so sensitive that anyone who does so is immediately a Canon shill?




> Even "stupid Canon" should be able to get an FF MILC to market that is better than a 6D.


And what evidence do you have for that? A mirrorless better than a 6D? In what respect?
Does this definition of 'better' mean a new mount?


----------



## slclick (Feb 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


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


#1 reason why the ignore button is sorely missed


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2017)

I have another question to ask here.....

Why, as you move up in the Canon ecosystem, do the cameras get physically larger?

Canon demonstrated with the SL-1 that they can pack a DSLR into a smaller body, yet the sales were pathetic. Yes, it was smaller and to some people smaller was better, but for the majority the ergonomics sucked! Let's say Canon released the 6D2 as a compact sized mirrorless camera..... Where do the controls go? Does it still fit people's hands? Do the fingers comfortably operate the controls? Is it the shape that they are expecting? If compact size is so important to them, are they going to forget about the 6D2 and go straight to an M camera?

You can not forget ergonomics!


----------



## slclick (Feb 3, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I have another question to ask here.....
> 
> Why, as you move up in the Canon ecosystem, do the cameras get physically larger?
> 
> ...



Size is a relative factor. I find the 6D series to be small. The 1D Series too large and the 5D just right. The Goldilocks factor. Then there's the global aspect with the new evolution of larger Murican hands...


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

with a good user interface things don't have to be big. 
While I have not done foramal research into the matter, I'd think EOS M5 size and grip (both front and back) would be sufficiently chunky for most [not for all!] people. 

And now imagine, if Canon would bring a new FF MILC with a fabulous Eye Control AF v2.0 system. No more need for a physical AF-point selector. Other than that, what is needed? 1 shutter button, on-off, 1 wheel front, 1 back and 4 well-placed, fully user-customizable buttons and a good touch-screen. Fits easily.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> with a good user interface things don't have to be big.
> While I have not done foramal research into the matter, I'd think EOS M5 size and grip (both front and back) would be sufficiently chunky for most [not for all!] people.
> 
> And now imagine, if Canon would bring a new FF MILC with a fabulous Eye Control AF v2.0 system. No more need for a physical AF-point selector. Other than that, what is needed? 1 shutter button, on-off, 1 wheel front, 1 back and 4 well-placed, fully user-customizable buttons and a good touch-screen. Fits easily.



So you are back to saying they should put a FF sensor in the m5? And keep the same outer dimensions including flange distance?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2017)

slclick said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I have another question to ask here.....
> ...


I agree that it is relative.... but Canon has a lot of design latitude as to how big or how small they make their cameras, and we must ask ourselves why they have decided on the physical sizes that they have? With APS-C DSLRs you have the range from the SL-1 to the 7D2... Rebels could be made SL-1 size or 7D2 size, or if they wanted to 1DX2 sized, yet they chose the current form factor. The question is why? It is obviously more than just technical factors. It includes ergonomics, public perception of what a camera looks like, and lots of stuff that we are most likely not aware of. Canon has dedicated people looking at this question.... people with access to REAL data from all over the world. There is a series of reasons and regardless of how much we pontificate, we don't know!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > So the real question is "does the size of the market justify all that expense of developing a new mount" - I have my doubts.
> ...



Your argument for a _switch_ to a new mount is predicated on mirrorless supplanting dSLRs in global market share before Canon launches a FF MILC. All available data show that's many (many!!) years away. So, are you willing to wait a decade or more for your Canon FF MILC, or would you rather just admit that you're wrong and that a Canon FF MILC will come sooner...with an EF-M or (non-compact) EF mount? 

Here's the thing...Canon knows how many M bodies and EF mount adapters they've sold. They know how many EF/EF-S lenses they've sold to people with only an M body. They know how many EF lenses they've sold to people with only an APS-C body. They have ample data to support the choice of EF vs. EF-M as a mount for their FF MILC. What they don't have are data to support dropping EF in favor of a new mount. 

Oh, I know you'll cite the FD-EF switch (in fact, you already have)...but in that case, people's financial sacrifice meant they were getting a major improvement in exchange, one which included a logical reason for purchasing new lenses – autofocus. In this case, you're suggesting people would pay to replace all of their lenses, for essentially the same lens but a few millimeters shorter. The "improvement" of a slightly more compact camera body is something that current sales figures suggest the majority of buyers don't find compelling.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> with a good user interface things don't have to be big.
> While I have not done foramal research into the matter, I'd think EOS M5 size and grip (both front and back) would be sufficiently chunky for most [not for all!] people.
> 
> And now imagine, if Canon would bring a new FF MILC with a fabulous Eye Control AF v2.0 system. No more need for a physical AF-point selector. Other than that, what is needed? 1 shutter button, on-off, 1 wheel front, 1 back and 4 well-placed, fully user-customizable buttons and a good touch-screen. Fits easily.



The grip has to be chunky enough to wield a 70-200 f/2.8 because it's a staple lens affixed to many of our cameras. An M5 grip with a 70-200 would be really uncomfortable to shoot all day with.

I'd argue the 6D is the _smallest_ the grip should be. Besides, only the 1 or 2 pancakes they'd offer with a new mount would be shorter than a big grip, so an unnecessarily small grip would only save you space a very small fraction of the time --> Canon should go with a chunky grip.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, I know you'll cite the FD-EF switch (in fact, you already have)...but in that case, people's financial sacrifice meant they were getting a major improvement in exchange, one which included a logical reason for purchasing new lenses – autofocus. In this case, you're suggesting people would pay to replace all of their lenses, for essentially the same lens but a few millimeters shorter. The "improvement" of a slightly more compact camera body is something that current sales figures suggest the majority of buyers don't find compelling.



+100. This is the heart of it. People made the EF migration because it was a huge upgrade. A migration to new mirrorless lenses' biggest ace in the hole would be... what, 5% optical improvement every 10 years and a few tiny lenses to make a tiny system? That's going to get people replacing all their glass? Never going to happen.

There are (to my understanding) only three ways Canon could pull off another FD-EF migration for mirrorless, and none are probable or reasonable:


Mirrorless vastly outperforms SLRs somehow _and only so with that new mount's glass_. If the latter part wasn't true, people would just enjoy that new mirrorless functionality with EF glass and migration would never occur. One way would be to nerf adapting EF -- cripple the AF or something like that. Or perhaps IBIS that only works with mirrorless lenses (deliberate Canon firmware nerfing) could do this, but I'm inventing an asinine reason, honestly. This isn't going to happen. 


Canon offers industry-game-changing lenses only for mirrorless that are a huge step better than what are sold today. APO lenses, f/2 zooms, f/1 primes, tilt-shifts with AF, lenses that can see through time, etc.


Canon only puts its best sensors in FF mirrorless -- that's right, they withhold them from FF SLRs -- *and they don't offer an EF adaptor* and go to great lengths to prevent third parties from successfully making one. The odds of that happening are nil. Sony actually did the first part and put a big lag time between their best sensors making mirrorless versus the A99 rig getting updated, but they had an adaptor, so folks weren't forced to switch from A to E. 

Sorry. If it's a new mount, I still only see a small bolus of 4-6 lenses and that will be that.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

Moving to mirrorless *is* a major upgrade compared to mirrorslappers. 

When done right, only mirrorless offers all of the following. DSLRs do not. 
* seeing image as it will be recorded by camera [EVFs will soon be so stunningly good, most of us will never want to use an OVF again] 
* absolutely no vibrations
* absolutely no noise - without performance hit [as opposed to mirrorslapper silent Live view move 
* smaller kit possible [compared to mirrorslappers]: slim body + compact lenses; big lenses can also be used when needed or preferred, no worries

Why you *self-proclaimed economy experts* were 27% of ILC cameras sold in 2016 mirrorless, if it was no upgrade? All those buyers could have bought themselves *absolutely wonderful, big and chunky-gripped DSLRs* along with *wonderful lenses* from *reputable, established industry leaders* like our beloved purveyor of marginally improved iterated mirrorslappers based on early 20th century tech ... Canon. Or Nikon, if they were not so smart. 

But ... they did not. They consciously and deliberately bought cameras and lenses from second-tier palyers like Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Sony or if Canon, then from the limited Canon EOS M lineup ... OMG ... they bought mirrorless cameras! 

Mostly for size, *what else*? Plus some or all of the other advantages listed. Some Fuji hipster buyers may have gone for retro looks above all ... but then, even those misguided souls could have gotten themselves an equally retro-looking Nikon Df. With a big, chunky grip. And lots and lots of knulred knobs, dials, levers, wheels all over the camera. A machine operators wet dream! 

Be strong. Be brave. Just face it. Repeat after me: the *solid state imaging* upgrade is upon us. Grab it or leave it. 

Even the 81-year old  Canon CEO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujio_Mitarai might eventually realize it. Or not. But that would spell ... doom.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Moving to mirrorless *is* a major upgrade compared to mirrorslappers.
> 
> When done right, only mirrorless offers all of the following. DSLRs do not.
> * seeing image as it will be recorded by camera [EVFs will soon be so stunningly good, most of us will never want to use an OVF again]
> ...



Those are reasons to use a mirrorless camera, not reasons _for long-time photographers to walk away from thousands of dollars worth of EF glass_. 

The argument is not whether or not mirrorless offers value -- it does. This isn't about the value of the 'solid state future', this is about LENSES.

The argument is whether Canon should migrate all EF lenses to something new -- and it clearly shouldn't. The only clear upside of a full migration is a handful of small mirrorless-mount-only lenses to make a small rig. Fine. Canon could make those. Now explain why _the other 90%_ of Canon's lenses should be either retired or remade for the new mount and why we as customers should have to eat that expense.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Moving to mirrorless *is* a major upgrade compared to mirrorslappers.
> ...


Exactly!

So now we step back and ask ourselves..... If Canon made the 6D2 mirrorless, would they keep it the same physical size, with similar ergonomics, and with the EF mount, or would they choose to make the body thinner, require all new lenses, and give us more vignetting...

And also ask ourselves, if being smaller is so all-fired important, why not get am M?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Be strong. Be brave. Just face it. Repeat after me: the *solid state imaging* upgrade is upon us. Grab it or leave it.



Tell you what...why don't you come back when that upgrade *is actually here*. Because today, there are still lots of moving bits inside MILCs and lenses. Shutters, image stabilizers, aperture diaphragms, focus motors, etc. 



ahsanford said:


> Now explain why _the other 90%_ of Canon's lenses should be either retired or remade for the new mount and why we as customers should have to eat that expense.



Because AvTvM wants it, my Precious. And when does he think it will happen?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Exactly!
> 
> So now we step back and ask ourselves..... If Canon made the 6D2 mirrorless, would they keep it the same physical size, with similar ergonomics, and with the EF mount, or would they choose to make the body thinner, require all new lenses, and give us more vignetting...
> 
> And also ask ourselves, if being smaller is so all-fired important, why not get am M?



I think I've posted this elsewhere, but I break this into three categories of 'being smaller':

*Length/width of the back of the camera* --> This (and lens size) affects the bag you put these things in. Camera bags fall into three buckets -- super tiny for P&S and possibly m43, standard sized for APS-C / FF without a grip, and specialized for gripped or 1D cameras. The amount of material they'd have to shed to fit in an M43 kind of bag would be like how EOS M (mk 1) was butchered down from a Rebel. And doing that wouldn't make the lenses any smaller. I say: go full 5D and enjoy perfect ergonomics and controls.

*Thin mount or EF mount*: well catalogued here, Canon could go either way. No point debating that here.

*Grip*: See my prior graphic on P. 12 of this thread. Unless you only want to shoot with the 1-2 pancakes Canon gives you, there is zero space savings to pursue a tiny grip and doing so would reduce battery real estate. There is no reason not to go big and chunky here.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...there is zero space savings to pursue a tiny grip and doing so would reduce battery real estate. There is no reason not to go big and chunky here.



Unless you have really tiny hands. Let's see...a belief that his opinion is fact...refusal to acknowledge documented facts...frequently explains his viewpoints and actions by citing 'alternate facts'...wants a really tiny camera grip. AvTvM, do you happen to orange skin, too?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

nobody will have to "walk away" from Canon EF lenses. They will all remain functional. Just as today on EOS M / EF-M mount with help a little adapter. 

Canon will use this chance to sell the next 150 million lenses. it will work much faster with a new mount and new lenses rather than trying to sell only slightly improved versions of previous EF lenses. 

And customers are getting their share as well. Better cameras. Smaller kits [if and when desired]. Got big hands? Want a chunky camera? Just put a [battery] grip on your camera and you're set.

As far as solid state: as soon as we have [good, FF-size] sensors with global shutter, camera body will be 100% mechanics free. Except for the actuator wheels and function buttons. 

Lenses ... aperture iris/diaphragm will stay for a while. But eventually it will give way to some electro-transmissive screen with a perfectly circular, variable size aperture hole. Sun stars may be added in software then. Bye, bye 20th century.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...there is zero space savings to pursue a tiny grip and doing so would reduce battery real estate. There is no reason not to go big and chunky here.
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> nobody will have to "walk away" from Canon EF lenses. They will all remain functional. Just as today on EOS M / EF-M mount with help a little adapter.



Adaptors are not migration. You wanted to 'do another FD-EF migration' which implies building a ton of new lenses for mirrorless. That is a bad idea for Canon, for photographers already invested in EF, etc.



AvTvM said:


> Canon will use this chance to sell the next 150 million lenses. it will work much faster with a new mount and new lenses rather than trying to sell only slightly improved versions of previous EF lenses.



So making new mounts makes lenses faster. _Do go on._ So is it more power to the AF that will crush the battery even faster, or will the mount actually change the laws of physics and make the max aperture even faster?



AvTvM said:


> And customers are getting their share as well. Better cameras. Smaller kits [if and when desired]. Got big hands? Want a chunky camera? Just put a [battery] grip on your camera and you're set.



1) Smaller is lovely for those that want it. *You don't need to migrate the entire EF --> new mount to enjoy a smaller rig*. You just need a handful of smaller mount lenses.

2) Handgrip and a vertical grip are two very different things. A beefier handgrip is great, but for many, a vertical grip is not -- that forces us into larger/different bags. And yes, there are low-profile tripod-mount-threaded beefier grips for mirrorless rigs, but you're stuck with a much smaller battery than if the bigger grip was simply integral. Enjoy your smaller footprint rig for the time you are using the 1-2 pancakes that are offered, but your grip and battery life will suffer for everything else.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> nobody will have to "walk away" from Canon EF lenses. They will all remain functional. Just as today on EOS M / EF-M mount with help a little adapter.



If Canon stops making EF lenses but continues making EF-mount dSLRs, that's "walking away". It means new bodies, no new lenses for dSLRs. I'm sure that dumber ideas have been suggested on the internet...but not many.

Regardless, it's clear from the dramatic rate of increase in the global MILC market that Canon will be jumping whole hog into MILC bodies and lenses and abandoning the dSLR market very soon. Why, just look at those dramatic increases in the MILC market over the last several years... : : :


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Moving to mirrorless *is* a major upgrade compared to mirrorslappers.
> 
> When done right, only mirrorless offers all of the following. DSLRs do not.
> * seeing image as it will be recorded by camera [EVFs will soon be so stunningly good, most of us will never want to use an OVF again]
> ...



You could equally state:

Moving to dslr *is* a major upgrade compared with mirrorless.

You could then list the reasons. I'm not going to because you know perfectly well what they are, and I don't have a degree in the Bleeding Obvious. 

I have both mirrorless and dslr. I do like the former but mainly because it is so small and light. If I could only have one, at the present time, I would choose the dslr.

One is not overwhelmingly better than the other in every way. it really is personal preference at present, and from my experience so far Canon is on the money in following the "mirrorless is about small" philosophy.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> I have both mirrorless and dslr. I do like the former but *mainly because it is so small and light*. If I could only have one, at the present time, I would choose the dslr.



Same here! I also have a mirrorless camera and a DSLR ... both Canon of course, EOS M (1st gen) and 5D3. 
BUT ... if I could only have one, I would take the mirrorless system, *because it is so small and light*. 

27% of camera buyers in 2016 took the same choice, even if it meant, they had to buy a skinny EOS M, Oly, Fuji, Panasonic or worst of all, a Sony mirrorless camera ... instead of a lovely, wonderful, well-rounded Canon mirrorslapper with a chunky body and a chunky grip. ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I have both mirrorless and dslr. I do like the former but *mainly because it is so small and light*. If I could only have one, at the present time, I would choose the dslr.
> ...



You can buy a Pentax KP dslr now without a chunky grip !


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> You can buy a Pentax KP dslr now without a chunky grip !



If I want it chunky, I take a Fuji GFX 50S. without da mirror, of course.  ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 3, 2017)

AvTvM tactics: make a totally unsubstantiated claim that Canon will introduce a new camera mount to go with FF mirrorless. And when people explain how uneconomic that is, don't bother defending the original statement but claim instead that they are saying mirrorless will not happen at all and argue why mirrorless as a genre is a good idea.

Problem is, no-one is arguing the latter point.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM tactics: make a totally unsubstantiated claim that Canon will introduce a new camera mount to go with FF mirrorless. And when people explain how uneconomic that is, don't bother defending the original statement but claim instead that they are saying mirrorless will not happen at all and argue why mirrorless as a genre is a good idea.
> 
> Problem is, no-one is arguing the latter point.



Mike, in fairness to AvTvM, a new mount for FF mirrorless could conceivably happen. I think it's a 50-50 call despite what a forum full of FF SLR owners with a boatload of EF glass has to say about it.

And I agree with AvTvM that mirrorless (eventually) will take over the majority the SLR market. It's inevitable for a host of reasons, though I think the highest-end SLRs will always remain.

I just disagree that EF will go bye-bye in the near, mid, long-term. *That* is not happening. 

- A


----------



## GaabNZ (Feb 3, 2017)

I brought the Sony A7mkii last year and kept my Canon 6D for a couple of months to make sure I liked it.

I sold the 6D and am shooting the Sony all the time now. I'm only a hobbyist photographer, but I love the Sony and some of the features it has over the 6D.

I'm still shooting with my Canon glass and have brought a couple of very cheap Minolta lenses and a couple of native Sony lenses.

I recently upgraded my EF adapter to the Sigma MC11 and am now getting much better AF with my Canon glass.

I will be very interested to see what the 6D mkii is like with or without a mirror. I had a lot of fun and took some great shots with my 6D and learnt a lot about photography. 

For me, I don't regret moving to the Sony, but I would never say I wouldn't go back if the camera suited what I wanted it for.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Mike, in fairness to AvTvM, a new mount for FF mirrorless could conceivably happen. I think it's a 50-50 call despite what a forum full of FF SLR owners with a boatload of EF glass has to say about it.
> 
> And I agree with AvTvM that mirrorless (eventually) will take over the majority the SLR market. It's inevitable for a host of reasons, though I think the highest-end SLRs will always remain.
> 
> ...



It does also come down to exactly what you mean by mirrorless and AvTvM and many others on the net seem of the view that this MUST mean a new lens mount where as personally I think this is much more questionable. When you talk of mirrorless as a shift forward in tech similar to the shift to digital and then you reduce it to "the lens must be close to the sensor" it really doesn't sound so revolutionary does it?

The Pentax K-01 will probably be mentioned by someone but again I think APSC is a very different kettle of fish to FF. The K-01 was targeting the ultra compact APSC mirrorless market that's made possible by the smaller lenses and indeed by users being happier with fewer controls.

FF mirrorless with a DSLR mount is I think a very different proposition, lens size and demand for more controls/grip mean that FF mirrorless is simply not aiming at the ultra small size APSC mirrorless does and the larger flange distance seems to very often result in shorter lenses as well.

Where I think FF mirrorless scores most with size saving isn't actually the flange distance reduction but rather the removal of the mirror, prism and AF sensor as the larger the format becomes the larger they become. You compare the Sony A7 system to a 6D with similar lenses and the size saving is mostly not in depth but rather in the weight/bulk/height of the body.

So you could have an EF mount mirrorless and still enjoy these advantages whilst not having to develop a new lens lineup.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 5, 2017)

It seems that a large number of Sony A7 users are using an adapter and their Canon and other brand lenses. So, the saving in size with a shorter flange distance is negated - and not an issue or consideration. As other have mentioned, it is the width and height (and perhaps most importantly, the weight savings) that are more important for those wanting a smaller FF camera. And wanting a smaller FF camera does not mean it has to be as small as an MFT or crop mirrorless. Just smaller than the current 6D. That is what I would be looking for.

Since users of the Sony models seem happy with using an adapter, Canon should pay attention. The camera can still be smaller where it counts, but without the problems the smaller flange distance creates. Therefore it seems a no-brainer for Canon to stay with the EF mount if they decide to go FF mirrorless.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 5, 2017)

dak723 said:


> It seems that a large number of Sony A7 users are using an adapter and their Canon and other brand lenses. So, the saving in size with a shorter flange distance is negated - and not an issue or consideration. As other have mentioned, it is the width and height (and perhaps most importantly, the weight savings) that are more important for those wanting a smaller FF camera. And wanting a smaller FF camera does not mean it has to be as small as an MFT or crop mirrorless. Just smaller than the current 6D. That is what I would be looking for.
> 
> Since users of the Sony models seem happy with using an adapter, Canon should pay attention. The camera can still be smaller where it counts, but without the problems the smaller flange distance creates. Therefore it seems a no-brainer for Canon to stay with the EF mount if they decide to go mirrorless.



Which begs the question, if they are happy putting their 70-200 on the Sony body, how much size/weight are they actually saving percentage wise? For example, the difference in the bag you need will be minimal to negligible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Which begs the question, if they are happy putting their 70-200 on the Sony body, how much size/weight are they actually saving percentage wise? For example, the difference in the bag you need will be minimal to negligible.



Or maybe you'll need a bigger bag for all the extra batteries.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 6, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Which begs the question, if they are happy putting their 70-200 on the Sony body, how much size/weight are they actually saving percentage wise? For example, the difference in the bag you need will be minimal to negligible.



Mike: thing is: many [most?] photographers do NOT want to put a 70-200 on a slim MILC body *all the time* or *most of the time*. Many [the large majority?] never use large lenses, because their imaging wants and needs do not neccessitate it. 

Slim camera allow for both: big kit when big lenses are needed and small kit with small lenses when those are sufficient and better for the task at hand. 

As non-Pro ["amateur/enthusiast"] I would like to have one camera system only. Not only for budget reasons, but even more so to be "totally familiar" with camera UI, able to operate it "blind". For great IQ and shallow DOF when needed, I'd like an FF sensor. Overall he system should be as universally capable as possible [stills only, no video] *and* as small & light as possible. 

While I do own and sometimes (!) use an EF 70-200 II on my 5D3, more often than not I leave it at home, simply because it is too big, heavy and conspicuous to take along and just go with my 1st gen EOS M plus EF-M 55-200. Of course one is FF plus f/2.8 and the other is crop sensor plus "dark-zoom", but more often than not it suffices *for what I want to do*. 

My ideal FF MILC would come in size and form factor like a Sony RX-1R Mk. II [with Pop-up EVF], but of course with a lens mount up front. I'd much prefer it to be Canon - both for User Interface and lenses. And yes, I'd be willing to re-purchase my lenses one more time [after EF-S, EF and EF-M] over time, if Canon launches such a mirrorless FF camera system with a new native "no comprise" FF-capable lens mount.

I am one, but surely not the only one with this "wishlist".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Which begs the question, if they are happy putting their 70-200 on the Sony body, how much size/weight are they actually saving percentage wise? For example, the difference in the bag you need will be minimal to negligible.
> ...



AvTvM, meet reality...it seems the two of you have never been properly introduced. 

Thing is: the large majority of photographers never use large lenses, because their financial wants and needs do not enable them to afford such lenses. For the same reason, the large majority of photographers do not use full frame cameras. 

But...once you look as that minority of photographers with FF cameras, the proportion who use large lenses goes way up. On a FF MILC, even a 24-105/4 is ungainly. I highly doubt a majority of FF users would be willing to have a wide/normal prime as their main lens, or a zoom small enough to work well ergonomically on a small body, e.g. a 28-80 f/4-5.6 lens. That's why a full native EF mount actually makes sense for a Canon FF MILC. 




AvTvM said:


> My ideal FF MILC would come in size and form factor like a Sony RX-1R Mk. II [with Pop-up EVF], but of course with a lens mount up front. I'd much prefer it to be Canon - both for User Interface and lenses. And yes, I'd be willing to re-purchase my lenses one more time [after EF-S, EF and EF-M] over time, if Canon launches such a mirrorless FF camera system with a new native "no comprise" FF-capable lens mount.
> 
> I am one, but surely not the only one with this "wishlist".



No, you're not the only one. Just part of a small minority of the market. Yet somehow you persist in the unrealistic expectation that Canon will cater to your specific niche wants, as opposed to the majority needs.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 6, 2017)

Well, I would be very happy with FF MILC sized similar to Sony RX-1R II. With properly chosen mount parameters I can well see a more compact native 24-70/4.0 that would suit me - in addition to ultracompact 18/4, 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8 and 85/2.4 primes. 

The rest will be done with larger lenses, but only the remaining 10% of my photography. 

I do not believe this wishlist caters only to a *small minority* of the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I do not believe this wishlist caters only to a *small minority* of the market.



Of course you don't. :


----------



## GHPhotography (Feb 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Well, I would be very happy with FF MILC sized similar to Sony RX-1R II. With properly chosen mount parameters I can well see a more compact native 24-70/4.0 that would suit me - in addition to ultracompact 18/4, 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8 and 85/2.4 primes.
> 
> The rest will be done with larger lenses, but only the remaining 10% of my photography.
> 
> I do not believe this wishlist caters only to a *small minority* of the market.



None of the lenses you propose are interesting to me as they are all slower than the primes or zoom I currently have. Why would I want to give up anywhere from 1-2 stops of light simply to have smaller lenses? Not to mention that many of the primes are as big as they are due to their optical formulae. You seem to be okay with large IQ hits in order to have a lighter kit. I can completely understand that from an enthusiast point of view, but what you are asking is for canon to essentially give up on the EF line in order to retool their R&D to focus on creating gear that, quite frankly, most professionals don't want and wouldn't use. 

If you want canon to shift into the mirrorless realm full time (again not something that I see many pros clamoring for) you need them to make pro-usable glass. That means primes at f/1.2-2, zooms at f/2.8, and very little distortion/fringing. That requires big and heavy pieces of glass/elements and the space to make the optical formula fit. All of that equals big and heavy lenses, which negates most of the benefit of your tiny mirrorless body.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Feb 6, 2017)

I think a very strong case can be made for canon dropping the EF mount for a futur full frame mirrorless system.

First of all.They dropped the EF-S mount for there mirrorless crop cameras. There current lineup of EF-S lenses is of course smaller then the lineup of EF lenses, and most crop shooters might not have invested as much money in to the EF-S system as the professional Full frame user has for the EF. Therefor making the alianation factor of introducing a new mount much smaller. However the fact that they were willing to use a new mount, shows precedence on the part of canon. What further diminishes the alienation factor, is that adapters are available, so that old EF and EF-S lenses don´t become obsolete.

Second. We must assume that canon is in the camera business for the long haul, and will want to make cameras for the foreseeable futur. I think most people would also agree that mirrorless is the futur, though it might not be on par with SLRs on all parameters yet it will in the end surpass them. 
It might be tempthing in the short term, for canon to stay with the EF mount, for futur FF mirrorless cameras, as not to alienate customers who have invested large sums of money in to EF glass. However the EF mount, with its long flange distance, is not the optimal way to design a mirrorless camera. Staying with the EF mount would thus, in the long term, put canon at a disadvantage to other manufactures who did not have the legacy af a SLR system to take in to account, when designing there mirrorless system and thus would not have the long EF flange distance.
I basically think that it will be in canons best long term interest, to make a possible full frame mirrorless system as futurprof, versatile and competivtiv as possible. I dont think the EF mount fits that description.

And just to repeat my self, a adabter from EF to at new shorter flange distance mount will of course be available. Though this is not the optimal way to use your lenses, it will keep them from going obsolete when making the transition to mirrorless. 

On the argument that canon will have to redesign their entire lens lineup. Well they are continuously doing this anyway. Older EF designs are constantly being replaced by newer and better designs. They might have to speed this up a bit for the transition, but I am sure they can manage, and in the meantime we can use adabters.

In regards to the hole aliantaion thing. From my perspective, canon does not seem to care much about this, or maybe they just dont know how to handle it. I think it is very likely that canon does not see it as a problem, that they have to redesign there lineup of lenses. Rather they might see it as a chance to sell a bunch of new lenses. 
It might not be a 1 to 1 comparison, but when flat screens replaced tube-TVs, i dont think the TV manufactors saw it as a problem having to redesign there lineup of TVs. I think they saw it as a chance to make money.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 6, 2017)

Frederik_Bo said:


> I think a very strong case can be made for canon dropping the EF mount for a futur full frame mirrorless system.
> 
> First of all.They dropped the EF-S mount for there mirrorless crop cameras. There current lineup of EF-S lenses is of course smaller then the lineup of EF lenses, and most crop shooters might not have invested as much money in to the EF-S system as the professional Full frame user has for the EF. Therefor making the alianation factor of introducing a new mount much smaller. However the fact that they were willing to use a new mount, shows precedence on the part of canon. What further diminishes the alienation factor, is that adapters are available, so that old EF and EF-S lenses don´t become obsolete.
> 
> ...


So many people associate mirrorless with making the body as small as possible, but this does not answer the very basic question of ergonomics. Where do you put the controls and shoulder displays in order to make them useful? The current shape/size has evolved to where it is now due to ergonomics, because that is what works for most people. 

Yes, you could make the body smaller, but in doing so you end up having to bend the light more sharply in your lenses, and that leads to problems with chromatic aberration......

Yes, you could make the body smaller, but now the light hitting the corners of the sensor is at a greater angle and that leads to more vignetting....

Yes, you can make the body smaller, but you are not going to gain any appreciable size savings with long lenses...

In general, people buy FF for image quality and get big/fast lenses to deal with difficult lighting and shooting conditions. These are not the people worried about size. For those who really want a small DSLR, the path is towards an M camera (or a micro 4/3) and slow lenses.....


----------



## GHPhotography (Feb 6, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> So many people associate mirrorless with making the body as small as possible, but this does not answer the very basic question of ergonomics. Where do you put the controls and shoulder displays in order to make them useful? The current shape/size has evolved to where it is now due to ergonomics, because that is what works for most people.
> 
> Yes, you could make the body smaller, but in doing so you end up having to bend the light more sharply in your lenses, and that leads to problems with chromatic aberration......
> 
> ...



This, to me, is similar to what has happened with cell phones. People used to be all about having the smallest phone or the thinnest phone possible. That phase quickly died out when people realized that usability is far more important that simple size stats. Mirrorless cameras are reaching the point of no return in size- any smaller and usability suffers greatly. The SL1 is almost too small for me to use, that is exacerbated when I hang high quality glass off the end. 

Canon has, thankfully, not really taken part is the size wars for mirrorless cameras. Perhaps they will eventually build a mirrorless only line of lenses designed for full frame sensors, but they shouldn't focus on it right now. Instead they should focus on highlighting the inherent qualities of mirrorless in body and the high quality glass that they currently have on offer. 

People also seem to forget why canon abandoned the FD mount in the first place- autofocus. Unless an mirrorless mount provides some great technological advantage (size is NOT the answer here) it makes no sense for canon to dedicate the resources to making a new mount AND new optical formulae.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Feb 6, 2017)

> So many people associate mirrorless with making the body as small as possible, but this does not answer the very basic question of ergonomics. Where do you put the controls and shoulder displays in order to make them useful? The current shape/size has evolved to where it is now due to ergonomics, because that is what works for most people.



Well I never really brought up size directly in my post. I did of course bring up flange distance and how a shorter flange distance would be better. However there really is no reason why you should not be able to make a camera that retains the size and ergonomics of current DSLRs and at the same time has the shorter flange distance. I would argue that a Leica SL is close to the size of current DSLRs although ergonomically very different. So if the market really wants large DSLRs (though i personally doubt that is what the majority wants) there is nothing to hinter that.
You might ask then, what would be the point in switching from EF to a shorter flange distance mount if you ar going to make big cameras anyway?
The anser is versatility. With a short flange distance mount you would be able to make full frame cameras of all sizes. You could have full frame cameras as small as the EOS M10 and as large as the EOS 1D, all using the same lenses. Where as if you stick to the EF mount, you are much more limited in what kind of cameras you can make.
Further more, it seams most logical to have a lens mount that from the get go, is designed for the kind of cameras that you are making. In this case, mirrorless.



> Yes, you could make the body smaller, but in doing so you end up having to bend the light more sharply in your lenses, and that leads to problems with chromatic aberration......
> 
> Yes, you could make the body smaller, but now the light hitting the corners of the sensor is at a greater angle and that leads to more vignetting....



Now I am not an optical engineer, but with regards to the chromatic aberration and vignetting. I would be guessing that these are problems that can be solved. Just from looking at history, there are tons of examples of rangefinders with short flange distances. Leica is still during this and everyboddy praises the quality of Leica optics. Now I am aware that non of the Leica M lenses are super wide. However it shows that short flange distances have been don in full frame, for decades with great success. It is really only with the introduction of digital and the demise of 35 mm that it has gone out af vogue.

There seems to be a pretty easy fix for the problem with the chromatic abberation and vingetting of wide-angle lenses on short flange distance bodies. If we imagine that we take a current EF mount wideangle lens, that performs up to our standards, and add an adapter for our new mirrorless mount. The lens should preform as well as on any EF mount camera, given that the adapter is of high enough quality. It would after all just be an extension tube the size of a mirrorbox. 
There is no reason that you could not incorporate this extension tube in to the design of a new wideangle lens for a mirrorless camera. wula problem solved 



> Yes, you can make the body smaller, but you are not going to gain any appreciable size savings with long lenses..



I think this is a very valid critic of mirrorless and it ties in to my solution for wideangle lenses. every cm you cut of the body, you add to the lens in order to retain the same focal length. Very well illustrated by this picture:





And what would you rather? Carry on big camera and a lot of small lenses or the other way around. Defiantly talks against mirrorless. But then again it is definitely possible to make vastly different size lenses of the same focal length as illustrated by these to images:











So really lens size must to a large extent be a question of what is prioritized when designing set lens. Who is to say, that enginers wont be able to design futur lenses that are both smaller, sharper, faster and has the feauters we want.



> In general, people buy FF for image quality and get big/fast lenses to deal with difficult lighting and shooting conditions. These are not the people worried about size. For those who really want a small DSLR, the path is towards an M camera (or a micro 4/3) and slow lenses.....



This might be the truth for now. But will this also be the case in in the futur as the prices of sensors goes down?


----------



## dak723 (Feb 6, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> In general, people buy FF for image quality and get big/fast lenses to deal with difficult lighting and shooting conditions. These are not the people worried about size. For those who really want a small DSLR, the path is towards an M camera (or a micro 4/3) and slow lenses.....



I agree and not sure why others don't get this. People do not want to spend more money for an FF camera that gives them the lesser IQ if the flange distance is too short, and slower lenses that would be required is you want really small size. If you want really small, Canon now offers the M5 - and you still get a APS-C size sensor which is good enough for the vast majority of users. You can still make FF mirrorless smaller (and perhaps more importantly, lighter) than a FF DSLR while still large enough for the buttons and ergonomics.


----------



## slclick (Feb 6, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > In general, people buy FF for image quality and get big/fast lenses to deal with difficult lighting and shooting conditions. These are not the people worried about size. For those who really want a small DSLR, the path is towards an M camera (or a micro 4/3) and slow lenses.....
> ...



Folks love to disregard logic and physics by thinking it's 2017, we should have this already! You can call names (mirrorslapper, stupid etc) all you want but that doesn't change optical formulas and costs. Large body and lens gives a wider group of options. Small body and or lens means you are limited to styles, light gathering, ergonomic balance and lens/body compatibility. I for one am partial (even though I shoot with a 5 Series body) to mid sized cameras such as the M5, 80D, etc and look forward to where those bodies will evolve.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2017)

dak723 said:


> I agree and not sure why others don't get this. People do not want to spend more money for an FF camera that gives them the lesser IQ if the flange distance is too short, and slower lenses that would be required is you want really small size. If you want really small, Canon now offers the M5 - and you still get a APS-C size sensor which is good enough for the vast majority of users. You can still make FF mirrorless smaller (and perhaps more importantly, lighter) than a FF DSLR while still large enough for the buttons and ergonomics.



I generally am pro 'Team large grip / 5d-ish body / EF mount' for mirrorless, but I'm not opposed to dropping one stop to get things smaller with mirrorless. f/2 primes are A-okay in my book.

In that 24-50mm FF range, one cannot deny f/2-ish primes with mirrorless are a really nice size savings (pic below is a 28 f/1.7, 35 f/2 and 35 f/2). But that's it -- it's really an academic distinction when you go longer or faster than 50mm or f/2.

That said, people will 100% put f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms on these things on day one, and Canon should plan accordingly for that -- especially with the grip. 

- A

I lined everything up on their LCDs for best comparison (CS tends to get pushed around by eye pieces), hence the PS surgery -- no scaling was applied.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2017)

slclick said:


> Folks love to disregard logic and physics by thinking it's 2017, we should have this already! You can call names (mirrorslapper, stupid etc) all you want but that doesn't change optical formulas and costs. Large body and lens gives a wider group of options.



Agree of course, but that unreasonable demand for [huge sensor] + [tiny lenses] will endure. People are always looking to miniaturize tech.

I'm honestly waiting for people buying in to one of the two new 'medium format' mirrorless rigs to start asking for f/8 max aperture sort-of-pancakes to create an MF rig that's smaller than their FF SLR setup. ;D

- A


----------



## GaabNZ (Feb 6, 2017)

dak723 said:


> It seems that a large number of Sony A7 users are using an adapter and their Canon and other brand lenses. So, the saving in size with a shorter flange distance is negated - and not an issue or consideration. As other have mentioned, it is the width and height (and perhaps most importantly, the weight savings) that are more important for those wanting a smaller FF camera. And wanting a smaller FF camera does not mean it has to be as small as an MFT or crop mirrorless. Just smaller than the current 6D. That is what I would be looking for.
> 
> Since users of the Sony models seem happy with using an adapter, Canon should pay attention. The camera can still be smaller where it counts, but without the problems the smaller flange distance creates. Therefore it seems a no-brainer for Canon to stay with the EF mount if they decide to go FF mirrorless.



To be honest using Canon lenses on my Sony is more a case of I have the lenses and can't afford to swap to fully native lenses. With the new MC11 adapter I got last week the performance of the Canon lenses has improved. 

It's also worth keeping my Canon lenses in case I came back to the 6Dmkii as well


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 7, 2017)

GaabNZ said:


> To be honest using Canon lenses on my Sony is more a case of I have the lenses and can't afford to swap to fully native lenses. With the new MC11 adapter I got last week the performance of the Canon lenses has improved.
> 
> It's also worth keeping my Canon lenses in case I came back to the 6Dmkii as well



exactly!

of course Canon can offer new mount mirrorless FF lenses in many flavors, just like EF glass today. a series of very compact moderately fast primes (f/1.8-2.8) and zooms (f/4,5.6) in the focal length range that allows for size savings. and faster, larger primes and zooms for those who need and want them. and slim cameras as well as cameras with larger grip. all based on one native mount.

mirrorless offers a huge bundle of advantages over mirrorslappers, making the transition fully worthwhile.
less size/weight for many kits and tasks (not all)
EVF to see how image will be recorded
absolutely no vibration (with global shutter)
no noise (with global shutter)
significantly lower production cost - with potential for lower prices (if customers force manufacturers to share some of the cost savings)
combined, these advantages are easily as valuable and desirable as the transition from manual to automatic focussing was, when canon ditched FD mount in favor of future-oriented EF mount.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 7, 2017)

Frederik_Bo said:


> Second. We must assume that canon is in the camera business for the long haul, and will want to make cameras for the foreseeable futur.



And that is the gamble that many armchair experts forget - it is no point in gong for the future if the company doesn't exist to sell the products. The cost of failure of a new mount would be immense especially in a contracting market and one in which Canon's market share _is increasing_ despite the increasing number of mirrorless models available. As an executive what does that tell you? It tells you that what you are doing is working. 
Canon have a long history of listening to professionals and working out what they need to make their life easier and better and they will be fully aware of the comments about corner quality on the Sony range that are attributable to the short flange distance. Can you imagine the furore if they scrapped the EF mount for a new mirrorless and said "I know it is softer in the corners but you save a few millimetres on size and 30 grammes on weight". Cue a massive shift to Nikon. 
With any company the mantra is "Ignore your core clientele at your peril" and for Canon their core clientele is their professionals whose lenses are seen lining sports stadia, and out in the field taking landscape or in the studio taking portraits. They are Canon's advertisement and if those professionals start to feel Canon is not listening to them and are instead pandering to techno-geeks Canon is bust. Now that _is_ dumb.

Will Canon ever create a new mount? They may well do. But introducing one for the simple reason of making a slightly smaller camera to please a small segment of the market ain't it.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> GaabNZ said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest using Canon lenses on my Sony is more a case of I have the lenses and can't afford to swap to fully native lenses. With the new MC11 adapter I got last week the performance of the Canon lenses has improved.
> ...


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Feb 7, 2017)

> Quote from: Frederik_Bo on February 06, 2017, 12:03:18 PM
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You make it sound as if the switch from EF to a new mount would be overnight, but I could never see it happening that way. It would happen over a long period of time, maybe upwards of 10 years until EF was finally phased out. The new mount, would be introduced on the new mirrorless cameras, along side EF mount DSLRs. Just like the way sony is still making translusent mirror cameras even though they are clearly betting on mirrorless. Sony has no great SLR heritage and they are still making it a gradual transition. 
Canon is a lot slower out the door then sony, but i bet, that in the end they will follow a similar path. Canon shooters will slowly migrates away from DSLRs and the EF mount will die along with the DSLR. I don't think it will be that painful. Of cause there will be a minority in the end, that will have to be pushed from DSLRs to mirrorless. Just like there were people that were pushed in to digital, when canon ceased production of there last film camera.




> Can you imagine the furore if they scrapped the EF mount for a new mirrorless and said "I know it is softer in the corners but you save a few millimetres on size and 30 grammes on weight". Cue a massive shift to Nikon.



Well this really is not a good argument. If people switch to Nikon, then they will definitely have to bye all new lenses. If people switch to a new mirrorless canon mount, they can make do with a adapter in the short term. 

In regards to softness in the corners, i think i made a very compelling argument, in my last post, that this problem can be overcome. 

In the end the argument for a new mount goes like this. If you were to design a new Mirrorless camera from scratch, you would definitely design it with a short flange distance. That is what all manufactures, that i am aware of have don. Fuji, has don this in both there crop and medium format line, Panasonic, olympus and sony has don so. Even canon has don this with there crop mirrorless cameras.

If you want to make the best possible mirrorless camera, short flange distance is clearly the way to go. And i do believe that canon will want to do just that.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 7, 2017)

Frederik_Bo said:


> > Can you imagine the furore if they scrapped the EF mount for a new mirrorless and said "I know it is softer in the corners but you save a few millimetres on size and 30 grammes on weight". Cue a massive shift to Nikon.
> 
> 
> 
> Well this really is not a good argument. If people switch to Nikon, then they will definitely have to bye all new lenses.


_
...unless Nikon sticks with the full F mount for their design to scoop up Canon pros._

It amazes me the blinders both sides have on that their respective predictions may not come to pass. 

The 'Mirrorless is small (whether you like it or not)' camp cannot conceive of Canon sticking with full EF despite a mountain of pratical arguments for it -- some arguments only benefit a Canon superfan, while many others (look at Sony's painful climb up the mountain again with new lenses, the epic financial albatross of replacing all of EF) are very real market considerations.

The 'It's EF or bust' camp can't imagine why Canon would sell the future FF platform of the future without making it perfectly seamless for current FF users.

I can honestly see Canon going either way or possibly doing both: offer the skinny mount and a handful of smaller/slower mirrorless-only lenses and offer a full EF mount mirrorless (perhaps not right away) so that pros working a wedding / event can have a second body that operates identically to their first.

- A


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Feb 7, 2017)

> Quote from: Frederik_Bo on Today at 09:17:42 AM
> 
> 
> > Can you imagine the furore if they scrapped the EF mount for a new mirrorless and said "I know it is softer in the corners but you save a few millimetres on size and 30 grammes on weight". Cue a massive shift to Nikon.
> ...



What how? If people shooting Canon switch to Nikon, they will have to buy new lenses. No real way around that.


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 7, 2017)

Who knows what the future will bring.
If Canon was a small company it could keep doing what it's doing making mainly mirrored cameras to a high standard and robustness backed up by a long line of excellent lens.
I assume Canon like most entreprises wants to continue to grow. You won't continue to grow if you keep making the products you are making now. You have to make them "better" in the eyes of the consumer.
As Canon are making very good cameras they are limited in how they can make them even better.
They could make/use better sensors. - Mirrorless not required
They can improve their autofocus systems and low light performance - Mirrorless not required
They can improve their range of lens - Mirrorless not required
It could improve the video on the camera - Mirrorless not required.
They can improve their frame rate - Mirrorless may be required. I assume it tops out at <20 FPS with a mirror
They can make their cameras smaller - Mirrorless may be required to do this. It would certainly help.

I think Canon realise themselves they have to put some bet on Mirrorless in case they get left behind.
They have this dilemma of changing the mount or not.
Changing the mount probably would improve the mirrorless camera but gradually (if mirrorless comes dominant) obsolete their customers expensive lens (but I assume will come up with an adapter to circumvent this).
Keeping the mount might mean Canon not building the optimal full frame mirrorless camera. If they are not going to build a camera to compete they shouldn't build one at all.

If I were Canon I'd gamble on making a mirrorless Medium Format camera with the same footprint size as a 5DIV. This would be a new mount and new lens and new sensors but a desirable product. One that would keep inspiring Canon customers to buy the cheaper range of cameras. If I were Canon I start with a small range of brilliant primes and work from there. People buy Canon for different reasons but seeing the big whites at the world cup or Olympics or the Superbowl attracts alot of people to the brand. Having a super premium range is important, even one with prices unattainable for most people. I think Canon need to keep creating levels above us that we want or it will gradually fade away like a Nokia.


----------



## slclick (Feb 7, 2017)

Frederik_Bo said:


> > Quote from: Frederik_Bo on Today at 09:17:42 AM
> >
> >
> > > Can you imagine the furore if they scrapped the EF mount for a new mirrorless and said "I know it is softer in the corners but you save a few millimetres on size and 30 grammes on weight". Cue a massive shift to Nikon.
> ...



And switching is so Canon Rumor Forum talk 2015. I mean really, we had a good thing going on switching for a while and that dust has settled hasn't it?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 7, 2017)

slclick said:


> And switching is so Canon Rumor Forum talk 2015. I mean really, we had a good thing going on switching for a while and that dust has settled hasn't it?



That's the unspoken wildcard with a thin mount FF mirrorless -- you can adapt other glass. 

I've pretty consistently flagged it as a fun tool for the retro shooter, the yard sale old lens collector, someone breathing new life into FD glass, etc. but it's also a chance for more traditional modern-day folks to try another company's _current_ generation lenses out.

There are a number of people on this forum that would love to try out the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8, 105mm f/1.4, or might like a 50-ish prime that _doesn't_ have a focusing quirk or capture blurry clouds in the corners :. On top of that, viewfinder-based focus peaking on mirroress is a huge opportunity for Canonites to try out manual Zeiss lenses in longer FLs, not just for landscapes in LiveView, etc.

So Canon won't build it's business FF mirrorless mount decision around retrofitting non-Canon glass, but going thin does have upsides for us other than 'to be smaller'.

- A


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Feb 7, 2017)

> And switching is so Canon Rumor Forum talk 2015. I mean really, we had a good thing going on switching for a while and that dust has settled hasn't it?



Well I am new to posting here, so missed the 2015 discussion


----------



## -1 (Feb 7, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Will Canon ever create a new mount? They may well do. But introducing one for the simple reason of making a slightly smaller camera to please a small segment of the market ain't it.



There is no need for Canon to create a new MILC mount. The EF-M mount can accommodate FF optics and sensors well and it's nearly identical to the Sony E-Mount in both flange and diameter...

The M6 could be a FF MILK in the M5s formfactor.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 7, 2017)

-1 said:


> The M6 could be a FF MILK in the M5s formfactor.



The EF-M can theoretically support FF glass, but there is *zero* chance the M6 is FF in an M5 form factor.

1) Branding would be a nightmare as M6 as you'd have crop on either side of that 6 number. Why would 6 be a logical identifier for FF? I'd see a new brand name/level altogether for FF mirrorless, perhaps EOS 5DM or 6DM (if highly based on a current FF SLR body design), EOS X (if not), etc. 

2) Canon would make a HUGE deal about their first FF mirrorless rig. Huge, I say. No chance this would be lumped in with two other major releases like the Rebel refresh, the 6D2, etc. I'd see the first mirrorless FF rig getting an open 3-6 months of no other Canon releases adjacent to it to make it Canon's sole message / focus over that time. 

3) If they crammed a FF sensor into such a tiny (M5-like) body, it would have to be terribly nerfed feature-wise as there wouldn't be room for larger buffer, second DIGIC chip, standalone metering chip, all the I/O connections, etc. Controls and ergonomics would also suffer -- no room for FF expectations of buttons/wheels and the tiny grip would suffer with larger FF lenses. And _heaven help the battery_ given that the FF internals are larger than crop internals due to sensor size. So cramming an FF rig into that tiny setup would look unbelievably sexy (read: RX1R like) but would have underwhelming performance.

- A


----------



## slclick (Feb 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > The M6 could be a FF MILK in the M5s formfactor.
> ...



+1 ...and there goes the smallish form factor that everyone is also clamoring on about needing. Yeah, it has to be a big deal, not part of the misfit lineup and branding the M series is.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 7, 2017)

slclick said:


> +1 ...and there goes the smallish form factor that everyone is also clamoring on about needing. Yeah, it has to be a big deal, not part of the misfit lineup and branding the M series is.



We've been obsessed about will they / won't they 'go thin' with the FF mirrorless mount in this very thread (and 20 others) and I don't intend to re-litigate that here.

But a small _height and width_ (i.e. the back / LCD view of the camera) for FF mirrorless makes next to zero sense. IMHO, the number of people that would be delighted with a diminutive SL1 / M5 sort of body for an FF rig pales in comparison to the number of people who'd skip it altogether as a big step away from the 5-series ergonomics they love.

I'm not saying the height/width of a future FF mirrorless will be the _same_ as the 5D, but I think it will be much closer to the 5D than to the M5 for more reasons than I can count.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Feb 7, 2017)

GHPhotography said:


> People also seem to forget why canon abandoned the FD mount in the first place- autofocus. Unless an mirrorless mount provides some great technological advantage (size is NOT the answer here) it makes no sense for canon to dedicate the resources to making a new mount AND new optical formulae.



+1


----------



## -1 (Feb 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > The M6 could be a FF MILK in the M5s formfactor.
> ...



Well they could use the EF-M mount in a mirror less 1D too. ) Nikon have a less generous diameter in the F-Mount:

Sony E 18 mm APS-C and 35 mm 46.1 mm (1.815 inch) Bayonet Still (Digital) Sony Alpha NEX
Canon EF-M 18 mm APS-C 47 mm Bayonet Still (Digital) Canon EOS M

Nikon F 46.5 mm 35 mm 44 mm Bayonet Still

More at WikiPedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount#List_of_lens_mounts


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2017)

:


----------



## dak723 (Feb 7, 2017)

-1 said:


> There is no need for Canon to create a new MILC mount. The EF-M mount can accommodate FF optics and sensors well and it's nearly identical to the Sony E-Mount in both flange and diameter...



Which is exactly why they shouldn't....

https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
http://ilovehatephoto.com/2015/02/23/3-detailed-reasons-not-to-switch-to-sony-full-frame-mirrorless-system/


----------



## -1 (Feb 8, 2017)

dak723 said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no need for Canon to create a new MILC mount. The EF-M mount can accommodate FF optics and sensors well and it's nearly identical to the Sony E-Mount in both flange and diameter...
> ...



If you need more distance than 18mm between glass and sensor then you can create that in the lens assembly. Peace of cake... ;-ppp


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 8, 2017)

it is the combination of FDD and throat width ... combination of those 2 parametrs makes or breaks a mount. sony E is ok for aps-c, but a very foul compromise for FF image circle.

i'd expect something like 49 to 50 mm (net) throat width plus 22 to 24mm FDD as best combination for a *really right* FF mirrorless system. canon has always shown very good jugdement in choice of generously dimensioned lens mouns. i fully expect canon to bring a great new EF-? lens mount eith their upcomibg mirrorless FF system. it will allow for big, fast glass including f/1.2 lenses as well as for a set of ultra-compact moderately fast primes and zooms in the most frequently used focal length range. and for slim bodies as well as for some big-grip, chunkier bodies. 
this is one area in which not even i consider Canon to be *stupid*, but rather *brilliant*. 

but - we shall see. hopefully soon! and: i will not buy yet another mirrorslapper. done with those.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2017)

-1 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > -1 said:
> ...


So in the quest of making the body smaller (and ruining ergonomics to do so) you have just made all the lenses larger and for those of us with more than one lens, made the system larger.....


----------



## -1 (Feb 8, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I wrote "If you need", but why would you (the designer). It's just like ading the EF to EF-M adapter inside the assembly. If you really need that space between the lens and sensor. But why would you???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2017)

-1 said:


> I wrote "If you need", but why would you (the designer). It's just like ading the EF to EF-M adapter inside the assembly. If you really need that space between the lens and sensor. But why would you???



One possible reason is IQ. Look at Sony's G series, they all have what appears to be a 'fixed adapter' on the mount side of the lens. 

In my Canon 24-70/2.8L II, the rear element is right at the back of the mount. In the Sony 24-70/2.8G, it's in about the same place relative to the sensor...with some extra empty lens barrel as a spacer.


----------



## -1 (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > I wrote "If you need", but why would you (the designer). It's just like ading the EF to EF-M adapter inside the assembly. If you really need that space between the lens and sensor. But why would you???
> ...



There's always more than one way to skin a cat...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> So in the quest of making the body smaller (and ruining ergonomics to do so) you have just made all the lenses larger and for those of us with more than one lens, made the system larger.....



Yeah, but only in the real world, not where it _really_ matters...inside the AvTvM Universe.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So in the quest of making the body smaller (and ruining ergonomics to do so) you have just made all the lenses larger and for those of us with more than one lens, made the system larger.....
> ...



that's trademarked you know


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 8, 2017)

sony FE lenses are too long, too larger, too complex and way too expensive ... simply because stupid Sony decided to use their crop E-mount also for FF. 

with a properly designed mount lenses will be smaller, lighter, simpler, lower cost to build. of course a 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 will still be "sizeable". but in addition to big/"pro-grade" lenses a series of moderately fast smaller zooms (f/4) and primes (f/2.0-2.8) is possible.

mirrorless offers all possibilities: big and small. it just needs to be done right, startibg from a no-compromise lens mount.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> with a properly designed mount lenses will be smaller, lighter, simpler, lower cost to build.



Can you remind me what your proposal is?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > with a properly designed mount lenses will be smaller, lighter, simpler, lower cost to build.
> ...



IIRC, his proposal was to sacrifice lens IQ for a modest savings in lens length, to sacrifice good body ergonomics for a modest savings in camera size, and to replace the full EF lineup with a smaller selection of native Canon FF MILC lenses that are incompatible with Canon's popular APS-C MILCs, severely limiting the typical upgrade path and ensuring commercial failure for Canon's FF MILC line. 

I think that about sums it up.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 8, 2017)

Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987. That was a big risk at the time, but Canon did it to pursue the best possible AF system. Nikon stayed with AF in the camera body for a long time, and paid a price for that while Canon rose on the back of their unbeatable AF system. The rest is history and EF lenses obviously became massively popular.

There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. They could easily provide an adapter for the transition period, and in fact Canon would probably sell even more lenses as people switched to the mirrorless lens line up.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987. That was a big risk at the time, but Canon did it to pursue the best possible AF system. Nikon stayed with AF in the camera body for a long time, and paid a price for that while Canon rose on the back of their unbeatable AF system. The rest is history and EF lenses obviously became massively popular.
> 
> There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. They could easily provide an adapter for the transition period, and in fact Canon would probably sell even more lenses as people switched to the mirrorless lens line up.



The question is when that new mount appears. AvTvM argument is that the new mount should be part of the 6D-type mirrorless about to be released. Let us accept they release a new mount - economics would say that there has to be reason for the Canon crowd to dive in immediately. With no lenses designed specifically for the mount, you would need an EF adapter. You then have two issues: first, this increases the size and weight of the mirrorless camera which offers a professional/enthusiast no reason to switch. Second, you would be asking new customers to buy a camera plus an adapter looks like a half-assed ill thought-out system (at least Sony had a decent number of lenses in existence which is probably why they stuck with their old mount) that will be a marketing nightmare. You are also trying to sell the idea to jump on the bandwagon on the promise that dedicated lenses will appear at some point in the future. 

The only way a new mount can work is by developing a new mount and new lenses at the same time, and much as Canon have in the past been able to keep development products under wraps I fail to see how such a drastic shift would be kept quiet and we would get loads of warning, making AvTvM's musing as little more than fantasy. 

So when you say "There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. " let me know your thoughts on when. If your answer is a vague 'sometime in the future' then it is little better than saying "it is possible".


----------



## Etienne (Feb 8, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987. That was a big risk at the time, but Canon did it to pursue the best possible AF system. Nikon stayed with AF in the camera body for a long time, and paid a price for that while Canon rose on the back of their unbeatable AF system. The rest is history and EF lenses obviously became massively popular.
> ...



Obviously I can't predict the timing. I merely point out that there is a precedent for abandoning a lens mount at Canon in order to push forward with the very best technology. Given that mirror-cameras will likely fade away, Canon will have to decide if there's a technical advantage to a complete redesign of their lenses in order take full advantage of future mirrorless body designs, and I suspect there is. Canon will most likely commit to the best technical path forward (and I certainly hope they do), even if that means abandoning the EF mount (which I suspect it does mean).

I agree that they would likely release a few new lenses at the very same time as they introduce a new mount. Can they keep development secret? Probably up until the last few months before announcements.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> Canon will have to decide if there's a technical advantage to a complete redesign of their lenses in order take full advantage of future mirrorless body designs, and I suspect there is.



What are your thoughts on the 'Technical advantage'? The only ones touted so far are ergonomics i.e. size, and it seems to be agreed (even by AvTvM) that this will only really apply to short focal lengths. I am pretty sure there will not be a price advantage - if the lenses are (in theory) smaller and therefore cheaper to make the economies of scale will not apply so either mirrorless lenses are more expensive (which is prohibitive to the success of the new mount) or the price of the EF lenses are kept high to subsidise them which annoys the core market. 

I suspect that the first real occasion for a new mount will be a proven curved sensor because this will enable simpler lens designs and they could then double any size benefit offered by mirrorless by changing the mount as well. 
I would be mildly surprised if Canon are not researching possible alternatives to the EF/EF-S mount if only as ongoing blue-sky research, but that will be some way in the future and far from the 'necessity' that AvTvM pretends is vital for Canon to keep up with the competition.


----------



## slclick (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



I have issue with the 'given' part of how mirror based cameras will fade away. Sales-wise there is not any evidence and currently the tech isn't there to support the premise either. It's inching closer every year but not in the whiz bang 'this is the future' way enthusiasts are hoping. And I say enthusiasts because pro shooters aren't clamoring for it.

Sure there are pundits on this forum who suggest it must be as they predict but there is no hard evidence to back it up. I'm all for better, smaller (to an extent) less expensive all that jazz but we know how those hopes work. Plus there's the you can have two but not all three rule.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987.
> 
> There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount.



You provided (well, restated) an excellent reason for the switch from FD to EF – a technically and functionally compelling reason.

Are you suggesting there is a similar technically and functionally compelling reason for a switch to a new lens mount for FF MILCs? In particular, for a switch to a mount that precludes use of those lenses on Canon's APS-C MILC cameras? If so, please share it...because it's sure not evident to me. 




slclick said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I merely point out that there is a precedent for abandoning a lens mount at Canon in order to push forward with the very best technology. Given that mirror-cameras will likely fade away, Canon will have to decide if there's a technical advantage to a complete redesign of their lenses in order take full advantage of future mirrorless body designs, and I suspect there is. Canon will most likely commit to the best technical path forward (and I certainly hope they do), even if that means abandoning the EF mount (which I suspect it does mean).
> ...



+1

'Everyone' is predicting the demise of dSLRs in favor of MILCs. But...'everyone' doesn't seem to include the people actually buying cameras, who have a strong and manifest preference for dSLRs.

Is it it just a matter of time? Sure. So is the sun becoming a red giant and destroying the earth. You have been warned. 

More seriously, though, the rate for market share shifting from dSLRs to MILCs (very slow), coupled with the lack of growth of the MILC market (which still hasn't even managed to regain 2012 levels) suggests that rather than MILCs replacing dSLRs, something paradigm shifting will come along (Canon's Wondercamera?) and wipe out the entire ILC market before MILCs come to dominate it.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Mirrorless opens up new optical formulae: More freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor. You have to avoid confusion with the standard EF mount - so a new mount is mandatory IMO.

Size of lens+cam is a minor argument for mirrorless while ergonomics isn't compromised by a new lens mount and the need for an EF-lens adaptor to use standard EF lenses. 

Not to forget using older lenses with shorter flange distance and some optical speciality lenses/optical arrangements. FOR ME the possibility to use some FD lenses I own is an important reason for a FF mirrorless.

I am shure there will be a small selection of native EF-X-mount (or whatever it name will be) lenses of shorter focal lengths and an adaptor to adapt EF lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2017)

slclick said:


> I have issue with the 'given' part of how mirror based cameras will fade away. Sales-wise there is not any evidence and currently the tech isn't there to support the premise either. It's inching closer every year but not in the whiz bang 'this is the future' way enthusiasts are hoping. And I say enthusiasts because pro shooters aren't clamoring for it.
> 
> Sure there are pundits on this forum who suggest it must be as they predict but there is no hard evidence to back it up. I'm all for better, smaller (to an extent) less expensive all that jazz but we know how those hopes work. Plus there's the you can have two but not all three rule.



Again, with FF, it's _not about smaller_. It's about _better_. It's about being able to do more than with a mirror: (Hear me out, and I'll get to 'given' / inevitability in a bit.)


The EVF is cute now but could become a game-changer on a host of fronts. Principally this is the natural merging of the LiveView screen piped directly to our eye in a stable handheld shooting position, but there's more: 

Focus peaking / image magnification will breathe new life into manual focus lenses.


Amplify light in dark rooms. Huge for concerts/events. Even if the AF fails from -4, -5 EV lighting, you can still manually focus your AF lens with the same MF tools as above.


Customize your viewfinder in intricate ways -- I think over time these will become hypercustomizable like for (of all things) more serious PC gamers. Tune it to do give exactly the information you want. I jokingly tell people to 'think inside of Iron Man's visor', but you get the idea. Build your cockpit the way you like it.



Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.


Costs should go down as there's less mechanical stuff to design / build / assemble / calibrate / etc. Folks like Canon and Nikon will not lower price to maximize margins, but companies like Sony / Pentax / etc. could drop prices and still make their margins, and possibly push CaNikon to do the same. Personally, I think this is the biggest industry reason to shift people to mirrorless. It's not that it's new or smaller -- it's that they can command the same sales price for a less expensive product to produce, and in so doing, beef up their margins.


As time goes on, the hard wall between stills and video will further blur. Video-based stills and clever/interesting ways to merge the two will continue to evolve, so it makes sense you'd be in a live feed to the sensor sort of environment. A hard cut over from an optical path to an electronic path inhibits that to some extent. 



The more the system becomes a purely electronic/digital animal, the greater likelihood we'll the ability to upgrade/modify/improve/customize these rigs. Sony is already tinkering with an app ecosystem (they had an app for in-camera ND grads, believe it or not) that could let third parties unlock some clever stuff. Don't think total conversion like Magic Lantern -- think small but targeted unmet needs that Canon wouldn't block from happening for price reasons. (I'm not saying Canon will allow jailbreaking or go open source, but someone will.)



Depending on the mount that is chosen, the ability to adapt other lenses is kind of awesome. More of a tinkerer's pastime than a pro's move, I admit, but haven't you always wanted to try a specific Nikon lens or old FD lens?

Now I'm not blindingly fanboying mirrorless -- it has some seemingly intractable limitations that are well discussed and I don't own one as a result even to this day (not including my cell phone). Lag / battery life / ergonomics / handling, etc. are all not there yet -- granted. But eventually, those limitations will either be softened (or, for battery, simply accepted as the price of admission) to the point that the growing value proposition of mirrorless will get the sale. 

*And no one said 'eventually' was happening anytime soon* (other than AvTvM). Could be 10 years. Could be more. But by that time, mirrors will die off in all but the most responsiveness-demanding shooting arenas where people will still pay for that level of technological complexity -- sports, wildlife, etc.

But you are right -- I have zero data on this. Just a gut feeling from the bullet points above.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987. That was a big risk at the time, but Canon did it to pursue the best possible AF system. Nikon stayed with AF in the camera body for a long time, and paid a price for that while Canon rose on the back of their unbeatable AF system. The rest is history and EF lenses obviously became massively popular.
> 
> There's absolutely no reason why Canon wouldn't introduce a new FF mirrorless lens mount. They could easily provide an adapter for the transition period, and in fact Canon would probably sell even more lenses as people switched to the mirrorless lens line up.



for starters, canon wasn't at the time in the dominant position they are now. back then they were solidly #2 or 3# in marketshare so it made sense.

it also made more sense because the FD mount just simply wasn't a good mount going forward with canon's continued pressing of computerization inside their film cameras.

this is entirely different.


----------



## GHPhotography (Feb 8, 2017)

It feels like Canon is testing the waters with the M5 and M6 as far as how many people are buying mirrorless just because it's the newest thing. It is also a way to "innovate" when it appears that APS-C sensors are topping out. If Canon are going to introduce a new FF mirrorless mount I would bet my money that is comes when they master the global shutter they just patented and evolve the DO optics to the point where they actually can make AvTvM's dreams come true with shorter/lighter lenses that are of equal quality to the current EF mount options. That or if a real competitor starts eating away their market share with a mirrorless body.

If canon released a global shutter FF mirrorless camera with a new mount and a decent stable of light and high IQ DO lenses they would own the market and present a clear reason to drop the mirror. Like any giant company they are moving slow and letting other, smaller companies take the risk and suffer the consequences of making too small of a mount or having to make giant lenses. Canon is exactly where they want to be and there is little evidence, aside from the opinions of some forum members, that anyone threatens them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> Mirrorless opens up new optical formulae: More freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor. You have to avoid confusion with the standard EF mount - so a new mount is mandatory IMO.
> ...
> 
> I am shure there will be a small selection of native EF-X-mount (or whatever it name will be) lenses of shorter focal lengths and an adaptor to adapt EF lenses.



Is Sony just too dumb to use that freedom in terms of lens design as they keep releasing E-mount G-Master lenses that have the rear element 40-50mm from the sensor with some empty lens barrel as a spacer? Or could it be that the 'freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor' comes at the cost of a hit on image quality?

There's no need to 'avoid confusion with the standard EF mount' if future Canon FF MILC's just use the EF mount.

As for a new MILC mount, there's already an EF-M mount...quite simlar to the Sony E-mount. If there's some new mount for FF MILC, unless those lenses can natively mount on EOS M bodies (as EF lenses can mount on APS-C dSLRs), then that new mount is likely a non-starter from a commercial standpoint. 

I think we're going to see a Canon FF MILC that either uses the EF mount (seamless compatibility for curent users, maintain lens lineup), or the EF-M mount (providing a direct upgrade path for EOS M users). A brand new mount that lacks native compatibility and thus alienates both current buyers and future APS-C MILC buyers is really unlikely.


----------



## Ryananthony (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless opens up new optical formulae: More freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor. You have to avoid confusion with the standard EF mount - so a new mount is mandatory IMO.
> ...



I just can't imagine myself investing into another canon lens mount. I have no interest in using an adaptor to mount my Canon glass to a Canon body. Period. I for one would not spend the money to "duplicate" lenses so I could use a slightly smaller FF-M mount.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 8, 2017)

Neuro, this could also be because the lens design was purchased from another company, like Tamron, and the formula was designed for a different build originally, and then adapted.



neuroanatomist said:


> -1 said:
> 
> 
> > I wrote "If you need", but why would you (the designer). It's just like ading the EF to EF-M adapter inside the assembly. If you really need that space between the lens and sensor. But why would you???
> ...


----------



## Etienne (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Canon abandoned the FD mount in order to build lenses with AF motors back in 1987.
> ...



ahsanford makes some good points about Focus Peaking, lighter weight, fewer moving parts (higher FPS possibly), lowered costs etc etc.

Mirrors still have some advantages today, but LCD technology is still improving. 

Still, why would anyone care to cling to mirrors? Personally I want better and better products. The mirror and prism was brilliant technology, and I still love my 5D3, but I think the technology in LCDs, and the advantages will win. An LCD can let you "see in the dark" for example, long after the optical viewfinder is black. 

Anyway, this is no different than any technical revolution that preceded it. There will be winners and losers, and I don't think Canon is just going to sit back and watch Sony, or Panasonic, race ahead in the mirrorless game forever.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 8, 2017)

canon will not repeat the Sony mistake of using APA-C lens mount for FF sensored cameras, massively compromising and limiting lens design.

i do expect Canon's FF mirrorless system for early 2018. it is not 10 or 5 years out.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you suggesting there is a similar technically and functionally compelling reason for a switch to a new lens mount for FF MILCs? In particular, for a switch to a mount that precludes use of those lenses on Canon's APS-C MILC cameras? If so, please share it...because it's sure not evident to me.



The only reason I could see Canon would preclude APS-C mount crossover is _to make the APS-C mount have a common interface_ -- choose EF-M as the FF mirrorless mount. 

If the FF mount is indeed EF-M (with a larger image circle lens design, of course), the entire APS-C Rebel SLR space would (eventually) switch to EOS M's EF-M mount and then we'd just have the two camps APS-C EF-M shooters and FF EF-M shooters. 

It would look a lot like EF-S vs. EF today, but it would be a *whale* of a painful crossover period. Think of how many people are Rebel shooters who bought more than the kit lens. They'd be SOL.

But that's just a way to make sense of APS-C to FF crossover question you asked: _make a brilliant future happen with just the thinner mount for everyone._ I don't know if I buy my own argument here. It's a deus ex machina -level resolution to a realtime / real people getting hosed problem, and I have no idea how Canon would sell such a painful EF-S exodus _as an upside_ during the all-but-certainly painful transition period.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



So I ask for a compelling rationale for a switch to a _new lens mount_ for FF mirrorless...and you rehash some of the advantages of mirrorless cameras. Sad. :




Etienne said:


> Anyway, this is no different than any technical revolution that preceded it. There will be winners and losers, and I don't think Canon is just going to sit back and watch Sony, or Panasonic, race ahead in the mirrorless game forever.



This is no different from all the BS arguments that have been swirling around lately. I guess you missed the fact that Canon is *already ahead* of both Sony and Panasonic in the mirrorless game. Only Olympus sold more MILCs than Canon last year.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 8, 2017)

Just to add more fuel to the FF mirrorless lens mount fire:

We can be certain that the photo/video tech is not done innovating, even revolutionizing the tech. For all we know Canon may be researching curved FF sensors (I believe they put out patents on lens designs for small curved sensors), which may offer some significant advantages, especially at the edges. This would necessitate an entirely new set of lenses, and what better time to introduce this than in a FF mirrorless with a new mount!


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless opens up new optical formulae: More freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor. You have to avoid confusion with the standard EF mount - so a new mount is mandatory IMO.
> ...



The decision will most likely be based on potential sales, profit and market, rather than the technical side.
Ideally I would think most current DSLR users would want a FF MILC that would adapt to the current line of EF lenses. I really wouldn't think the upgrade path from a M crop body to a FF body would be that profitable for Canon. 
It wouldn't be a complete surprise to me if Canon released a FF MILC that has its own line of lenses with an adapter. 
In the end I think how it is released will be driven by anticipated profits.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> Just to add more fuel to the FF mirrorless lens mount fire:
> 
> We can be certain that the photo/video tech is not done innovating, even revolutionizing the tech. For all we know Canon may be researching curved FF sensors (I believe they put out patents on lens designs for small curved sensors), which may offer some significant advantages, especially at the edges. This would necessitate an entirely new set of lenses, and what better time to introduce this than in a FF mirrorless with a new mount!



Again, any advancement or development that leads to "We need to repeat EF all over again" won't make it through the first business plan review at Canon. One might assume the health and ongoing sales of EF remains the #1 first priority at Canon, because any project that involves rebuilding that portfolio just got a billion dollar write-off stapled to it's ROI. 

So would they make a small number of FF lenses to maximize tinyness on a new mount? Yes. They could force people to EF adaptors for anything longer than 50-85mm or so. (This very well may happen with FF mirrorless.)

But would they push a boulder a new awesomeness downhill that would have users insist Canon remake (all/most of) EF in the new mount? Hell no. They'd murder that idea before it leaves the cradle unless a curved sensor does a whole. lot. more. than sharpen/brighten the corners. It would need to cure cancer or something.

- A


----------



## Etienne (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm not going to pretend to understand lens design, that's Canon's job. In fact I don't really care if Canon decides to keep or change the lens mount, but my guess, and it is a guess like everyone else's on this forum, is there are good technical reasons for a change. What I really want is the best light weight all-in-one photo/video solution possible, and Canon does not provide that right now.

You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.

Although I have a lot of Canon gear, I'm not brand loyal fanatic like you appear to be. In fact I just don't understand why anyone would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution. It's not personal.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 8, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Just to add more fuel to the FF mirrorless lens mount fire:
> ...



No one here has access to Canon's business plan, or technical research roadmap. One thing the history of technological development demonstrates clearly: it always looks impossible until someone does it, then it looks obvious.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> The decision will most likely be based on potential sales, profit and market, rather than the technical side.



Absolutely. 




takesome1 said:


> I really wouldn't think the upgrade path from a M crop body to a FF body would be that profitable for Canon.



Do you believe that the upgrade path from an APS-C dSLR to a FF dSLR is not that profitable for Canon? Sorry, but that does not seem like a credible scenario. In that case, why would mirrorless be any different (keeping in mind that Canon is in this for the long-haul, not just basing decisions on the first year or two of sales)?


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > I really wouldn't think the upgrade path from a M crop body to a FF body would be that profitable for Canon.
> ...



I think we are two examples of how the APS-C to FF upgrade path worked for Canon.

Of course this is just my opinion. But the environment is different now. When the 50D was released and promoted as the stepping stone between consumer and professional gear the options were much more limited and defined. DSLR's made it easier for beginners to pursue photography and there was a boom for several years.
The idea of upgrading to "pro" grade equipment is appealing. I bought in to it, many others did as well.

With a new FF MILC peoples views and their starting point will be different, upgrading from an M crop to a FF is less likely to be viewed as an upgrade to "pro" equipment. One of the main reasons to buy an M is the small size, you will loose some of that when you go to a FF.

While there would no doubt be those who would follow the MILC upgrade path, I think the upgrade path from APS-C to FF is a highway, where the upgrade to a FF mirrorless will be a country road less traveled.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Speaking for myself, I didn't upgrade to full frame because it was "professional," I upgraded for better image quality. Then I upgraded to the 1-series for better performance than the 5DII. 

FF MILCs will be expensive, just like FF dSLRs. That high cost is a major barrier to FF being an entry level purchase for anyone. Rather, in the vast majority of cases it's an upgrade from an APS-C body. Dropping the mirror is not going to change that essential fact. Sure, when a Canon FF MILC becomes reality and for the proximate future, the upgrade path will much more likely be APS-C dSLR to FF MILC. But if the broader market transitions to mirrorless, the upgrade path will become APS-C MILC to FF MILC. 

I rather suspect that people with only an M-series body would _not_ consider a FF dSLR to be an upgrade. But certainly as the number of mirrorless users grows, Canon will absolutely want to give those users an upgrade path.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




In the future, but I would speculate that is somewhat / possibly very distant since Canon hasn't even tested the market with a FF mirrorless.

Possibly what we will see, is a FF M that gives an upgrade path from the current APS-C MILC, new lenses geared toward the new FF MILC with an option for an adapter to use the current EF lenses. Then Canon gets everything, upgrade path, add on path and a new revenue stream for those that want a lens that is specifically for the FF MILC. 

Whatever course Canon chooses it will most likely be based on customer satisfaction and Canon's ability to make a profit.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> canon will not repeat the Sony mistake of using APA-C lens mount for FF sensored cameras, massively compromising and limiting lens design.
> 
> i do expect Canon's FF mirrorless system for early 2018. it is not 10 or 5 years out.



You are doing it again. You are conflating the greater insurgence of mirrorless with your claims of a new mount. The two are not linked, nor are they mutually exclusive. People are not doubting the gradual increase in mirrorless cameras but are arguing your claim that to make FF mirrorless viable they have to introduce a new mount and introduce it now.
So yeas, 2018 is viable fora FF mirrorless. But people are far from convinced about the new mount.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Didn't you post that same argument (almost verbatim) 4 pages back?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> I'm not going to pretend to understand lens design, that's Canon's job. In fact I don't really care if Canon decides to keep or change the lens mount, but my guess, and it is a guess like everyone else's on this forum, is there are good technical reasons for a change. What I really want is the best light weight all-in-one photo/video solution possible, and Canon does not provide that right now.
> 
> You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.
> 
> Although I have a lot of Canon gear, I'm not brand loyal fanatic like you appear to be. In fact I just don't understand why anyone would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution. It's not personal.


The problem is that you can have the best in image quality, or you can have light weight, but you can't have both.

If you really want a high quality lightweight system that shoots decent pictures and even 4K video, the system to beat is Olympus. If you really want high image quality, you need a FF sensor, but more than that, you need high quality glass to hang off of that camera and a kick-ass AF system. Right now, that means a FF canon or a FF Nikon.

In order to get a lightweight FF system, you need lightweight lenses... and that ruins your image quality..... And, since most buyers of FF cameras are chasing image quality and not compactness, the odds of Canon or Nikon even trying are almost non-existent.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> In order to get a lightweight FF system, you need lightweight lenses... and that ruins your image quality.....



...or you give up a stop. Shoot with f/2 and f/2.8 primes and f/4 zooms. That's certainly how Sony tried to launch the A7 platform.

Many choose not to get those slower lenses with CaNikon FF SLRs because part of the allure of going to FF is a combination of great light gathering and small DOF, which fast lenses complement brilliantly. 

Further, unless you can live at f/5.6 to f/11 or so, the bigger/heavier/professional lenses outresolve the slower glass near _their_ respective max apertures, i.e. the 24-70 f/2.8L II blows both 24-something f/4L IS lenses out of the water at f/4. Lenses with faster max apertures get a 'head start' on peak resolution over their slower peers -- this is changing a bit as slower lenses are now designed to be very usable wide open, but they are not perfect there.

So, in broad strokes, the only folks happy with only using slow primes and slow zooms on a FF mirrorless system are:


Vacationers who want to keep size/weight down
Landscapers (classic daylight tripod stuff, not astro)
People who are desperate to get a FF sensor but are also desperate to fight physics and keep it small (paging AvTvM)
People who don't mind climbing to five figures of ISO to 'get back' the speed, so to speak

...and that list of people is (not surprisingly) too short to Sony to make money off of. So this past year they've spent putting out enormous f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms to expand the tent for more realms of photographers.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2017)

Etienne said:


> You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.
> 
> Although I have a lot of Canon gear, I'm not brand loyal fanatic like you appear to be. In fact I just don't understand why anyone would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution. It's not personal.



You're clearly missing the point. Sony has had 'extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas' for several years now. Yet Sony is _way behind_ Canon and is still _losing_ market share to Canon. 

I don't understand why anyone 'would be brand loyal rather than seek out the best possible technical solution' either, except insomuch as there's a cost to switching when one is invested in a system...but that's not loyalty, that's fiscal pragmatism. But you're implying that Canon doesn't offer the best overall technical solution *for me*, and sorry, but who the hell are you to determine or judge my needs?

Do you honestly believe that most people who buy Canon products do so out of a blind sense of loyalty? That seems like a rather asinine assertion, to me. And if people _do_ choose to buy the products that best meet their needs, which is the most likely general case, what does it say to you that nearly 50% of ILC buyers choose Canon? Probably nothing, or whatever it says is drowned out by the megaphone of your own opinion in your head. Sad.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 8, 2017)

not at all. 

Canon can take one of 3 approaches:
1. repeat Sony's mistake and use EF-M also for FF-sensored MILCs. it would be technically "viable", but not desirable, since IQ and lens design would be severely limited and compromised ... see Sony FE lenses
2. repeat Pentax mistake with ill-fated K01 and use long flange distance EF mount for mirrorless MILCs. no size advantage for camera bodies and lenses in most frequently used focal lengths range possible. 
3. launch new FF mirrorless lineup with a big bang and a newly designed, no-compromises, optimal design lens mount for FF image circle, maximum IQ and size advantages for most frequently used focal lengths. bigger, faster lenses also possible without any technical issues. 

most important for canon' decision: compared to scenarios 1 and 2, many more new lenses will be sold in scenario 3 over the next umpteen years! not only new MILC camera purchasers and "crop-to-ff-upgraders" will buy new mount FF lenses, but also majority of existing EF user base will transition from EF glass to new native mirrorless mount glass as they move from dslrs to milcs. 

other than in 1987 fd to ef transition there it will be painless for existing customers, since ef lenses will remain fully functional with a cheap little adapter. everybody can decide for themselves if/when they want to upgrade their lenses. new/improved lenses with better iq and functionality (af, is, ...) will however only be available in new mount ... $$$$$$$ 



Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > canon will not repeat the Sony mistake of using APA-C lens mount for FF sensored cameras, massively compromising and limiting lens design.
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.
> ...



Yep. It's as much about comprehensive options and not having inexplicable problems than it is about innovation. 

For instance, I don't care if there's a Ferrari engine in there if a car lacks steering, head lights, air conditioning, and brakes. Respect for the engine, but _I'm not driving that car._

Spec sheets do not equate to the end user experience nearly as many would purport. Things like intuitive controls, feeling great in your hand, ability to dial in custom settings they way you want, etc. never make the spec sheet but they sure as hell p--- you off when they aren't right.

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> For instance, I don't care if there's a Ferrari engine in there if a car lacks steering, head lights, air conditioning, and brakes. Respect for the engine, but _I'm not driving that car._



We finally made it to the car comparison.

We are not talking about Ferrari's without steering, head lights, air conditioning and brakes. We are talking about Ferrari's without rear view mirrors. Possibly add a touch screen to see where you are backing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > For instance, I don't care if there's a Ferrari engine in there if a car lacks steering, head lights, air conditioning, and brakes. Respect for the engine, but _I'm not driving that car._
> ...



We're talking about a car where, if it breaks, there's only one mechanic in the country that can service it, and even a simple repair could leave you taking the iBus for two months. 

Would you want to drive that car, much less depend on it for your livelihood?


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Am I not allowed to have a back up chevy. I think if I could afford anything with a Ferrari engine I could afford a backup.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> Am I not allowed to have a back up chevy. I think if I could afford anything with a Ferrari engine I could afford a backup.



Sure, if you think you could stand driving that piece o' junk while your real car was in the shop. Better get two Ferraris.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > You can argue about TODAYS market position all you want, that doesn't change the fact that Sony offers some extraordinarily innovative products that beat Canon's in important areas. All Canon has to do to lose market domination is sit on it's laurels, like RIM, or Nortel.
> ...



"the megaphone of your own opinion in your head. Sad."

LOL ... Priceless projection from the loudest megaphone on CR, with over 20,000 loudly shouted opinions!
Sad indeed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2017)

That wooshing sound was the point sailing over your head...again. I guess you're unable to come up with a cogent response. I'm not surprised.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 9, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> We finally made it to the car comparison.
> 
> We are not talking about Ferrari's without steering, head lights, air conditioning and brakes. We are talking about Ferrari's without rear view mirrors. Possibly add a touch screen to see where you are backing.


Shouldn't we be talking about Mazdas and arguing about if the four banger or the rotary engine performs better when you are stuck in traffic during rush hour?


----------



## Etienne (Feb 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> That wooshing sound was the point sailing over your head...again. I guess you're unable to come up with a cogent response. I'm not surprised.



No. I got the point plenty: You are easily the most arrogant, self-important, loudmouth I've ever run into on an internet forum. Chasing down every little petty oversight in order to try and display your "knowledge," throwing out condescending quips to pat yourself on the back, and impress the few fanboys you've gathered here. You are nowhere near the most knowledge photo/video/technical person I've met, but you most certainly are the most obnoxious.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2017)

Etienne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That wooshing sound was the point sailing over your head...again. I guess you're unable to come up with a cogent response. I'm not surprised.
> ...



I know some people have a tendency to lash out, especially when they've lost an argument. Feel better now that you've vented? :


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 9, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > We finally made it to the car comparison.
> ...



Since were talking about a Japanese camera manufacture it might be more appropriate.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless opens up new optical formulae: More freedom in terms of lens design like e.g. lens elements near the sensor. You have to avoid confusion with the standard EF mount - so a new mount is mandatory IMO.
> ...



RED I think you do not understand "freedom" in terms of design ... or not got the point I meant. If Sony doesn't use that freedom it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

GREEN Why? - If the mount is delivered with the body and well crafted to integrate into the ergonomics e.g. with an additional ring for changing settings (like f-stop) - where is the problem?

BLUE I think otherwise: EF-M is to narrow to gain freedom ... design-wise integrated adapter allows for seamless compatibility.

I WANT TO ADAPT MY FD LENSES FOR SPECIFIC PHOTOGRAPHIC TASKS SO I NEED AN ADAPTER-ENABLED FF EOS M


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> not at all.
> 
> Canon can take one of 3 approaches:
> 1. repeat Sony's mistake and use EF-M also for FF-sensored MILCs. it would be technically "viable", but not desirable, since IQ and lens design would be severely limited and compromised ... see Sony FE lenses
> ...



Again, I ask that you explain what characteristics this new mount will have. 



> maximum IQ and size advantages for most frequently used focal lengths.


What are the 'most commonly used focal lengths'? At what point do you say 'well, we have this FF camera, but for you guys who shoot [wildlife/sports], it is less than optimal. Sorry'. 


As said above, Sony have an excellent mirrorless system already yet they are losing market share to Canon. Proponents say they like Sony because it is smaller than Canon, yet it does not seem advantage enough to have people buying into it an my interpretation is that that part of the market is now saturated. Which suggests it is a pretty small market segment.
So what this means is that they are now being funded by turnover purchase which is slow. Which gives Canon plenty of time to develop their next phase. 
So again I say that Canon may be looking at a new mount, but not with the urgency you say then need. All I can say is that I am glad you are not on the market strategy group in Canon because they would not exist to sell the fantastic gear that I buy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2017)

mb66energy said:


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



Sony _has_ used that freedom to make small E-mount lenses...but those were slow with just decent IQ, and when Sony made fast lenses with excellent IQ, that 'freedom' was severely constrained. So unless you're going to make the argument that Canon can has far better lens design skills than Sony, you're point fails. Either Sony could make small fast/high IQ lenses but didn't (so they're dumb), they lack the technical competence (possible but unlikely), or you don't understand the technical issues at hand. I suspect the 3rd one is most likely. 




mb66energy said:


> GREEN Why? - If the mount is delivered with the body and well crafted to integrate into the ergonomics e.g. with an additional ring for changing settings (like f-stop) - where is the problem?



The problem is it clobbers the upgrade path from APS-C MILC. Right now, an APS-C dSLR user with more than just the kit lens(es) quite likely has an EF lens (the 50/1.8 has been Canon's best-selling standalone lens for years). Outside of a certain range there's no real advantage to crop-specific glass. Already owning a 70-300, an 85/1.8, etc., facilitates the move from APS-C to FF vs. knowing you'll have to buy all new lenses. 




mb66energy said:


> BLUE I think otherwise: EF-M is to narrow to gain freedom ... design-wise integrated adapter allows for seamless compatibility.



Perhaps. But full EF isn't too narrow... Canon can choose native compatibility with existing EF, or native compatibility with APS-C MILC upgraders, or native compatibility with nothing. Canon has mountains of data to guide the choice between the first two options, and unlike FD-EF, there's no compelling reason for the last option. 



mb66energy said:


> I WANT TO ADAPT MY FD LENSES FOR SPECIFIC PHOTOGRAPHIC TASKS SO I NEED AN ADAPTER-ENABLED FF EOS M



Yeah, you and an infinitesimal number of others. Shout all you want, Canon doesn't care. :


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> [...]
> 
> Yeah, you and an infinitesimal number of others. Shout all you want, Canon doesn't care. :



Maybe, maybe not - but if minorities do not tell about their requirements (maybe shout sometimes  there isn't any chance to be heard! I know that there is no market for FD lens users but maybe PL Mount users which might be interested in an ultra compact camera for very narrow spaces. Just assuming that the future FF mirrorless of Canon will have some extended video features and hopefully good video QUALITY.


----------



## slclick (Feb 9, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



Canon Board Members are huddling around a laptop reading CR right now! Keep hope alive!


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...................
> 
> Again, there are so many reasons Canon should go full EF with FF mirrorless, but not everyone agrees with that. Canon may actively try the 'small game' again with FF despite all common sense, perhaps in an effort to court a new generation of photographers.
> 
> - A



I am personally hoping they go with the same idea that Sigma did with their Quattro cameras. Just make the body with the spacer built in. That way EF lenses will natively fit. But that said, not all EF lenses work very well with DPAF. But most the ones in the past 5 years or so work fine.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 9, 2017)

@mikehit: please read my posts, i've stated this before ... so 1 more time: i expect canon ff mirrorless mount to come with 49-50mm throat width and 22-24mm FDD. in my estimate that would be a no compromise approach to mirrorless ff. it would allow for slim and for chunky cameras, for decent ultracompact lenses in the most frequently used focal lengths and for big, expensive lenses like fast primes, f/2.8 zooms and big supertele lenses. of course EF glass could be easily adapted with a simple "extension tube" adapter. 

and for sports and wildlife shooters and conservatives/ovf-lovers canon will probably make 1-series mirrorslappers (but nothing below) for another 10 years.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> I am personally hoping they go with the same idea that Sigma did with their Quattro cameras. Just make the body with the spacer built in. That way EF lenses will natively fit. But that said, not all EF lenses work very well with DPAF. But most the ones in the past 5 years or so work fine.



I've pointed out the Quattro a number of times, yes. It's APS-H but the concept (just the 'built in tube' idea, not the entire body design) makes sense for Canon to roll out something completely seamless to EF users. 

Some people cringe at the look of this, but it's a way to carve some weight out of a full EF mount design. 

That said, we still may get a thin body with something EF-M like (if not an outright EF-M mount). Either way, I still think that width/height + grip should be 5D like (as only possibly pancakes might be shorter in height than such a grip) -- if the attached lens dictates the size of bag you have to pack into, why throw any grip away?

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 9, 2017)

forget the total failure if signa quattro concept. nobody in their right mind buys fairly expensive digital camera with Aps-h sensor and bilted on, not-changeable prime lens. i doubt they sell more than 1000 copies of it .. globally.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> @mikehit: please read my posts, i've stated this before ... so 1 more time: i expect canon ff mirrorless mount to come with 49-50mm throat width and 22-24mm FDD. in my estimate that would be a no compromise approach to mirrorless ff. it would allow for slim and for chunky cameras, for decent ultracompact lenses in the most frequently used focal lengths and for big, expensive lenses like fast primes, f/2.8 zooms and big supertele lenses.



...and long term, it would be a significant disincentive for owners of Canon APS-C MILC systems to upgrade. That really would be _stupid Canon_...which is probably why you think it's such a good idea. :


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > @mikehit: please read my posts, i've stated this before ... so 1 more time: i expect canon ff mirrorless mount to come with 49-50mm throat width and 22-24mm FDD. in my estimate that would be a no compromise approach to mirrorless ff. it would allow for slim and for chunky cameras, for decent ultracompact lenses in the most frequently used focal lengths and for big, expensive lenses like fast primes, f/2.8 zooms and big supertele lenses.
> ...



don't understand your problem. EF-M lenses cannot be used on FF sensor. EF-? lenses can be adapted to EOS M (crop) cameras with a simple adapter. no change to cross-compatibility. EF-M lenses have exactly the same status for mirrorless world as EF-S lenses on mirrorslappers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> don't understand your problem.



I'm not the one with the problem... 




AvTvM said:


> EF-M lenses have exactly the same status for mirrorless world as EF-S lenses on mirrorslappers.



Yes, but in your scenario the converse would not be true, i.e. FF EF-? lenses would not be compatible with the EF-M mount. There are going to be a helluva lot more people with Canon APS-C MILCs than with Canon FF MILCs, and long-term Canon will want facilitate that much larger APS-C population to upgrade to FF, just as they do for their dSLR lines – by having FF lenses that natively mount to APS-C cameras. 

As I stated above, the problem with your scenario is that it clobbers the upgrade path from APS-C MILC. Right now, an APS-C dSLR user with more than just the kit lens(es) quite likely has one or more EF lenses (the 50/1.8 has been Canon's best-selling standalone lens for years) - meaning native lenses for the new FF camera. Outside of a certain range there's no real advantage to crop-specific glass. For dSLRs, already owning a 70-300, an 85/1.8, etc., facilitates the move from APS-C to FF vs. knowing you'll have to buy _all_ new lenses, instead of just some. 




AvTvM said:


> EF-? lenses can be adapted to EOS M (crop) cameras with a simple adapter.



You're proposing a 22-24mm FFD, meaning your 'simple adapter' would be a mere 4-6mm thick. The EF 12 extension tube has barely enough room for the lens release 'button'. Some guy DIY'd an 8mm extension tube for Canon and he had to use a watch crown for the release button! Sure, Nikon sells an 8mm tube, but that's still 1.5-2x longer than your 'simple adapter'...and in both those cases, there's no diameter change.

This 'simple adapter' you're talking about is an EdMika project, not something for the mass market.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 9, 2017)

i don't see any (backwards) compatibilty issues. EF lenses are easy to adapt to EF-M and will be easy to adapt on EF-? mount. EF-? lenses can be adapted to EF-M mount, it may necessitate a new release mechanism. but isn't Canon ever so "innovative"? if 22-24mm FDD arectoo toght, heck then maybe Canon will go to 26mm. "they are the experts, they spend millions on research, they know everything best", don't they. i'd definitely expect zhem to figure it out and achieve the same dehree of interchangability as is the case between Ef and EF-S mounts and lenses also for hheir mirrorless offering for APS-C and FF image circle.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> i don't see any (backwards) compatibilty issues.



canon has 110 millions reasons why not to disrupt the EF mount.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 9, 2017)

don't panic, don't hyperventilate. every EF lens ever made will continue to work on a new native FF MILC mount - if so desired by owner. a cheap little adapter will warrant this. just like the canon Ef/EF-M adapter. Canon may be *stupid*, but not in this respect.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> i'd definitely expect zhem to figure it out and achieve the same dehree of interchangability as is the case between Ef and EF-S mounts and lenses also for hheir mirrorless offering for APS-C and FF image circle.



Sure, that's easy. Use the EF-M mount for FF MILCs.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 9, 2017)

Neuro's point that Canon is already ahead of everyone but Oly in MILC body sales could potentially point at a consideration more important than the nature of the mount.

The focus of mirrorless development for most companies has been to shift towards progressively larger bodies and build up systems of higher spec lenses trying to rival EOS and the F-mount. That's not the route Canon has taken with the EF-M mount at all though, the focus has been on very small bodies(even the higher spec M5 is much smaller than most rivals flagship mirrorless bodies) and also on smaller lenses with more limited spec but that generally offer good performance/value.

I think if Canon release a FF mirrorless body that isn't EF mount then its quite likely they may take a similar kind of route. That is a relatively small body(although likely more like the M5 than other M's I'd expect) and also a lens system that's geared to exploiting this size and offering value rather than trying to build up a larger system.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> don't panic, don't hyperventilate. every EF lens ever made will continue to work on a new native FF MILC mount - if so desired by owner. a cheap little adapter will warrant this. just like the canon Ef/EF-M adapter. Canon may be *stupid*, but not in this respect.


Canon's probably smarter than you.

there is such a thing called customer perception. look no further than Sony for that. After they started to go great guns on E mount, A mount just simply died.

Right now, Sony has yet to reach back to it's pre E mount days in terms of marketshare.

For a marketshare leader, affecting that large marketshare base in such a way would be suicidal.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.



Are we quite certain that mechanical technology is less reliable (more prone to failure) than electronics?


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2017)

scyrene said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.
> ...



+1 Just look at all the 100% mechanical things which lasted for years before circuitry got involved. From furnaces to car parts. Planned obsolescence started with the onset of computerized goods. Not to mention non customer serviceable parts.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 10, 2017)

scyrene said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Reliability should improve. There is less mechanical stuff to fail in a mirrorless setup.
> ...



Besides the shutter and mirror, is anything else on the camera rated to a certain number of uses?

I don't have a hard answer for you as I'm not a EE, and I don't mean to be snide with that comment above. But common sense would imply that fewer moving parts in a camera would have less failure modes from fatigue, wear, thermal expansion, shock, etc.

That said, the form FF mirrorless takes may add _new _mechanical failure modes. For instance, an angled or pop-up EVF would require mechanical elements to support it, and those conceivably could fail.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



electronics has a lifespan simply because components do. components half their lifespan for every 10c over 30c.

the amount the device is powered on governs the lifespan, versus each shutter click as it would be with mechanical.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 10, 2017)

some electronic components life span is limited regardless ...
electrolytic capacitors will dry up and stop functioning withing 3-10 years depending on the quality of its internal parts and chemistry, ambient temperatures and ventilation. 




rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> some electronic components life span is limited regardless ...
> electrolytic capacitors will dry up and stop functioning withing 3-10 years depending on the quality of its internal parts and chemistry, ambient temperatures and ventilation.
> 
> 
> ...


Yet at work we have test equipment dating back almost 30 years that is still working fine and is calibrated to specs.... yet with some manufacturers the stuff is almost universally dead within 10 years. We have electronics that has been working away outside for 20 years, and some stuff that dies inside within 5. A lot depends on the quality of the components....


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 10, 2017)

yes, that's what I said as well. depending on the quality of the stuff.. correct. some good capacitors will last 30 years and cheap ones will develop a bulge and fail in 2-3 years from new max. I am sure that Canon cuts no corners there...

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/calculating-the-lifespan-of-electrolytic-capacitors-with-de-rating/













Don Haines said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > some electronic components life span is limited regardless ...
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 10, 2017)

Sure, I've built and left running far too long enough PCs in my day to know the smell of a blown out capacitor, but I would assume given Canon's demanding clientele they spec their FF body components to a slightly higher standard than your average home PC mobo or video card, right?

- A


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 10, 2017)

That's what I was doing back in 90's and early 00's as well as my day job 

yes, canon gear is the business. hence my statement : "... I am sure that Canon cuts no corners there..."



ahsanford said:


> Sure, I've built and left running far too long enough PCs in my day to know the smell of a blown out capacitor, but I would assume given Canon's demanding clientele they spec their FF body components to a slightly higher standard than your average home PC mobo or video card, right?
> 
> - A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 10, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> yes, canon gear is the business. hence my statement : "... I am sure that Canon cuts no corners there..."



Couldn't detect if you were being sarcastic there. 

- A


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ............
> 
> I've pointed out the Quattro a number of times, yes. It's APS-H but the concept (just the 'built in tube' idea, not the entire body design) makes sense for Canon to roll out something completely seamless to EF users.
> 
> ...



I agree.

Also when you take a look at Sony's A7. They do have some compact lens. But those alway seem to be slower budget lenses. From what I can tell, any of there faster higher end lenses always seem to have a spacer built onto the lens making the lens just as large if not sometime longer then they would have been for a comparable DSLR lens from Canon or Nikon. Which often means the body is smaller, but size savings is shifted to the lens if you want better quality glass. 
Sony's 85mm G master and 70-200 f/2.8 g master lenses are prime examples of this..


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 10, 2017)

slclick said:


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



Made me smile - a funny picture!

I am shure they do not but at the same time I am absolutely shure that they have a small department which makes statistics from user comments in fori (plural of forum?) well sorted by poster / reader specifications.
They will report to the CB Members not that "mb66energy needs support for FD lenses on CR forum" but "there is a number of Canon users especially film makers and some scientific photographers who need more flexibility hence EF-X-mount + adapter is a viable solution".


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 10, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> [...]
> 
> Also when you take a look at Sony's A7. They do have some compact lens. But those alway seem to be slower budget lenses. From what I can tell, any of there faster higher end lenses always seem to have a spacer built onto the lens making the lens just as large if not sometime longer then they would have been for a comparable DSLR lens from Canon or Nikon. Which often means the body is smaller, but size savings is shifted to the lens if you want better quality glass.
> Sony's 85mm G master and 70-200 f/2.8 g master lenses are prime examples of this..



While Sony has very good sensors in terms of DR, in my opinion they aren't a lens maker company. They have taken some Minolta designs and use now Zeiss lenses - shurely they have developes some lenses themselves.

I would like to see a EF-Mx or whatsoever mount with seemlessly integrated adapter tube for the EF world. And compact bright IS-equipped EF-Mx lenses with stellar IQ - as compact as possible while maintaining stellar IQ.
And I am shure: Canon can do that - but just they need a decade to develop the necessary revolutionary (as opposite of evolutionary) designs.

And for those who want a large grip: I am with you - because I like good ergonomics and a laaaarge battery in the grip compartment.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 10, 2017)

yes, sony FE lenses are longer/larger than desirabl. This is solely due to Sony's poor choice of lens mount - they decided to use E-mount - originally designed for APS-C sensored cameras only (NEX series, then A####) - also for their FF-sensor cameras (A7 / II series). 

too large, complex and expensive lenses are the price Sony users are asked to pay for Sony's wrong lens mount decision. Many potential users are balking at that prospect. This is the main reason why Sony's mirrorless market share has not taken off despite innovative and well-specced mirrorless cameras. Poor / often totally lacking customer service being another major reason. 

with a properly designed lens mount, mirrorless FF lenses can be made more compact than DSLR lenses throughout the most frequently used focal lengths ... frome wide-angle to short tele lenses. Without compromises in image quality. In terms of lenses, Sony is not "gold standard", but rather "worst practice" in terms of size and price.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> are the price Sony users are asked to pay for Sony's wrong lens mount decision. Many potential users are balking at that prospect. This is the main reason why Sony's mirrorless market share has not taken off despite innovative and well-specced mirrorless cameras. Poor / often totally lacking customer service being another major reason.
> 
> with a properly designed lens mount, mirrorless FF lenses can be made more compact than DSLR lenses throughout the most frequently used focal lengths ... from wide-angle to short tele lenses. Without compromises in image quality. In terms of lenses, Sony is not "gold standard", but rather "worst practice" in terms of size and price.



Now I am a bit confused. 
Your argument is that Canon must have a new mount, and make it very soon, to make really compact mirrorless kits otherwise they will lose market share. As far as I can see the only real competition is from Sony, but here you are saying that Sony has screwed it up by their choice of lens mount (plus their poor after sales service). 
So please tell me where is the competitive impetus for Canon to institute the new mount that you say is essential lest they get left behind. And left behind by whom?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 10, 2017)

yes, totally agree. it is Canon and Nikon's undeserved good luck, that

• Sony f*cked up its choice of FF mirrorless lens mount. 
• Fuji stupidly decided to go for 44X33mm "pseudo middle-format" (GFX) rather thn launching a kick-ass FF-sensored mirrorless product line
• Olympus and Panasonic settled for dwarf-sized mFT sensor format without being able to deliver proportionally smaller gear
• Ricoh/Pentax has no clue at all and f*cked up so badly with its long FDD K-mount mirrorless camera (K-01)
• Leica charges moon prices and made its SL system way too large and heavy

and it is CaNikon customers' bad luck, that 
• all other makers fail to provide enough "competitive impetus" for CaNikon re. great mirrorless FF gear

sigh ...


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 10, 2017)

So I will rephrase my question - where is the threat to Canon's dominance (let alone survival) if they do not introduce the new mount on a FF mirrorless camera in the timelines you claim are necessary? Why is it so urgent?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> yes, sony FE lenses are longer/larger than desirabl. This is solely due to Sony's poor choice of lens mount - they decided to use E-mount - originally designed for APS-C sensored cameras only (NEX series, then A####) - also for their FF-sensor cameras (A7 / II series).
> 
> too large, complex and expensive lenses are the price Sony users are asked to pay for Sony's wrong lens mount decision.



And you know this because of your expertise in optical physics and lens design?


----------



## moreorless (Feb 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > yes, sony FE lenses are longer/larger than desirabl. This is solely due to Sony's poor choice of lens mount - they decided to use E-mount - originally designed for APS-C sensored cameras only (NEX series, then A####) - also for their FF-sensor cameras (A7 / II series).
> ...



Honestly this does seem like an attempt to hang onto the "dream" of smaller mirrorless lenses doesn't it? that dream ultimately came from comparing film era manual M lenses to modern AF SLR lenses, even the M mount with its relatively long flange distance for a non SLR has seen the redesign of a lot of lens to optimise performance for digital and this has resulted in considerable size increases.

Honestly I wonder as well whether we might finally see Sigma style multi layer sensor tech start to catch on in the coming years, if we do then that's likely to case even bigger performance issues with small flange distances.

That's why my feeling is if Canon do put on a mirrorless mount FF camera it will likely look to follow the EF-M, not as a rival to EOS but rather a smaller system that focuses on a handful of lenses that do give a relatively small package. As with the APSC sensor size I do think there's a vulnerability here with Sony who seem to have taken the route of compromised cheaper lenses to drive higher end sales. That does I'd say heavily compromise a system sold on size since often lenses like the kit zoom are the only option if you want a relatively small package.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 10, 2017)

why do we even need a small mirrorless full frame ecosystem?

canon will / should go mirrorless for the EF mount. period. there's too much legacy glass out there, and the world resists adapters. Moving off the EF mount simply will add too much consumer confusion in a marketplace where that is completely unnecessary.

the only real reason mirrorless is necessary now for full frame is simply to have a consistent hybrid view of the world for video and stills shooting and for those that prefer EVF over OVF. for the vast majority of people, an EF full frame mirrorless camera body system would be no difference in size and weight from a mirrorless one with a shorter registration distance. Why? because the body ergonomics dictate the size more than the registration distance.

if canon figures out a compact and inexpensive way of doing a hybrid viewfinder - the need for a total mirrorless solution even moreso becomes an non entity.

clamoring for yet another mount system is absurd - and then we have on top of that, the challenges that canon will have to fix doing a full frame sensor in a small registration distance camera ecosystem. Canon as of now has no BSI technology implemented. that in itself is both a fabrication and patent issue.

there's a ton of technical hurdles that need to be jumped for a shorter registration distance mirrorless option that everyone is simply glossing over - from the sensor all the way to the battery.

an EF mount mirrorless doesn't have near as many issues - since it's already implemented for both EF lenses and also EF cameras out there today in the 5D Mark IV - we see that the proof of concept for a mirrorless EF mount camera is pretty much already here.

The market is shrinking, canon is going to fight hard to maintain it's volume of sales and profitability, which means stealing from others - however, they also can't afford to spend their entire R&D budget on a new ecosystem either. there's no bang for the buck there. the bang of the buck would be to take existing ecosystems and technology and implement a new camera body within the existing ecosystems.

Canon is already dead f'king slow implementing EF-M .. how slow will they be implementing a 5th mount ecosystem on top of that? (EF-S, EF-M, EF, EF-CINI and now some want EF-Mx)

then we have the fact to how canon is stretched out... 

M10, M6, M5
SL1, T6, T7i, 77D, 80D, 7D mark II, 6D, 5D mark IV, 5Ds/r, 1Dx Mark II
C100, C300, C500, C700

and we're going to add a whole new line to that?


----------



## GHPhotography (Feb 10, 2017)

If Canon could make smaller/lighter/cheaper EF mount lenses that matched the L series quality they would. Without a breakthrough in new lens materials or technology we are limited to the physics of optical design. Adding in other features like IS complicates the design and adds weight/size to the lens. 

The way I see it the future is only smaller/lighter if Canon can master DO lenses or if a new lens material is developed. AvTvM, what makes you think smaller and lighter but higher quality lenses are designable in the first place? Just hopes and dreams or actual optic knowledge? I ask in part because I am about to teach an optics unit to my physics class and if you know something revolutionary I would love to include it.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2017)

GHPhotography said:


> If Canon could make smaller/lighter/cheaper EF mount lenses that matched the L series quality they would. Without a breakthrough in new lens materials or technology we are limited to the physics of optical design. Adding in other features like IS complicates the design and adds weight/size to the lens.
> 
> The way I see it the future is only smaller/lighter if Canon can master DO lenses or if a new lens material is developed. AvTvM, what makes you think smaller and lighter but higher quality lenses are designable in the first place? Just hopes and dreams or actual optic knowledge? I ask in part because I am about to teach an optics unit to my physics class and if you know something revolutionary I would love to include it.



There have been lots of improvements over the last 20 years......

Optical glass compositions have changed and new materials like fluorite elements have emerged.....
Coatings have been improved.....
The software used to design lenses has allowed very complex designs to be simulated.....
The accuracy to which a lens can be ground and polished has improved dramatically.....
The mechanical construction of lenses has become more accurate....

All of those advances did not result in smaller lenses (with the exception of pancakes where image quality was sacrificed for size), they went into image quality and lenses seem to have become larger! The result is that new lenses are far superior to the glass that I shot with 20 years ago. The market seems to value image quality over size!


----------



## GHPhotography (Feb 10, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> There have been lots of improvements over the last 20 years......
> 
> Optical glass compositions have changed and new materials like fluorite elements have emerged.....
> Coatings have been improved.....
> ...



Right, that is my point. If Canon could make small/light/cheap lenses that were of the highest quality they would, it just makes sense as a major manufacturer in the market. If pancake L series lenses were doable Canon would make them. I think we are nearing the limit for what can be done with the current lens materials, unless they develop new ones (like the blue goo the 35 f/1.4 has) or master new technology (like diffractive optics) we are going to see relatively big and heavy L series lenses and only see small lenses that take an IQ hit. Askin Canon to make Leries quality for pancake price and materials is a pipe dream that will never happen unless major breakthroughs occur.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 10, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> then we have the fact to how canon is stretched out...
> 
> M10, M6, M5
> SL1, T6, T7i, 77D, 80D, 7D mark II, 6D, 5D mark IV, 5Ds/r, 1Dx Mark II
> ...



If trust fund kids, one-percenters and rabid enthusiasts will drop $3k on a body and another $1-2k on lenses, _*YES*_. If this generates incremental units -- especially from higher-paying users -- Canon will find a way to make it happen.

That said, I agree with all your other points. Full EF makes the most sense. 

But while a new mount may still happen, it does not signal the end of EF. A new mount and a well-contained offering of new small thin-mount lenses (say the 4-6 staples: 24-70 f/4, 16-35 f/4 (perhaps slower to keep it small), 24 f/2, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, perhaps a macro) is absolutely possible. Canon simply needs to state "We'll only make a few new lenses for the new mount because there are so many EF lenses you can use with an adaptor. [Wipe hands.] We're done here."

- A


----------



## GHPhotography (Feb 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> If trust fund kids, one-percenters and rabid enthusiasts will drop $3k on a body and another $1-2k on lenses, _*YES*_. If this generates incremental units -- especially from higher-paying users -- Canon will find a way to make it happen.
> 
> That said, I agree with all your other points. Full EF makes the most sense.
> 
> ...



I would argue that trust fund kids and 1% spend their coin on Canon gear because the pros use it, not because of any tech advancements or weight savings. I shoot prep sports to make extra cash and I get the "your camera looks like the ones on TV" or "Oh my god, I want your camera so bad" from parents and athletes all the time. 

Canon likely attracts more enthusiasts and 1% by dominating the Olympics and Super Bowl than by making mount changes. I still think the smartest advertising Canon has ever done is painting their big lenses white.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 10, 2017)

GHPhotography said:


> I would argue that trust fund kids and 1% spend their coin on Canon gear because the pros use it, not because of any tech advancements or weight savings. I shoot prep sports to make extra cash and I get the "your camera looks like the ones on TV" or "Oh my god, I want your camera so bad" from parents and athletes all the time.
> 
> Canon likely attracts more enthusiasts and 1% by dominating the Olympics and Super Bowl than by making mount changes. I still think the smartest advertising Canon has ever done is painting their big lenses white.



Think more present day for a second: the young people who take lifestyle photos _of their swag_. 

People who obsess about their possessions belonging to a pretty set of things. The ones who buy absurdly expense leather showpiece bags for their gear. 

_Those_ people. (See pics below.) 

They don't fit into any pre-made buckets of photographers, have a lot of coin in their pocket, and want something small and sexy for their exciting lives. Canon and Nikon would give their left nut for such a crowd of not-premium-pricing-averse shoppers, and that _might_ come in the form of a new mount and a handful of lenses. 

The RX1 rigs, X100 rigs and Nikon Df were 100% aimed at that audience. Screw specs -- give me sexy.

- A


----------



## GHPhotography (Feb 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Think more present day for a second: the young people who take lifestyle photos _of their swag_.
> 
> People who obsess about their possessions belonging to a pretty set of things. The ones who buy absurdly expense leather showpiece bags for their gear.
> 
> ...



Point well taken. Though the few friends of mine that DO fit that category all take the picture of their "swag" gear using Canon bodies and lenses because they asked me what to buy. My current second shooter for weddings often posts pictures OF his rangefinder camera that his grandfather left him, but most of his social posts are shot WITH a Canon XXD body. 

EDIT- This is the crowd that I think Canon is actively courting with the M5/M6 bodies, hip and mirrorless and the silver accents on the M6 make it look more retro style


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > then we have the fact to how canon is stretched out...
> ...



trust fund kids would already have options to purchase. I see / saw so many tourists sporting 5D's and L's in mexico .. it was rediculous how many. just a few mirrorless.

The RX1, X100,etc are not ILC's so that's a different take and yes, canon needs premium on there. however I don't really see the need for a premium FF mirrorless when canon has full frame options to handle the vast majority of the market.

and they do already - while there's some leakage to Sony, people tend to forget the massive amount of users that use canon that can possibly upgrade to those 5D's and 6D's.

there's also nothing saying that canon can't make an EF rangefinder / hip camera either. the FD mount was a long haul registration distance and some of the cameras such as the F-1 and AE-1 are small for today's cameras.

btw, it's canon's 80th anniversary this year, I wonder if they will do something cool for it such as an EF mount AE-1


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 10, 2017)

Canon pancake lenses sacrificing IQ? ridiculous. EF 40/2.8 is one stop söower than 35/2.0 IS, but not at all vehind in IQ. EF-S 24/2.8 is definitely not behind in IQ compatrd to sny ither Canon EF-S lens. Pentax Limited pancakes are full frame and definitely not behind in IQ compared to comparable FL regular-size K-mount lenses. 

Canon EF-M 22/2.0 is tiny, dirt cheap and has stellar IQ. it beats any other canon EF-M, EF-S and Nikon DX crop lens, no matter what size. it is inly matched in IQ by Fuji XF 23/2.0 which is also very compact, but comes at 4 tomes the price. 

lens design starts with a properly chosen lens mount. Canon FD was an excellent choice (back then for manual focus), Canon EF eas an excellent choice with its oversize width, EF-M like Sony E was a good choice for mirrorless APS-C image circle ... but not for 36x24 sensors.

market wants smaller, yet still fully capable gear. not inly hipsters, but many enthusiasts who are sick and tited of having to lug around massive, heavy imaging gear. neuro considering more compact EOS M6 rather than bigger M5 is a good example... 

mirrorless FF has the potential for fully capable imaging gear in a smaller package than DSLRs. Sony has tapped it with A7 series, but blew it with lens mount choice. FE lenses are NOT "cheaper in exchange for lower IQ", but "way longer, bigger and more expensive than would have been necessary for excellent IQ with a properly chosen lens mount". Even Zeiss is severely limited in their lens design aid for Sony ... simply because choice of E-mount for FF Mirrorless does not allow for high IQ lenses that are also compact and affordable. 

i am convinced, Canon will not repeat Sony's mistake. and they know they'll sell many more brand new EX-? lenses over many years to come than only upgraded versions of EF lenses. no matter, what "lens design experts" on this forum may think.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Canon pancake lenses sacrificing IQ? ridiculous. EF 40/2.8 is one stop söower than 35/2.0 IS, but not at all vehind in IQ. EF-S 24/2.8 is definitely not behind in IQ compatrd to sny ither Canon EF-S lens. Pentax Limited pancakes are full frame and definitely not behind in IQ compared to comparable FL regular-size K-mount lenses.



IQ is not the only consideration, though. Lenses have features _other than being sharp_, and the Canon pancakes forego almost all of them! 

Canon's pancakes:


Lack IS
Lack USM focusing speed
Lack distance scales
Lack a proper focusing ring
Are focus by wire and have a poor, laggy feel when manually focusing
Have cheap and questionably effective hoods
Are externally focusing (an inner lens tube projects out front while focusing) -- that's a pathway for dust/moisture to get in

That seems a ton to give up to keep things small. In that light, Canon shouldn't build a platform around pancakes. Offer a few, sure -- they are quite sharp -- but don't build a system around them.

There's a good reason why my 28 f/2.8 IS USM and 35mm f/2 IS USM get used much much more than my 40mm EF pancake does.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> i am convinced



While that may be a critical factor in the AvTvM Universe, it doesn't mean anything out here in the real world.


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2017)

Yeah the 40 certainly has a lot of shortcomings when you compare it to other lenses but when you just use it it can truly surprise you with great micro contrast and color rendition. For me it replaced a Voigtlander and I gained both AF and better vignetting. 

I'm usually using it when I have time to shoot, time to focus and recompose, time to look for subtle interesting moods in a scene. My favorite shots with it have been at sunset in Orlando at Epcot. 

But all in all this has nothing to do with the internals of a rumored Canon FF ML camera. Except you could probably fit 2 of them in the body.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> market wants smaller, who says? It would be stupid to say people would not welcome a lighter, smaller lens came up that did not sacrifice quality, but that is very different ot say that people are clamouring for ityet still fully capable gear. not inly hipsters, but many enthusiasts who are sick and tited of having to lug around massive, heavy imaging gear. neuro considering more compact EOS M6 rather than bigger M5 is a good example... which proves my point - they will welcome it when it arrives, but that is not the same as saying they are demanding it
> 
> mirrorless FF has the potential for fully capable imaging gear in a smaller package than DSLRs. you really are a genius, aren't you Sony has tapped it with A7 series, but blew it with lens mount choice so have they 'tapped it' or haven't they? it is one or the other. You are arguing both sides at the same time . FE lenses are NOT "cheaper in exchange for lower IQ", but "way longer, bigger and more expensive than would have been necessary for excellent IQ with a properly chosen lens mount". Even Zeiss is severely limited in their lens design aid for Sony ... simply because choice of E-mount for FF Mirrorless does not allow for high IQ lenses that are also compact and affordable. you still haven't proved that 'high IQ' is compatible with either 'compact' or 'affordable'. You are living in la-la-land
> 
> i am convinced, Canon will not repeat Sony's mistake so why are they 'dumb'?. and they know they'll sell many more brand new EX-? lenses over many years to come than only upgraded versions of EF lenses. no matter, what "lens design experts" on this forum may think.  you mean, unlike 'lens designers' who think it is perfectly reasonable to expect high IQ, affordable, compact lenses to fit a totally new ficticious lens mount that will be released in the next 2 years?????


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 10, 2017)

wow so much red ink, drama queen. 

sony has tapped smaller size in FF *mirrorless bodies*. they missed the boat with their wrong choice of lens mount and the compromised lens design caused by it. just look at their big, fat, grissly overpriced zeiss-badged FE-lenses and those obacenely big GM "Girth Master" lenses. Would you really want Canon to repeat that mistake? ;-)


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2017)

Ok ok, this is all rinse and repeat here. Anyone with something relevant and/or new? Yawn.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 10, 2017)

The new mount discussion for a FF is somewhat ridiculous. 
There are several issues that have to be resolved before a FF mirrorless will be the replacement for DSLR's. 
As an owner of a M5 they have to resolve the battery issue, continual shooting in live view is a drain. 
Shutter lag, shutter speed and AF all have to improve. 

Add to this that Canon makes all their FF bodies mirrorless convertibles, they just throw in a mirror in case you want to switch it over to a an old style DSLR. I am sure this is in Canon's mind when debating on whether to release a FF dedicated mirrorless. What would a 1Dx II or a 5D IV mirrorless do for you that a one with a mirror will not do? Save you a few ounces of weight on a rig that weighs several pounds? Save a bit of size on top that you will end up mounting a huge flash to? Add several batteries to your kit, make it even more difficult to carry enough batteries because of restrictions when flying?

Canon released the M1 and everyone complained it didn't have a view finder. Seriously, keep the mirror and you have both.

So why hasn't Canon retooled their factories and investing millions in designing lenses that can be used as mirrorless now? Maybe they see it for what it really is and know the need is not there yet. Then again maybe they are and they know it is 10 years down the road.

Think about this, if there is a real market for mirrorless FF Canon bodies, there would be companies removing the mirrors from DSLR's and modifying the top. Where there is a true need there is always someone finding a way.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> What would a 1Dx II or a 5D IV mirrorless do for you that a one with a mirror will not do? Save you a few ounces of weight on a rig that weighs several pounds? Save a bit of size on top that you will end up mounting a huge flash to? Add several batteries to your kit, make it even more difficult to carry enough batteries because of restrictions when flying?



We have covered this before. Answering your question, in reverse perspective this time: 
*
With a mirror...*


*You can't run LiveView and get all of its benefits -- brighten a dark room, focus peaking, histo in the viewfinder, etc. -- handheld up to your eye.* No, a loupe on the back LCD doesn't count, nor does holding a camera with two hands a foot from your face and smugly saying "I've got mirrorless right here". Getting all the LiveView magic through the VF while still have a super stable holding posture and perfect native handling of all the buttons is where the good stuff comes in: using manual focus lenses, shooting in really dark rooms where the AF may let you down, checking exposure as you go in difficult lighting rather than having to chimp what you captured, etc.


You can't use AF points far away from the center when shooting through the viewfinder. OVF AF spreads are somewhat central but sensor-based AF covers a ton more of the frame.


You have more work to do to get the best AF performance -- you need to dial in the lens for that body.


You get mirror slap. (It's not a big deal for me, but this is a small downside to a mirror.)


You can't adapt other companies' lenses. (This of course would require a thinner mirrorless mount instead of full EF)

That said, you happen to have chose two of Canon's finest rigs, and mirrorless won't outperform those (real world 'yes it can' usability, I mean) for a very long time. In the mirrorless future down the road where 90% of cameras are mirrorless and only a few SLR types remain, it will be the really high end SLRs (like the two brand levels you mentioned) that remain with mirrors.

I'm not saying mirrorless is better yet. It's not. But mirrorless is not without its upsides even today.

And it isn't a black and white / 'one is better than the other' / 'retool the whole plant!' sort of thing. Mirrorless opens a few interesting doors photographically that people would pay for. But no one's saying a new year rolls around and SLRs will be out of fashion -- it will be a gradient of mirrorless increasing its units while SLRs units diminish. One would think mirrorless would start from the bottom (1300D, SL1, etc.) and eat its way up the food chain until only the highest end SLRs keep their mirrors.

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm not saying mirrorless is better yet. It's not.



I agree with that. 
Point is that almost anything incorporated in to a mirrorless can be incorporated in to today's DSLR's and you keep the mirror. Name any thing that you can think of that cann't I am sure Canon is aware of this.

The advantage is weight and size, but that will be only slightly significant.

The view finder of the M5 is not a big positive and probably part of the reason for the battery drain. So t me that isn't a benefit.

So are there more benefits of mirrorless that cann't be incorporated in to DSLR's?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> I agree with that.
> Point is that almost anything incorporated in to a mirrorless can be incorporated in to today's DSLR's and you keep the mirror. Name any thing that you can think of that cann't I am sure Canon is aware of this.
> 
> The advantage is weight and size, but that will be only slightly significant.
> ...



You are driving around the point. DSLRs in LiveView _can_ do most everything a mirrorless rig can do (except for thin mount size savings and lens adapting), _if you don't mind using a loupe, using a tripod, or taking photos a foot from your face like it's an iPad. _

That italicized caveat above is a categorical non-starter for me. I only shoot handheld away from my eye when I'm reaching over a crowd, which is next to never. 

Consider what I cannot do with my 5D3 today -- it's a short but pretty specific list. Everyone's list will be a little different, but here's mine:


Since Canon took away focusing screens from the 5D line, large aperture manual focus lens work is off the table. Focus peaking through the viewfinder effectively solves that problem.
Even the best AF can't resolve in poor interior lighting, say at a concert or indoor event. With an EVF, I'd switch off the AF, brighten the viewfinder, and either use peaking again or go 5x/10x to confirm focus -- again, all through the viewfinder in what is likely a high ISO / longer shutter environment that I wouldn't want to hold out away from my body.
My 5D3 cannot let me pack the smallest possible FF construct for travel -- thin mount mirrorless could. a 5D3 is not terrible for travel at all, but yes, it could be smaller on the 24-50mm FLs I like to use.
My 5D3 is limited to EF glass. Thin mount + adapter would unlock a great deal more. With MF assist tools and a thinner mount, I will become an ancient lens collector because I could actually use those lenses on a modern rig with all the Canon handling/ergonomics I love.
Granted, I love my 5D3 and haven't gone mirrorless because everything I'd lose is greater than what I'd gain in 2017. But someday, that's going to be a hell of a mirrorless rig and I'm going to love it.

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 11, 2017)

They do make adapters for the EF mount. You are not limited now.
And
You are making the assumption the size difference will be enough to matter.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 11, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> They do make adapters for the EF mount. You are not limited now.
> And
> You are making the assumption the size difference will be enough to matter.



You're making the assertion that size matters....??

Ok..sorry, sorry.....I just couldn't resist....



C


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 11, 2017)

cayenne said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > They do make adapters for the EF mount. You are not limited now.
> ...



Hopefully not to the girls I take pictures of.
If they do not like the quality I get out of a crop sensor then they will not be satisfied.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 11, 2017)

size advantage of mirrorless FF vs. full-blown mirrorslappers like 1D or even 5D series is *really significant*. it dors matter to a lot of people.

Bpdy size like Sony A7 (1st series) plus well-chosen lens mount yielding a compact lens set eg 16-35/4, 24-70/4, 50-150/4, 20/4, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 ... would be absolutely great. camera body could still have a grip large enough to for good ergonomics and to hold a regular-charge battery (12+ Watthours, size like like LP-E6N). 

it could do everything a 5D IV does and them some (EVF to see image scene as it will be recorded, no mirrorslap, no no mech shutter = vibration-free, adaptability of all EF lenses with full functionality, etc.) at significantly reduced size and weight ... and (potentially) lower price, since cost to produce suchva cam is quite a bit lower than for mirrorslappers. 

as far as market potential goes: just imagine for a moment, if Sony A7 II series would be "Canon" instead of "Sony" ... with some nice and compact native Canon lenses (instead of mega-bucks, big fat expensive Sony "girth master" or "sonyZeiss" lenses) and a simple, cheap adapter for all Canon EF glass (instead of 500 bucks metabones stuff) ... and Canon RT flash commander built in ... i would not worry about sales of a compact, affordable, mirrorless FF system ... with Canon badge on it.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> wow so much red ink, drama queen.
> 
> sony has tapped smaller size in FF *mirrorless bodies*. they missed the boat with their wrong choice of lens mount and the compromised lens design caused by it. just look at their big, fat, grissly overpriced zeiss-badged FE-lenses and those obacenely big GM "Girth Master" lenses. Would you really want Canon to repeat that mistake? ;-)



No, I would not want them to repeat that mistake.

But I note that (again) you have avoided my key question in my last 2 posts: if Sony, Fuji and everyone else have (at your own admission) screwed the lens mount, where is the commercial threat that is Canon's incentive to introduce a new mount in the short timelines you say is essential. 
Yet all you do is keep on bleating about how Canon need to go deeper into the mirrorless market sector - I am not denying that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> wow so much red ink



That's exactly what Canon's commercial/marketing group said when the idea of a new FF MILC lens mount incompatible with EOS M bodies was presented to them.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> wow so much red ink, drama queen.
> 
> sony has tapped smaller size in FF *mirrorless bodies*. they missed the boat with their wrong choice of lens mount and the compromised lens design caused by it. just look at their big, fat, grissly overpriced zeiss-badged FE-lenses and those obacenely big GM "Girth Master" lenses. Would you really want Canon to repeat that mistake? ;-)



Mistake??? 

If a7 is the primary gear in his/her photography, the 24-70GM & 70-200GM are great choices shooting at even. Why I know it? because I *OWN* them.

You don't need to buy these larger FE lenses if they don't fit your needs. Batis, FE28, FE35f2.8 and FE55 are great choices if you want compact on the go. 

Your needs don't apply to others.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 11, 2017)

FE 35 is the only halfway compact FE lens. had Sony chosen better mount parameters, they could have wasily made a 35/2.0 same size. 

Fe 55 has built in spacer already. lens mount at fault. 

FE lenses are too big, too complex and too expensive (compared to Canon, Nikon) ... simply because of Sony's mistake to use an APS-C E-mount also for FF. Sony lens size and prices are a major reason why they have not been able to capture a more significant market share.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> FE 35 is the only halfway compact FE lens. had Sony chosen better mount parameters, they could have wasily made a 35/2.0 same size.
> 
> Fe 55 has built in spacer already. lens mount at fault.
> 
> FE lenses are too big, too complex and too expensive (compared to Canon, Nikon) ... simply because of Sony's mistake to use an APS-C E-mount also for FF. Sony lens size and prices are a major reason why they have not been able to capture a more significant market share.



Again, too much day dreaming!!!


----------



## unfocused (Feb 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > wow so much red ink
> ...



Also highly likely.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 11, 2017)

unfocused said:


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



How do you figure? As with everything Canon, we can expect them to make no rash decisions. FF mirrorless is likely to have a lot of interest among pro/enthusiast groups, rather than newbs, and those groups want L-glass. It seems to me that creating a new FF M-mount would mean committing to a line of new L-class lenses from UWA to 200mm. It's possible, but it certainly doesn't look like an obvious decision either way.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 11, 2017)

Orangutan said:


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



Because the statement below is unproven and highly speculative.



> ...FF mirrorless is likely to have a lot of interest among pro/enthusiast groups...



Only Canon knows if the market exists. Perhaps it does. But, it is equally likely that it doesn't exist in sufficient quantity to justify creating a full frame mirrorless at this time.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 11, 2017)

unfocused said:


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



Cost alone makes my assertion likely: the M5 is $980, how much would a FF M5 cost? If reports are true, it's going to have the same guts as the 6D2 -- I don't think they'd cannibalize 6D2 sales by pricing the mirrorless much lower, if at all.

My best guess is that the FF mirrorless market will be much the same as the 6D2 market. Guesses are just guesses, though.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> FE lenses are too big, too complex and too expensive (compared to Canon, Nikon) ... simply because of Sony's mistake to use an APS-C E-mount also for FF. Sony lens size and prices are a major reason why they have not been able to capture a more significant market share.



Then read Dylan's post above.

_You have options that are not big_: http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.394,624.429,624.615,ha,t

As far as I can tell, the wheels only come off the bus with the whole 'built-in lens tube at the base of the lens' for the f/1.4 primes, f/2.8 zooms, and lenses with larger diameter front elements: http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.515,624.440,624.516,ha,t

What's the problem? 

You claim Sony going too thin with the mount makes their lenses enormous, but I have yet to see the dissertation on why a 5mm more flange distance would magically make FF lenses 25mm shorter.

I have a theory that the porridge is always too hot or too could with you. No one is making the perfect balance of 'fast-ish and not too big' lenses for you. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> How do you figure? As with everything Canon, we can expect them to make no rash decisions. FF mirrorless is likely to have a lot of interest among pro/enthusiast groups, rather than newbs, and those groups want L-glass. It seems to me that creating a new FF M-mount would mean committing to a line of new L-class lenses from UWA to 200mm. It's possible, but it certainly doesn't look like an obvious decision either way.



I see three possible FF mirrorless outcomes: 


They go with EF-M. They make a small selection of FF lenses for EF-M and offer an adaptor for the rest. They may or not be L series quality depend on the price of the brand, how well the non-Ls sell at first, etc.


They go full EF and offer us something really sexy to bolt on to it as a distraction to why it's not a thin-flange setup, like a 24-50 f/2L or a 24-70 f/2.8L IS, etc.



They go with two models, one with a thin and one with a full EF mount (over time, not simultaneously -- thin would lead to test the waters)
_
But none of those options involve remaking EF in any significant way. _ If there's a thin mount, I only see 4-6 lenses ever happening. Your up to 200mm comment is dreamland for the mirrorless camp -- the only way long glass saves meaningful space over full EF would be to nerf the max aperture, like offer a dainty 200mm f/6.3 or 70-200 f/5.6 and I just don't see that happening.

- A


----------



## moreorless (Feb 11, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Cost alone makes my assertion likely: the M5 is $980, how much would a FF M5 cost? If reports are true, it's going to have the same guts as the 6D2 -- I don't think they'd cannibalize 6D2 sales by pricing the mirrorless much lower, if at all.
> 
> My best guess is that the FF mirrorless market will be much the same as the 6D2 market. Guesses are just guesses, though.



My guess is if we saw a FF EOS mount camera it would probably be below the 6D2 in price but if we see a FF EF-M camera or less likely a new mount it would likely be closer to the same price.

Really though I think just focusing on body price is perhaps a mistake. A lot of Canon's recent success for me has actually been based on bucking the trend of offering poorly performing kit options and overpriced upgrades. Sony especially is IMHO guilty of this and I think the EF-M lineup offering quality in the kit options and relatively cheap upgrades was a big issue, I could well see the same happening with FF.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2017)

People go FF for image quality.

Shorter flange distances means the light hits the sensor at a greater angle, causing vigneting, and the associated drop in image quality.

Going FF with a newer and shorter mount/flange distance puts these two factors into conflict.

How do you resolve this?


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> People go FF for image quality.
> 
> Shorter flange distances means the light hits the sensor at a greater angle, causing vigneting, and the associated drop in image quality.
> 
> ...



Curved sensor?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2017)

slclick said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > People go FF for image quality.
> ...


A curved sensor makes it better for light coming through a point, but as the rear element gets larger (fast lenses) a curved sensor becomes less effective, and eventually worse than a flat lens.....


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I believe there have been patents for better microlenses, which could accommodate this at some point. Remember that this is conservative Canon we're talking about: they won't dump all this tech into one product until they've extensively tested the both the performance and the market.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> You claim Sony going too thin with the mount makes their lenses enormous, but I have yet to see the dissertation on why a 5mm more flange distance would magically make FF lenses 25mm shorter.



read my posts. it is not ehat i wrote. 

mistake with Sony E-mount is the *combination* of 1) too narrow throat width (46.1mn) and 2) too short FDD (18mm) *for FF image circle*.

if you cant see the corners of the sensor looking through mount hole, it is a problem already. incoming light needs to be "bent around corner" even at "normal FOV/focal length". i contend that narrow throat width is the bigger problem with Sony E-mount for FF sensor. the problem is then further exacerbated by very short FDD. 

and yes, just a few mm more throat width *and* a bit longer FDD would have shaved off the 25mm spacer/built in adapter in Sony FE lenses. no, i am not an optics expert. nut i habe closely looked at the relation beteeen lens mount parameters (width AND flangd focal distance) and associated lens sizes. evidence is pretty clear.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > You claim Sony going too thin with the mount makes their lenses enormous, but I have yet to see the dissertation on why a 5mm more flange distance would magically make FF lenses 25mm shorter.
> ...



The diagonal of an FF sensor is 43.3mm, why wouldn't the corners be seen when looking through a hole 46.1mm wide?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > if you cant see the corners of the sensor looking through mount hole, it is a problem already.
> ...



Because he has eyes, he can look at pictures of the a7R II and he can't see the corners of the 'sensor' through the mount hole. 

Here's the thing...in the AvTvM Universe, the 'sensor' goes right to the very edges of the piece of silicon. Out here in the real world, there's a non-light sensitive border around the edge. In fact, the difference can be seen on those pics of the a7R II, if you look closely. But looking closely is apparently among the many things which AvTvM does poorly.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> People go FF for image quality.
> 
> Shorter flange distances means the light hits the sensor at a greater angle, causing vigneting, and the associated drop in image quality.
> 
> ...



You could also push the rear element of the lens further away from the sensor, effectively building some of that regular FF SLR mount back into the lens -- the 'lens tube' effect AvTvM keeps referring to.

But I'm only seeing this with f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms and UWA lenses with the Sony mount. A number of other lenses (f/2 primes, non-UWA f/4 zooms, etc.) seem to not need this. Just curious, why is this so? Does the diameter of the rear element have something to do with this?

- A


----------



## dak723 (Feb 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > People go FF for image quality.
> ...



It might be debatable whether other lenses don't need the "lens tube" or should have it, too. I only have experience with the the Sony FE 28-70 kit lens - and when I bought it with the Sony A7 II, I thought the lens was defective it was so lacking sharpness away from the center. I traded it in for another kit (this time with the original A7) and the results were the same. At the time, I knew nothing about flange distance - I just thought Sony made crappy lenses. The other kit lens, the more expensive Sony FE 24-70, has similar reveiws - at least according to the review on Imaging Resource. They write:



> Despite carrying the Zeiss branding, which is typically indicative of high-end results, we felt that the Sony FE 24-70 Zeiss lens fell a little short of our expectations. At 24mm, the lens displays good sharpness right in the center of the frame, even wide open, but outwards and especially in the deep corners it's noticeably soft. Surprisingly, even stopping down doesn't improve the corner softness at 24mm, and by ƒ/16-ƒ/22, diffraction comes into play and reduces sharpness all around even more.
> 
> Zooming out to 35mm and 50mm improves sharpness significantly, especially in the corners, and throughout the aperture range (until diffraction hits at ƒ/22). However, as we saw at 24mm, 70mm on the Sony FE 24-70 displays a decently sharp center, but with considerably softer corners that aren't much improved by stopping down. Surprisingly, corners at 70mm appear even softer than they do at 24mm.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 12, 2017)

I can't believe you folks are still arguing about this. So here are my trivial comments:

1. I want a FF camera, perhaps MILC, that is lighter than my 5D3 but not necessarily smaller. Likewise, I'd like lighter lenses. If that means using a 24-70 f/4 instead of a 24-70 f/2.8, then so be it.

2. I don't see how converting the M-mount to FF buys Canon anything, since current M-mount lenses are for APS-C sensors and couldn't be used on a FF M-mount camera. Furthermore, the EF-mount isn't that much larger than the M-mount, 54mm vs 47mm, as I recall.

3. At one time, I thought creating a new FF mount by simply reducing the EF mount flange distance, might be a good idea. I've changed my mind, since it forces Canon to introduce a fourth lens line to support it. If only current EF lenses (plus an adapter) would be used with the new lens mount, then why not effectively make the adapter part of the camera?

4. A Canon FF MILC in a rangefinder configuration might be interesting, although I'm not sure I would buy one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

Bob Howland said:


> 2. I don't see how converting the M-mount to FF buys Canon anything, since current M-mount lenses are for APS-C sensors and couldn't be used on a FF M-mount camera.



By that logic, the EF-S mount doesn't buy them anything, because those lenses are for APS-C sensors and can't be used on FF mount dSLRs. 

Think of it from the opposite direction...full-frame EF lenses _can_ mount natively on APS-C dSLRs. Canon sells lots more crop than FF bodies, but already owning some FF glass makes the upgrade more palatable. The same driver would eventually apply to MILCs.


----------



## pokerz (Feb 12, 2017)

Bob Howland said:


> I can't believe you folks are still arguing about this. So here are my trivial comments:
> 
> 1. I want a FF camera, perhaps MILC, that is lighter than my 5D3 but not necessarily smaller. Likewise, I'd like lighter lenses. If that means using a 24-70 f/4 instead of a 24-70 f/2.8, then so be it.
> 
> ...


More mounts mean more new modern lens for us, Canon is trying hard to fade out old USM lens.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



This photo demonstrates the problem isn't with the 46.1mm diameter, but rather with other stuff inside it obstructing the view to the sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Not sure if you kept reading my post beyond the part you quoted, so I put the rest of my post back in italics for context. My point was that there's nothing 'obstructing the view to the sensor' and thus there's no problem at all, since the entire light-capturing area of the sensor can be seen.

The only problem is in AvTvM's imagination.


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Think of it from the opposite direction...full-frame EF lenses _can_ mount natively on APS-C dSLRs. Canon sells lots more crop than FF bodies, but already owning some FF glass makes the upgrade more palatable. The same driver would eventually apply to MILCs.



Let me run this by you and see if your universe lines up with the real. 

The EF lens existed before EF-S. The EF-S of course gave an upgrade path but it also gave entry level customers an affordable compact option.

You think that Canon has done this in reverse now. The APS-C M mount will be used on both it and the full frame M.

For this senario to play out we have to assume that Canon applied their wisdom and research in such matters and it is designed that way. The M mount can be used on a FF. You have looked at the math and formulas yourself and it can?

You are not suggesting that the current set of M lenses can be used on a FF, rather that a lens dedicated to a FF will be released and it will work on both cameras?

In this senario it would explain why Canon has been slow releasing a FF. It is not just the camera but the lens that must be released. This plan was implemented before the release of the M1.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Think of it from the opposite direction...full-frame EF lenses _can_ mount natively on APS-C dSLRs. Canon sells lots more crop than FF bodies, but already owning some FF glass makes the upgrade more palatable. The same driver would eventually apply to MILCs.
> ...



Exactly. I have no doubt Canon was planning for both APS-C and FF mirrorless well before the EOS M launch. I don't know for sure that the EF-M mount can support FF, but the EF-M mount specs are a match to Sony's E-mount used on their FF MILCs, so that's likely the smallest possible mount that would work. 

In spite of AvTvM's viewpoint that such a mount is 'a mistake', I'd argue that, since for many people a major advantage to mirrorless is the smaller size, using the smallest mount possible is a very reasonable choice. 

I don't think those factors have much to do with why there's not yet a Canon FF MILC...that's more to do with the overall market (still 3:1 favoring dSLRs), and the fact that competitors MILCs aren't taking market share away from Canon.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 12, 2017)

it does not make a difference to MIl body size, whteher the hole is 46mm or 50mm in net diameter. It dioes not make much difference to MILC body size , whether FDD is 18mm or 24mm. It makes a HELL OF A LOT OF A DIFFERENCE however to combination of *size, image quality and cost* of lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> it does not make a difference to MIl body size, whteher the hole is 46mm or 50mm in net diameter. It dioes not make much difference to MILC body size , whether FDD is 18mm or 24mm. It makes a HELL OF A LOT OF A DIFFERENCE however to combination of *size, image quality and cost* of lenses.



The most appropriate response to that is your own words (note that I use the term 'words' loosely):



AvTvM said:


> no, i am not an optics expert. nut i habe closely looked at the relation beteeen lens mount parameters


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 12, 2017)

i find iphone typing a bit difficult. I'd prefer a keyboard with real keys too. So please bear with me and don't draw premature conclusions. Even if this is a lot to ask of the Neuros of this virtual world.


----------



## Rocky (Feb 12, 2017)

The short lens distance (18mm) of both Sony and EOS-M is forcing the lenses to have some very "interesting design" in order to minimizing the light fall off at the corners. I do not own Sony camera, therefore I can not talk about it. I do own EOS-M camera. The EF=M 22/2 have an unusually LARGE rear element. The 11-22 mm is a retractable lens. We have to move the the lens out 15mm for the 11mm focal length. Effectively make the flange distance to be 33mm( for a 11mm lens). All of these is to increase the light ray angle to be closer to be 90 degree. On top of that the EOS-M has built in correction for light fall off.
Leica M (digital) is with flange distance of 27.8mm. It also has light fall off problem (not as severe as the EOS-M or Sony). in order to be able to use the regular film lens. It combat the problem in two ways. 1. Micro lenses are off-set at the corners ( they may have the pattern right for that). 2. Software correction in the camera.
The minimum opening for the Leica flange is 40mm. The EOS-M is 42mm.


----------



## slclick (Feb 12, 2017)

Y'all need to shoot more and type about flanges less. Or carry on, it seems to be exciting for some of you. *Yawn*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> it does not make a difference to MIl body size, whteher the hole is 46mm or 50mm in net diameter. It dioes not make much difference to MILC body size , whether FDD is 18mm or 24mm. It makes a HELL OF A LOT OF A DIFFERENCE however to combination of *size, image quality and cost* of lenses.



Ok, so you've studied mount dimensions, right? Have you studied the Leica L-mount? It has a flange focal distance of 19mm (vs. 18mm for EF-M and Sony E) for both APS-C and FF bodies. While their SL24-90mm lens is neither small nor cheap, it doesn't seem to suffer from the poor image quality you seem convinced results from a short FFD. Note that the rear element of the lens is close to the mount and thus quite close to the sensor, the design doesn't include the 'empty tube spacer' of the Sony G series. 

Granted, the throat diameter is larger than EF-M (51mm vs. 47mm), but you were quite emphatic that it was the _combination_ of a short FFD and narrow throat that was the problem. Does the Leica SL24-90 have poor image quality? Somehow, I doubt that. So unless you're going to argue that the 1mm FFD difference is somehow massive, you're wrong about the combination being a problem for IQ. 

What else are you wrong about?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... Have you studied the Leica L-mount? It has a flange focal distance of 19mm (vs. 18mm for EF-M and Sony E) ... the throat diameter is larger than EF-M (51mm vs. 47mm),



Yes, *stupid Leica SL system* is truly behemoth. They want to sell to large-handed, large-bellied, small-brained Germaniacs, members of the faith "a camera or lens ain't no good if it ain't real chunky". 

Had Leica - for example - chosen a smarter combination of say *24mm FDD AND 50mm throat width*, they could have made mirrorless lenses almost as compact as M-glass. 

Due to their erroneous product and pricing policy, Leica will never reach more than 1% market share at best. I bet, they are not even in top 10 in amazon.com sales ranking that you like to quote so frequently ... right? ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ... Have you studied the Leica L-mount? It has a flange focal distance of 19mm (vs. 18mm for EF-M and Sony E) ... the throat diameter is larger than EF-M (51mm vs. 47mm),
> ...



I'm not at all surprised that your reply doesn't even mention image quality. 

It's pathetic when someone can't admit when they're wrong. I have little to no respect for such people.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Nothing wrong. My statement that *combination* of *FDD and throat width* determines degree of latitude for lens design is 100% true. Leica chose a ridiculously short FDD, despite their SL camera body being fat-assed like a 747.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. You really have picked up where dilbert left off, except that you take better pictures.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 12, 2017)

Neuro read what I wrote. 
19mm FDD plus 51mm Throat is a better combination for FF image circle lenses than 18mm FDD plus 46mm throat width. But it is not an ideal one. 22-24mm FDD plus throat wiodth as big as possible ... 49mm and more would be even better .. for 1) no compromise image quality, 2) (more) compact lenses and 3) (more) affordable lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Neuro read what I wrote.
> 19mm FDD plus 51mm Throat is a better combination for FF image circle lenses than 18mm FDD plus 46mm throat width. But it is not an ideal one. 22-24mm FDD plus throat wiodth as big as possible ... 49mm and more would be even better .. for 1) no compromise image quality, 2) (more) compact lenses and 3) (more) affordable lenses.



Ok, then by your logic a 44mm FFD and a 54mm throat diameter would be an even better choice for those three characteristics. I'm glad we can agree on something.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro read what I wrote.
> ...



probably yes for 1) and 3). Probably not for 2). Definitely not for compact mirrorless FF cameras.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 12, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ... Have you studied the Leica L-mount? It has a flange focal distance of 19mm (vs. 18mm for EF-M and Sony E) ... the throat diameter is larger than EF-M (51mm vs. 47mm),
> ...



How can you be so sure when you admit you are not an expert in optics design. Yet by measuring the throat diameter of the Leica mount you know where Leica have gone wrong. 

But I reckon I have worked out where the Williams F1 racing team have been going wrong because I measured the position of the wing mirrors.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 13, 2017)

AvTvM & Neuroanatomist

Ive recently been involved in discussions with the major lenses designers (Panavision, Zeiss, Cooke, Angenieux, Sony, Leica, Sigma and more recently Canon) regarding a new universal mount for cinematography covering large format (vistavision which is close to 36x24mm). The FFD is being discussed between 18-22mm the image circle would need to be larger than the diagonal of the 36x24mm and the reason all these manufacturers are interested is that's the way the industry is moving. This still allows legacy lenses with a deeper FFD to be used with adaptors or extensions. 

So is Canon interested (you bet). This is in the public domain at John Fauer "Film & Digital Times" so Neuroanatomist your in the lead and AvTvM is blowing smoke.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 13, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> ... regarding a new universal mount for cinematography covering large format (vistavision which is close to 36x24mm). The FFD is being discussed between 18-22mm the image circle would need to be larger than the diagonal of the 36x24mm ...



LOL. ;D

I'd just LOVE to see your lens designers create some compact, good and affordable lenses for FF sesnor with 18mm FDD and 44mm throat width [= longer than FF diagonal] ... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 13, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> AvTvM & Neuroanatomist
> 
> Ive recently been involved in discussions with the major lenses designers (Panavision, Zeiss, Cooke, Angenieux, Sony, Leica, Sigma and more recently Canon) regarding a new universal mount for cinematography covering large format (vistavision which is close to 36x24mm). The FFD is being discussed between 18-22mm the image circle would need to be larger than the diagonal of the 36x24mm and the reason all these manufacturers are interested is that's the way the industry is moving. This still allows legacy lenses with a deeper FFD to be used with adaptors or extensions.
> 
> So is Canon interested (you bet). This is in the public domain at John Fauer "Film & Digital Times" so Neuroanatomist your in the lead and AvTvM is blowing smoke.


'big difference between producing lenses that will start in the 5 digits and go up from there, versus ILC's.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 13, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I'd just LOVE to see your lens designers create some compact, good and affordable lenses for FF sesnor with 18mm FDD and 44mm throat width [= longer than FF diagonal] ... ;D ;D ;D



Wouldn't we all. The difference is they are actually designing lenses, and you are measuring throat diameters. Some accept what the designers tell them are limitations, you just reiterate a wishlist and dress it up as 'evidence' of what Canon aren't doing but should be.


----------



## GHPhotography (Feb 13, 2017)

AvTvM, you admit you're not an expert on lens design but yet you talk like you know everything about them and no one else could conceivably be right. Why is that? are you trolling this page and just want to see how many responses you can get from Neuro or are you just that convinced by your own arguments?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 13, 2017)

i am pretty sure I'm on the right track on this one ... whether you like to read it or not. 

And if only experts would write here on their field of expertise, forum would dry up within 10 minutes .. ;D


----------



## LonelyBoy (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> yes, totally agree. it is Canon and Nikon's undeserved good luck, that
> 
> • Sony f*cked up its choice of FF mirrorless lens mount.
> • Fuji stupidly decided to go for 44X33mm "pseudo middle-format" (GFX) rather thn launching a kick-ass FF-sensored mirrorless product line
> ...



Jumping back a couple of days, but I have to ask: what do you think is more likely?

1) Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Ricoh/Pentax, and Leica are all dumb and stupid and all whiff on design and engineering
2) The problem is more complex than you think and CaNikon looked at the realities and decided "nope nope nope nope nope can't do it properly we're not wasting money down that rat hole"

Be honest.


----------



## GHPhotography (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> i am pretty sure I'm on the right track on this one ... whether you like to read it or not.
> 
> And if only experts would write here on their field of expertise, forum would dry up within 10 minutes .. ;D



I've asked before and not heard back, why are you so convinced? It seems to me that every statement you make is met with solid evidence based rebuttal. What do you know that you're not saying?


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 14, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> ...
> Be honest.



Reminds me of the quote: And remember, this is for posterity so be honest. How do you feel?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



—[sobbing]

—"Interesting..."


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > yes, totally agree. it is Canon and Nikon's undeserved good luck, that
> ...



what i honestly think is stated in the post you are quoting.

fuji has NOT f*ckep up its lens mount paramrters and lens design. They chose an "APS-C optimized" lens mount and are sticking to APS-C, rather than raping the mount into FF sensor use ... as opposed to Sony. 

Where Fuji fails (economically) is by trying to ONLY sell "retro-styled gear at premium prices". Yes, there is a market segment for it, but it is rather narrow ... people wanting a Leica, but not rich enough for that. In other words: maybe 5% market share. Fuji GFX ... technically solid 44x33 optimized lens mount parameters. Economically GFX will likely end in disaster, but not for "technical reasons". 

Oly/Panasonic: lens mount parameters adequately chosen for mFT sensor diagonal. Economically: sensor is too small to offer significant, easily visible IQ advantages over smartphones. Even worse: mFT cameras / lenses size and prices are *not proportional to reduced sensor surface area* (which is technically not possible) .. not even close. And not many people in their right mind will pay 2,000 USD/€ for a quarter-sensor camera in 2017. Therefore: death within 3 years for Oly as we know it today. Panasonic will last somewhat longer, because of their product focus on video usage. 

Basic ""product-technical" mistake: when Oly and consortium abandoned original FT mount - originally invented as a sensor-area-maximizing "work-around", back when FF sensors where way too expensive - they should have switched to 3:2, standard APS-C rather than re-inventing the wheel one more time with mFT. And speaking of "precious sensor surface": recording 16:9 video material on a 4:3 format sensor looks pretty crazy wasteful to me ... but hey, what do i know, i am just a dumb forum nut.

So in a nutshell, honestly  YES, i stand by my assessment, that Canon should and likely will - *NOT* use either EF-M mount or EF-mount for its upcoming 36x24mm sensor "FF" mirrorless system that will replace and succeed the current DSLR product lineup over a small number of years. 

Reason: both EF-M and EF-mount are "technically feasible", BUT only with huge lens design compromises for a new system that Canon's future in imaging gear rides on. Canon has demonstrated in the past that they know, when it is time to "boldly break the old mold" ... and they will do it again! Because it is necessary in order to provide technically excellent gear at price points that yield maximum market share and profitability. "As small as possible AND fully capable" is a paramount factor for market success. 

But, we shall see, which way Canon goes ... and how exactly they implement it ... and when.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> oly/panasonic: lens mount paramters are adequately chosen for sensor diagonal. economically, sensor is too small to offer significant, easily visible IQ advantages over smartphones.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Feb 14, 2017)

Random Orbits said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I wish I could give you a stack of Likes. Hadn't been thinking of that quote when I wrote that, but it's so fitting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> And not many people in their right mind will pay 2,000 USD/€ for a quarter-sensor camera in 2017. Therefore: death within 3 years for Oly as we know it today.



Well, I guess if you throw enough crappy opinions at the wall, something might stick...some day.

Here's a sloppy pile of crappy opinion from 2015:



AvTvM said:


> I have no doubt that DSLRs at "Rebel" level will globally be dead in the water a year or two from now. Nothing can save those puny tunnel-OVF mirror-flippers ...



:


----------



## LonelyBoy (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> what i honestly think is stated in the post you are quoting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But, we shall see, which way Canon goes ... and how exactly they implement it ... and when.



Sure, you say you don't think Fuji fucked up... but in the post I quoted you called them "stupid". Potato pofuckup.

Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks that, if Canon releases a "6DM" this cycle it will come in two flavors, EF and EF-M. They've demonstrated a willingness to do twin releases with the 5DS/R and T6s/I (and now the 77D/71D). If the rest of the engineering is the same, it shouldn't be too bad to release one with each mount, and stop building one or the other if it tanks.

If I'm wrong, and they do go to a fourth mount, it'll be for the 4-6 lens lineup someone posted about that only covers the range with the size advantage. The future you see does not exist.

To phrase my point another way, a bunch of other companies have already looked at the engineering space and come up with solutions that are _not_ the one you want. Does that mean the solution does not exist, or that the demand for it is not big enough to make money? Does it matter?

And yes, we'll see which way Canon goes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Personally, I'm in the camp that thinks that, if Canon releases a "6DM" this cycle it will come in two flavors, EF and EF-M. They've demonstrated a willingness to do twin releases with the 5DS/R and T6s/I (and now the 77D/71D). If the rest of the engineering is the same, it shouldn't be too bad to release one with each mount, and stop building one or the other if it tanks.
> 
> If I'm wrong, and they do go to a fourth mount, it'll be for the 4-6 lens lineup someone posted about that only covers the range with the size advantage.



A FF MILC with the EF-M mount would have to be launched with a few lenses, or else it's a non-starter. If Canon were to release an ILC with no available native lenses, that really would be 'stupid Canon' – and history has clearly shown that one of AvTvM's steaming piles of crappy opinion that fails to stick.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Feb 14, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> A FF MILC with the EF-M mount would have to be launched with a few lenses, or else it's a non-starter. If Canon were to release an ILC with no available native lenses, that really would be 'stupid Canon' – and history has clearly shown that one of AvTvM's steaming piles of crappy opinion that fails to stick.



Well yes... I was referring to the possibility of using the EF-M mount for a FF mirrorless, not the existing lineup. Of course they'd need to release a few lenses as well if they go with any mount other than EF.

How much re-engineering is needed for a new mount, anyway? If there's an EF-X, or they use EF-M, could something like the 35/2 IS be released with a minor tweak to the rear, or would it need more extensive redesign?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> How much re-engineering is needed for a new mount, anyway? If there's an EF-X, or they use EF-M, could something like the 35/2 IS be released with a minor tweak to the rear, or would it need more extensive redesign?



I think, it would need a totally new design. Difference in FDD [44mm vs. 18mm or even 22 or 24mm] is too significant.


----------



## arcer (Feb 14, 2017)

Sometimes I feel like somebody asks too much of the current industries.
It's like asking Toyota to make a electric Mini Cooper-sized car that have four independent high torque, high brake-horsepower electric motors, wireless charging within 2 hours for a 100km ride, equipped with electronic gull-wing doors, handling like a F1 car, 3 seconds to 60mph, have a boot that's as wide as the car itself, being a 4-seater with large enough legroom for a 7-ft guy to sit in and equipped with Recaro racing seats.. Even though it might go in white with red racing stripes but still hoping it would only costs USD$50,000.

But hey, what I just mentioned might be possible. Who knows?
Physics does not matter when discussing anyway :


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 14, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A FF MILC with the EF-M mount would have to be launched with a few lenses, or else it's a non-starter. If Canon were to release an ILC with no available native lenses, that really would be 'stupid Canon' – and history has clearly shown that one of AvTvM's steaming piles of crappy opinion that fails to stick.
> ...



extensive redesign, not to mention an entire fab process change for a full frame sensor that canon cannot do right now.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> extensive redesign, not to mention an entire fab process change for a full frame sensor that canon cannot do right now.



electronic global shutter FF sensor you mean? Probably true right now. But getting close ... hopefully. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-showcases-23-global-shutter-sensor-at-isscc-2017/


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2017)

arcer said:


> Sometimes I feel like somebody asks too much of the current industries.
> It's like asking Toyota to make a electric Mini Cooper-sized car that have four independent high torque, high brake-horsepower electric motors, wireless charging within 2 hours for a 100km ride, equipped with electronic gull-wing doors, handling like a F1 car, 3 seconds to 60mph, have a boot that's as wide as the car itself, being a 4-seater with large enough legroom for a 7-ft guy to sit in and equipped with Recaro racing seats.. Even though it might go in white with red racing stripes but still hoping it would only costs USD$50,000.
> 
> But hey, what I just mentioned might be possible. Who knows?
> Physics does not matter when discussing anyway :



Thing is petrol heads know their stuff and the major limitations are pretty well known by the enthusiast. Not a single one of them would look at that as other than a futuristic wishlist and they would discuss it in the same manner people talk about what Santa will bring them.
Lens design is a pretty arcane subject with a whole myriad of compromises and that is even before you talk about designing a comaptible body. This leaves people like AvTvM to say "Canon are stupid and you cannot prove me wrong so what I say is fact". Conveniently also ignoring Occam's razor.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2017)

Mikehit, you dont ever get tired of lashing out against me, do you? *stupid Canon* shill probably.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit, you dont ever get tired of lashing out against me, do you? *stupid Canon* shill probably.



You don't get tired of making outlandish claims - admitting you know nothing about lens design yet point out why Canon are wrong in not making the product you want. Saying Canon will fall behind the competition if they do not make what you want in the next few months, yet admit the competition is providing no impetus to do so because they screwed up in the products they have made. 
When someone does put you on the spot you sidestep the question and restate your previous argument in a different way. 

Lashing out? Nope - I look on it as more of a sport ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit, you dont ever get tired of lashing out against me, do you? *stupid Canon* shill probably.



So we can add 'continually making asinine claims and statements, expects to not be called out on them' to your long and growing list of unrealistic expectations. Good to know.


----------



## arcer (Feb 14, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> arcer said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I feel like somebody asks too much of the current industries.
> ...



Not a really good analogy, I know. But my point still stands. Automobile design is also a complicated matter and no one petrol head can design a new car design from scratch by referencing from current car designs and performance, and the latest car tech innovations. They will always be a balance in car performance for the near future based on current technologies, same as in photography equipment.

*You can never design a system with no compromises in every aspect while hoping it to stay affordable and reasonably-sized.*


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM 

There are no limiting factors to making a 18mm FFD camera with a 36x24mm sensor or indeed lenses that cover a larger image circle for 36x24mm. There are many good optical reasons for a shorter back focus however one of them is not smaller lenses because fast lenses (2.8 or faster) will require larger more complex lens designs as we already see for light gathering but even that is a challenge that's being addressed. 
The advantages for the camera are global shutters, faster frame rates and less moving parts to wear or fail for instance. With the moving together of stills & moving image we are witnessing a blending of technical ideas from two different disciplines where the best of both is shaping the future. 

When Canon moved to the EF mount from the FD mount it was a monumental change without backward compatibility, however the shorter back-focus as we see with the EF-M mount allows for compatibility with adapters not ideal but sill possible for legacy glass. I used the Mft to m.Mft adapter for my Olympus for many years as my small package and it worked just fine. 

Still if you know better maybe you could tell the engineers I listed in my previous post from the largest optical companies in the world plus my 35 years of working in the motion picture industry in camera & lens development were all wrong. I KNOW who I would back.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So we can add 'continually making asinine claims and statements, expects to not be called out on them' to your long and growing list of unrealistic expectations. Good to know.



And I hope to god that the 6D2 doesn't come out with a new mount in 2017. He will be insufferable ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So we can add 'continually making asinine claims and statements, expects to not be called out on them' to your long and growing list of unrealistic expectations. Good to know.
> ...



If the 6D2 comes out as a mirrorless camera with a new mount, he will deserve to be insufferable and should be awarded the magic crystal ball prize..... or we could attribute it to luck, but that's no fun......


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 14, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> There are many good optical reasons for a shorter back focus however one of them is not smaller lenses because fast lenses (2.8 or faster) will require larger more complex lens designs as we already see for light gathering but even that is a challenge that's being addressed.



Could you please be more specific?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2017)

i understand FDD and throat width as a combination. 
If a very short FDD is chosen, then better make the opening oversize in diameter. 
Or use a somewhat longer FDD and get by with a narrower opening. 

18mm FDD plus 46mm throat width for FF sensor is definitely a "borderline compromise" that puts severe limitations on lens design ... as witnessed in very long, large, complex, heavy and expensive Sony FE lenses. 
This is so evident, one does not have to be an optics expert. 

However, i still believe Canon will do the right thing and not use EF nor EF-M mount for their future camera and lens program.


----------



## pokerz (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> i understand FDD and throat width as a combination. if a very short FDD is chosen, then better make the opening oversize in diameter. or use a somewhat longer FDD and get by with a narrower opening.
> 18mm FDD plus 46mm throat width for FF sensor are definitely a "borderline compromise" that puts severe öimitations on lrns design. is "feasible" for Ff sensor image circle. as to be witnessed in very long, large, complex, heavy and expensive Sony FE lenses. it is so evidrnt, one does not gave to be an optics expert.
> 
> i still believe Canon will do the rightvthongvand not use EF nor EF-M mount for their future camera and lens program.


I agree with you, new mount gives people chance to invest again on lens.
It would be pleasant to have new lens collection in dry box.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> However, i still believe Canon will do the right thing and not use EF nor EF-M mount for their future camera and lens program.



Just to be clear, are you saying that the new FF mirrorless will be/has to be/should be be a new mount or do you believe this new mount will appear at some point in the future as part of their product development?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 15, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > However, i still believe Canon will do the right thing and not use EF nor EF-M mount for their future camera and lens program.
> ...



Both. 

While EF and EF-M would be "technically feasible" but very compromised/limited for FF, I believe Canon will use a new, no-compromise FF-optimized mount for their upcoming FF mirrorless system. 

When? Don't know, but hopefully soon. For me and for Canon. 

I foresee Canon to transition from DSLR-era with EF + EF-S mounts to EF-? and EF-M mounts for mirrorless era. EF-M will be limited to smaller, consumer-oriented lenses, while EF-? will be a full-fledged lineup [eventually]. Transition will take a few years [maybe 5?], during which both DSLRs and MILCs and all 4 mounts and lens lineups will exist in parallel ... 2 being phased-out [EF-S first], 2 being phased in [EF-M already well underway].


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2017)

You will not remember this forum topic....

It never happened.....

go outside and take some pictures, have lunch with a friend..... go about your lives....


----------



## takesome1 (Feb 15, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> You will not remember this forum topic....
> 
> It never happened.....
> 
> go outside and take some pictures, have lunch with a friend..... go about your lives....



That cracks me up.
I clicked on the thread since it appears in the "Show new replies.." link.
I was thinking I should delete my posts in the thread so I wouldn't be tempted to look.

I think the posts about imaginary lens mounts has reached maximum saturation.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2017)

AvTvM said:


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



So it has gone from 'Canon has to do this now or face ruin' to 'I hope it is soon'. That is fair enough.


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> You will not remember this forum topic....
> 
> It never happened.....
> 
> go outside and take some pictures, have lunch with a friend..... go about your lives....



Why can't I get the word 'flange' out of my head. Damn you bickering flangites.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2017)

slclick said:


> Why can't I get the word 'flange' out of my head. Damn you bickering flangites.




[quote author=AvTvM's demand]





[/quote]


[quote author=Canon's response]




[/quote]


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2017)

"We're going to build a flange, and AvTvM is going to pay for it"


----------



## scyrene (Feb 15, 2017)

A flange of baboons?


----------



## Rocky (Feb 15, 2017)

"No flange, No camera, No lens"


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2017)

scyrene said:


> A flange of baboons?



That might be the perfect phrase to describe us forum members


----------

