# Full Frame Mirrorless in the Works [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 28, 2015)

```
<p>While Canon themselves have confirmed an “enthusiast” mirrorless camera will come from Canon eventually, no one is quite sure what that means.</p>
<p>We’re told that Canon is actively working on a full frame mirrorless camera, but that Canon may first announce a higher end APS-C sensor EOS M camera first. The full frame camera would retain a version of the EF-M mount we’re told, though it would likely require its own set of lenses due to image circle issues with the current crop of EF-M lenses.</p>
<p>No timeline has been given, but we expect Canon to become more aggressive in the mirrorless space in the coming 12-18 months.</p>
<p>I do wonder if all of this is being held back as they try to figure out how EF lenses fit in with mirrorless.</p>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 28, 2015)

excited to see what Canon does with their mirrorless offerings.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 28, 2015)

Rumor coming right on the heels of the 3rd Q Financials... We get it. Canon has to get serious in the MILC market just to keep up with the times. They can do that without scaling back their Professional DSLR divisions. Sometimes I wonder if that's what some folks worry about.

Maybe I'm in the minority (but I don't think so), but as a semi-pro/pro I really do NOT want a compact little MILC body in my hands all day for serious work. I don't care for the feel and ergonomics whatsoever. The 5 body is about the most perfect thing ever made. If Canon makes some MILC stuff in a 5-type body then fine. 

I would even look at buying this rumored FF MILC if it was Alpha-like or even more compact but NOT to replace my real gear. I also suspect Canon will have to find some solution for the EF dilemma. If they can make a FF MILC that can NATIVELY mount EF glass I think they'll have a big winner. But of course this means bigger flange distance that MILCs normally have and therefore not as compact. But if Canon could create a FF MILC in, say, an SL1/Rebel body ....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I do wonder if all of this is being held back as they try to figure out how EF lenses fit in with mirrorless.



Could be just the broader strategy – long term planning, waiting for the MILC market to grow...marathon, not sprint.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Oct 28, 2015)

Any chance Sony allows Canon to use one of their sensors for what would be an a7 competitor?

Hoping for an enthusiast m though but my expectations are kind of low based on past experience.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 28, 2015)

There is absolutely nothing to say that a FF mirrorless could not be in a similar body style to that of a 5D3... we are talking tried and true ergonomics here..... make it too small and you don't fit properly in people's hands (BIG problem with larger lenses), you loose real estate to mount controls, and the smaller body has less heat-sinking abilities.....


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 28, 2015)

HaroldC3 said:


> Any chance Sony allows Canon to use one of their sensors for what would be an a7 competitor?
> 
> Hoping for an enthusiast m though but my expectations are kind of low based on past experience.



Not the newest generation of what Sony has. The new a7s have been out for months. Nikon is still stuck with older sensors and Pentax is using the 36MP sensor for its NEW FF camera.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> There is absolutely nothing to say that a FF mirrorless could not be in a similar body style to that of a 5D3... we are talking tried and true ergonomics here..... make it too small and you don't fit properly in people's hands (BIG problem with larger lenses), you loose real estate to mount controls, and the smaller body has less heat-sinking abilities.....



I hope they come out with an elegant solution to do something with the open space of the mirrorbox assembly. Perhaps it makes more sense to introduce pro-mirrorless in the same form factor and flange distance as the current EOS cameras. The fast glass won't be any smaller or lighter (look at the 35 f/1.4 for the a7), so you might gain a benefit for ultrawide/consumer zooms with smaller max apertures but for those that bring several lenses to span a wide focal length range, that benefit is marginal.


----------



## sanj (Oct 28, 2015)

It was matter of time. They had to embrace the future. 
Leica already has a mirror less that competes, or surpasses in some areas, the 1dx. 
Lets see Canon's reply.


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 28, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > There is absolutely nothing to say that a FF mirrorless could not be in a similar body style to that of a 5D3... we are talking tried and true ergonomics here..... make it too small and you don't fit properly in people's hands (BIG problem with larger lenses), you loose real estate to mount controls, and the smaller body has less heat-sinking abilities.....
> ...



Some Sony FE lenses are in fact quite dramatically smaller than their DSLR counterparts, taking into account the front element to sensor length (Sony 28mm f2 for example - and it's brighter, and cheaper ! And doesn't seem to perform that much worse than the Canon), and, in the case of Canon, which EF mount is entirely electronic anyway (unlike Nikon, that for some reason still continues to release lenses in 2015 with a mechanical aperture lever), adapting EF lenses shouldn't be too difficult. In fact it's already been done. Perhaps people could find adapters annoying to use in some scenarios, and perhaps there could be some tolerancing issues with fast lenses and high resolution sensors.
In addition, it isn't because it's difficult to fully exploit the benefits of a shorter flange distance in 2015 that it will still be the case in 2035. Perhaps by this time sensors and filter stacks will be more accepting of sharper ray angles, who knows ?
Keeping the EF mount looks like a very good short term solution - and given that any misstep could be deadly it might be a good survival approach. Long term, I'm not sure it's the best idea ever. 
But I don't think the EF-M mount is brilliant as well. What if sensor yields increase and medium format gets cheaper and cheaper ? What if cinema wants to use 65mm-ish sensors, like the Alexa 65 ? 
I think a shorter flange (but not too short) distance mount with a rather widish throat diameter, at least as wide as the EF mount (if you pull a Sony, you can put the Pentax 645Z's sensor in the current EF mount throat diameter) would be more future-proof than the current EF or EF-M mounts, either for photo or video.


----------



## sanj (Oct 28, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > There is absolutely nothing to say that a FF mirrorless could not be in a similar body style to that of a 5D3... we are talking tried and true ergonomics here..... make it too small and you don't fit properly in people's hands (BIG problem with larger lenses), you loose real estate to mount controls, and the smaller body has less heat-sinking abilities.....
> ...



That is what I am waiting to see as well. I would like it to retain the current form factor. 
Would like them to also have a small and light, high ISO small camera with a fixed 35mm lens for people like me who want such a camera for travel, family etc. With a pop up flash. If they make it look like the Fuji/Leica with shutter/ISO dials I would be ecstatic.


----------



## E.H. (Oct 28, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Maybe I'm in the minority (but I don't think so), but as a semi-pro/pro I really do NOT want a compact little MILC body in my hands all day for serious work. I don't care for the feel and ergonomics whatsoever. The 5 body is about the most perfect thing ever made. If Canon makes some MILC stuff in a 5-type body then fine.



Funny, I was about to write "Maybe I'm in the minority" as well, except I'd love to have a smaller body  . I'm a professional photojournalist, I've been using the 5D mark III since switching from Nikon, and I've added a Fuji X100s to the bag 2 years ago. My first camera was a Nikon F3, 20 years ago, and if I could have a dslr/mirrorless in that body, I wouldn't think twice about buying 2 right away. For most things, the 5D mark III is 99% perfect , but in certain situations I'd feel more comfortable carrying a smaller camera and don't attract attention and/or intimidate the subjects. I realize it's a very personal thing, but personally, once I tried a smaller body, the harder it got to justify carrying the bigger body in the bag all the time, *IF* I can achieve pretty much the same quality and if the shooting experience is the same or better. 
After trying the Sony A7 I gotta say those cameras look *very* interesting, but right now I think I'd compromise too much by switchng to that system. I thought the OVF would've been the deal-breaker, but funnily enough, it's not the OVF that's keeping me from buying one, but rather the short battery life and the buffer size (and to a lesser degree, the lack of lossless compressed raw). If Canon puts out a mirrorless body that goes head-to-head with the Sony's next year (year of Olympics, btw), things are going to get quite interesting.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2015)

MayaTlab said:


> (Sony 28mm f2 for example - and it's brighter, and cheaper ! And doesn't seem to perform that much worse than the Canon)



In this case I think it's hard to separate out the effects of the shorter flange distance from the effects of not having IS and heavily relying on software corrections. The new Loxia 21 seems like a slightly better example of the potential benefits in terms of size reduction for mirrorless bodies.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2015)

It will be interesting to see if Zeiss releases Canon versions of their new mirrorless lenses if/when Canon releases a full frame mirrorless body. The flange distance is the same between the EF-M mount and E mount so licensing concerns should be the only real roadblock.


----------



## stefang (Oct 28, 2015)

I don't need smaller, I like the form factor of my 1Ds II too much. In fact, my EOS5 with VG10 and 20D with BG-E2 were about the same size. (Losing a bit of weight would be appreciated though)
So Canon: please create a mirrorless about the size of the 1D series! (Losing a bit of weight would be appreciated though)
Canon should create an EF mount with shorter register and an adapter (essentially an extension tube) to allow legacy EF lenses to be mounted


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 28, 2015)

*About body size of a FF MILC:*

I fully agree. After upgrading to old 5D s I share your statement about 5D. Combined with the soft shutter release button I get a good rate of usable shots with 1/30 second with 100mm macro at 1:2 ... 
Just with a short tele or mild wideangle the size advantage of MILCs is negligible - EOS M is really compact only with the 22mm prime.
Shave off the bulky prism of the SLR viewfinder and the left part of the cam (from users perspective) and you get a compact but very ergonomical camera (see img below) with laaaaarge battery.
The reduced width of the body would be essential to store two cameras side by side in photo packs/backpacks!

*The mount di(tri?)lemma:*

My preference/solution would be the following:
* use the omitted mirror box to add a ring around the mount to set f-stop / exp compensation / ISO or whatsoever
* use the macro extension ring of 12mm as adapter for EF lenses
* use the shorter flange distance for 1 or 2 ultra compact lenses and for the freedom to use other lenses like FD lenses ...



PureClassA said:


> [...]
> 
> Maybe I'm in the minority (but I don't think so), but as a semi-pro/pro *I really do NOT want a compact little MILC body in my hands all day for serious work*. I don't care for the feel and ergonomics whatsoever. *The 5 body is about the most perfect thing ever made*. If Canon makes some MILC stuff in a 5-type body then fine.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 28, 2015)

Slightly larger than current M with pop-up EVF. Better AF speed than a7. Comes with 20mm and 35mm pancake plus 200mm same size as current 200f2.8.

Done


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 28, 2015)

just wondering - what would be the difference in benefits between

1. Going mirrorless, keeping the flange distance.

2. Going mirrorless, shortening the flange distance?

From memory, issues are raised with fast & wide lenses, the end being around 85mm f/1.2 (= that one would benefit, but 100mm f/2 & 135mm f/2 not). That would make a difference for a dozen lenses, maybe a couple more.

Wouldn't allowing those to protrude into the body while keeping the same flange distance be as good a solution?

Wouldn't allowing those to protrude into the body, with a mirror locked up, be as good a solution?


----------



## Eagle Eye (Oct 28, 2015)

C'mon full frame with an FD lens mount!


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 28, 2015)

I see no longer a strong necessity to have lenses near the sensor. A retrofocus construction helps to keep the distance large between image plane (=sensor) and the last lens element ... and reduces the angle of incidence of light. The latter is important because sensors are more reflective than film emulsions.
So keeping the flange distance isn't that bad if you have potential IQ in mind. And it integrates seemlessly into the Canon ecosystem.

On the other hand I would prefer the possibility to shorten the flange distance: e.g. by removing an element, e.g. the 12mm extension tube which still exists ... to adapt e.g. FD lenses.
Just seen your post, Eagle Eye: You are not alone ...

But that's the perspective of a scientist who likes to have as much universality in each device he owns and uses.



Antono Refa said:


> just wondering - what would be the difference in benefits between
> 
> 1. Going mirrorless, keeping the flange distance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 28, 2015)

The rumor sounds promissing. Now let's hope for a great job to be done by Canon. 

And if this FF MILC is still working with EF lenses, then, Canon, please make a better adapter and a better AF performance than EOS M + EF shows now. Thank you


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 28, 2015)

Just came into my mind:
Maybe Canon is waiting to have a DPAF sensor for full frame ready ... which might give a VERY useful AF system with a wider distribution of AF measurement inside the frame. Some Servo AF without being bound to 9 (or more) spots near the center region would be promising for outdoor macro work!


----------



## MayaTlab (Oct 28, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> just wondering - what would be the difference in benefits between
> 
> 1. Going mirrorless, keeping the flange distance.
> 
> ...



Probably not much for zooms or some longer lenses, particularly as long as sensors and filter stacks pose problems with acute ray angles. But it expands the horizon for possible lens design solutions and the potential might grow in the future. 

In addition I'll start to believe it's totally irrelevant only when Canon releases a 28mm f2 pancake lens (to keep overall length identical) as good as Sony's 28mm f2 (and it isn't like the latter sets the bar particularly high). Personally I'd really like to see a set of reasonably sized (basically, not much thicker than current EF flange + 40mm pancake), somewhat slow, but not too much (think f2, not f2.8 ), high-end primes, and I have a gut feeling that's not going to happen with the EF flange, but that's just a very personal wish.

Some lenses could protrude within the EF mount, but I see plenty of issues with that. For starters, you'll have to provide different lens caps - for the same mount ! - and different related accessories. Changing lenses might be more cumbersome. And some lens designs could be compromised compared to a shorter flange (because it isn't just about shoving lens elements inside, particularly for AF or zoom lenses). 

But if we're going to debate the currently limited usefulness of a shorter flange distance, then we could also bring up the fact that Canon already has an adapter between the EF and EF-M mount that seems to kind of... work ? An adapter could be annoying in the field though. For example, if you have two EF lenses, one EF??? mirrorless mount and only one EF to EF??? adapter and regularly change lenses (at some point, you'll switch from the EF??? lens to the one EF lens without the adapter on it, so you'll have to unmount the EF to EF??? adapter from the other EF lens, put it on the EF lens you want to use, and finally be able to shoot). To make things a little simpler Canon could just keep the EF mount as it is, but just make it shorter. This way all current accessories will still work, and for example, you won't have to bother with two different kinds of lens caps.

I can understand that Canon take their time... it's quite a hard decision to make one way or another.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2015)

There is little doubt that they will come out with a FF mirrorless. I do not prefer the "M" sized cameras, simply because my hands are too big. However, the big market is now in Asia, and small sells there.

Is it too obvious and simple to convert a EF body to mirrorless? A inexpensive and easy solution. It will sell in the US, Canada, and Europe, but not so much in Asia. We are going to see more and more of the specialized cameras.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 28, 2015)

I'd like something about the size and weight of the SL1, perhaps a little smaller. I'm looking for lighter weight, not so much smaller size. It should use the current EF mount except with a 22mm flange distance and be built to 5D3/7D2 level of quality. Canon should make an adapter allowing the use of all current EF lenses on the new body while slowing introducing lenses for the shorter flange distance. Eventually, FF mirrorless would replace DSLRs with OVFs. (Putting on my flame suit now.) The current EF-M mount uses an 18mm flange distance and the 22mm distance of the new mount would require/permit an adapter to allow the FF mirrorless lenses to be used on EF-M bodies.

Slightly off topic question: does anybody know how good the EVF on the G5X is?


----------



## MARSVANDER (Oct 28, 2015)

I currently have an M that I converted to IR because I didn't use it as much as I thought I would as a carry around camera. I just love the 5D III so much, I don't mind carrying the extra weight for image quality most of the time. I would be super excited to get a FF sensor in a smaller package to carry around when the 5D III is too big to take. I am excited to see what Canon produces in the MILC space. If it was something that would take adapters to use vintage lenses and other lens mounts even better. I really do like Canon's lens line-up, but I shoot mostly with Zeiss glass these days because my style does not require fast auto-focus. It would be super exciting though to experiment with some other glass.


----------



## lw (Oct 28, 2015)

I don't really care whether the next Canon has 1 mirror, no mirrors or 6 mirrors.

I just want a really stellar replacement for the 6D and 5DIII that renders such debates of "mirrorless or not" pointless...

What I don't want is to have to wait another 2 years for them...


----------



## tiltshift (Oct 28, 2015)

I would line up to buy a mirrorless Canon if it was the size of a 5d. owning a 5dIII and a7RII if I could have the features of the Sony in a native canon i would be trilled! truth is I much prefer an evf (mainly this), IBIS, and the new features that pdaf allows (ACCURATE eye af). I know IBIS and to an extent eye-af can be done with a mirror, I just really wish I could have an EVF really. it is the small size of the Sony I dont really like.... just give me a "professional" mirrorless camera Canon!!!


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 28, 2015)

As I see it, Canon should go two ways. They can´t give up their superior EF-line of lenses, and therefore, they have to keep the DSLR´s, or have a mirrorless that is suited to use EF-lenses - that means same flange distance, a quite large body, with 5D-like ergonomics.

I do think Canon should also develop a full frame MILC to compete with the A7-series, lighter, with a shorter flange distance, and good small prime enses to work with it. F/4 zooms to keep the size appropriate to the body. 

The idea of a small FF milc is appealing to many, I think.

As I see it, Sony seems to have done something seriously wrong, as many of their lenses are about the same size, or even bigger, than Canons compatible EF-lenses. Leica manages to make the lenses a lot smaller, and I don´t think AF explains it all. I have a theory, that Sony chose a sensor glass/stack that is too thick, and that this makes it harder to make especially small wide angle lenses, that perform well in the edges.

I have never really understood the point of the A7-series, as it really isn´t that much smaller than a Canon 6D, or Nikon D750, with a small prime on it. Further the lenses for the Sony A7 series are quite large. The tech is good for sure, but I think the business idea behind the A7-series was poorly planned out and poorly executed.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

I've said this many times, but it bears repeating:

The inevitable FF mirrorless future -- where we all will be using one in 10-15 years other than sports/wildlife folks, IMHO -- represents a huge matter for Canon: *excess and obsolescence of all those EF lenses* (including tooling, componentry, equipment, etc.). That's got to be on the order of billions of dollars, doesn't it?

We keep saying that Canon is avoiding 'serious' mirrorless for fear of undercutting SLR sales, but that's only part of the story. Any fledgling FF mirrorless offering will surely have an adapter, but native lenses will be faster focusing and native lenses will yield slightly smaller [lens + body] size. _So everyone will expect to be using native FF mirrorless glass eventually._ 

So make no mistake, FF mirrorless' release will light the (admittedly very slow) fuse that will signal the beginning of the end of the EF lens portfolio. It might take a decade to burn that inventory down and ramp down production, but it surely will happen _when_ (not if) the working professional market pivots towards mirrorless.

So getting the FF mirrorless mount design right is the most important technical decision Canon has had to make designing the original EF mount, IMHO. This is a bigger call than any sensor they'll ever make. Bodies and sensors evolve, but mounts last for decades and have 2-3 more zeros behind the dollar figure as far as an investment goes. 

Here's hoping Canon gets it right.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

Also, here's a zany idea to ramp up to mirrorless excellence:

Over a 2-3 camera body generations (say 10-12 years), offer an SLR side by side with the same sized camera without a mirrorbox plus an EVF where the OVF used to be. Yes, the mirrorless variant will be thicker than it needs to be. It will lose money for certain, but it will give Canon 2-3 generations to dial-in a world class EVF with the best ergonomics for realtime information, focus peaking, etc. without having to roll out all the nattive FF mirrorless glass.

By the time that third generation mirrorless big rig is out, they can cut over the proper form factor (like the A7 line) with a new mount with mature tech that has been battle tested. This will ensure Canon's first major FF mirrorless offering is not a dud.

- A


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 28, 2015)

Canon releases FF mirrorless with *global* electronic shutter and DPAF, this way it'll have AF-tracking on all the time (like those Sony's fixed mirror cameras, but without lost light). Mark II gets Foveon-like sensor but better.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

But surely, despite this story's title, we'll get a proper enthusiast-grade APS-C offering before Canon makes the plunge on FF, right?

One would think an integral EVF + DPAF + higher tracking burst rate in the EOS-M platform is a far smaller investment & faster product turnaround than putting out a FF rig, right? 

I'd bet good money we'd see that before an FF mirrorless mount is announced.

- A


----------



## sanj (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I've said this many times, but it bears repeating:
> 
> The inevitable FF mirrorless future -- where we all will be using one in 10-15 years other than sports/wildlife folks, IMHO -- represents a huge matter for Canon: *excess and obsolescence of all those EF lenses* (including tooling, componentry, equipment, etc.). That's got to be on the order of billions of dollars, doesn't it?
> 
> ...



The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

sanj said:


> The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.



Lighter, perhaps, but very little chance it will be smaller. Sony's 70-200 f/4 is large like ours.

The minute you want to get more ambitious than, say, a 50mm f/2, you no longer are pursuing mirrorless for size reasons. So chasing long or fast glass on mirrorless effectively turns this from 'Same IQ in a smaller package' to 'What can pulling the mirror box do for me that I couldn't do before?'

Fuji and Olympus have lived in the former camp and Sony has had the stones to chase both camps -- their APS-C rigs play it small and their FF rigs are directly going after FF SLR users' expectations. It's expensive to bet that way, but one of those two bets will certainly win in the end.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.
> ...



You can'na change the laws of physics.


----------



## robinlee (Oct 28, 2015)

To be honest I'd rather see improvement on the sensor department first rather than seeing Canon doing FF mirrorless camera...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I'm surprised that no one has gone after the super-high-end [APS-C + tiny] mirrorless space. Fuji sort of does this, but not as compellingly as one might. Their rigs are great, but they are pushing feel/retro/love of shooting/etc. towards enthusiasts rather than saying:

_"Professionals: get 95% the IQ of a FF rig with half the space and half the weight. Do you really need ISO 12800 performance, or would you rather not have back pain?"_

Just a thought.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I'm surprised that no one has gone after the super-high-end [APS-C + tiny] mirrorless space. Fuji sort of does this, but not as compellingly as one might. Their rigs are great, but they are pushing feel/retro/love of shooting/etc. towards enthusiasts rather than saying:
> 
> _"Professionals: get 95% the IQ of a FF rig with half the space and half the weight. Do you really need ISO 12800 performance, or would you rather not have back pain?"_



How much of that market depends on subject isolation / shallow DoF? Once you need a fast lens (outside the pancake-feasible range), the space/weight savings decrease quite a bit.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised that no one has gone after the super-high-end [APS-C + tiny] mirrorless space. Fuji sort of does this, but not as compellingly as one might. Their rigs are great, but they are pushing feel/retro/love of shooting/etc. towards enthusiasts rather than saying:
> ...



I hear you. There is a sweet spot that Fuji seems to be working pretty well, using f/2 and the occasional f/1.4 lens. But yes, APS-C can't punch it's weight in low light or stay small/light if they go after exotic f/1.0 glass to try to match FF fast primes. It's a clear tradeoff, I admit.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2015)

Bob Howland said:


> I'd like something about the size and weight of the SL1, perhaps a little smaller. I'm looking for lighter weight, not so much smaller size. It should use the current EF mount except with a 22mm flange distance and be built



Why would it use the current EF mount, but have a different flange distance? That's a recipe for mass confusion, EF lenses would fit, but not work, Canon would have to come up with another gimmick to keep the wrong lenses from being attached. Its bad enough with EF-s and EF lenses, but at least they have the same flange distance and EF lenses work on all EF mounts.


----------



## dolina (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.
> ...


Weight is the selling point of mirrorless.

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Canon 5D Mark III + 70-200mm f/4 IS
950g + 760g = 1,710g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.8 OSS
556g + 155g = 711g

Canon 5D Mark III + 35mm f/2 IS
950g + 335g = 1,285g

*Changed all the Canon lenses to IS models as all the Sony bodies + lenses have SteadyShot.

If I were building up my system from scratch I'd lean more towards a Sony system than wait for Canon to bring out a full frame mirrorless.

I hope Sony makes a medium format version of Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



The Sony 35 1.8 is APS-C . There's a 35 f/2.8 and a 35 f/1.4
The f/1.4 is 630g ... similar to other FF 35 f/1.4 lenses


----------



## daemorhedron (Oct 28, 2015)

I know it's a tough journey and consumers are more demanding than ever, but I really want to say 'about damn time'. The EOS M is unimaginably better than reviews ever gave it credit for, but any follow up to it has been completely lame and offered no reason at all to upgrade. I don't have much confidence in Canon to follow up in mirrorless of any kind for at least the next year, maybe even two.

I made the switch from EOS M to Sony a7II for three reasons: ability to control camera via USB with liveview, higher DR with less noise, and full frame for better DOF. I can say the FE lenses are not bad, and while they're is not a ton of selection, it absolutely beats the pants off of the EF-M line despite the fact that they are all quite good lenses. I would LOVE FF MILC+touch screen in Canon format but I've already been waiting years for it.

And respectfully I don't get the mentality of some people. If you don't like mirrorless, then don't use it. If you want a camera the size of a SL1 or 5d Mark III, you ALREADY HAVE IT. =)


----------



## dolina (Oct 28, 2015)

Etienne said:


> The Sony 35 1.8 is APS-C . There's a 35 f/2.8 and a 35 f/1.4
> The f/1.4 is 630g ... similar to other FF 35 f/1.4 lenses


Updated

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Canon 5D Mark III + 70-200mm f/4 IS
950g + 760g = 1,710g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.4
556g + 630g = 1,186g

Canon 5D Mark III + 35mm f/1.4 II
950g + 760g = 1,710g


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 28, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like something about the size and weight of the SL1, perhaps a little smaller. I'm looking for lighter weight, not so much smaller size. It should use the current EF mount except with a 22mm flange distance and be built
> ...



I had preferred an extension tube as adapter which is maybe useful for a DSLR as extension tube but you are right: If you mount an EF(-S) lens without the adapter you have focus capabilities far beyond infinity which is useless. So I would say now to Canon: Use a special EF adapter which is delivered with the camera.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> Weight is the selling point of mirrorless.



_...to you_ and some others, certainly. But not to Sony. 

The minute they start chasing glass over 50mm or glass faster than f/2 (which they obviously are doing), the lenses look a lot like Nikon F or Canon EF glass and the weight upside of a lighter body is diminished. Keep in mind that Sony is making their rigs heavier with each generation -- partially due to build quality and added tech on-board, but also due to their own photographers wanting a better counterweight to these heavier lenses!

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> Weight is the selling point of mirrorless.
> 
> Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
> 556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g
> ...




The weight difference is small, except for pancake lenses. You do need to compare FF with FF, that 35mm f/1.8 is not FF. This illustrates yet another bit of confusion that buyers have, lenses for E mount get people mixed up all the time.

I'd want a mirrorless that had more accurate focusing, and higher reliability, but Sony does not have a track record for reliability of their products, and their repair has been beyond slow.. 

I'm not fooled by a smaller more difficult to operate body, when similar lenses weigh the same.

So far, you can't have both. FF sensor lenses do not get smaller with mirrorless bodies, and the good ones are heavier than the body and pretty large.

If you are willing to use light weight small aperture consumer lenses with a $3500 camera, then you'll be happy with the size and weight.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > The Sony 35 1.8 is APS-C . There's a 35 f/2.8 and a 35 f/1.4
> ...



Canon 6D + 70-200 f/4 IS( or 35L II)
680g + 760g = 1440g


----------



## gmon750 (Oct 28, 2015)

If this future FF mirrorless camera allows me to use my 5DM3 EF lenses, I'll be next in line to buy one. I for one prefer the size of the 5D. I looked at other mirrorless cameras and I find the body just too small for my big hands. I actually have to use an external battery grip attached to the camera to make it comfortable in my hands. Everyone is different.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

gmon750 said:


> If this future FF mirrorless camera allows me to use my 5DM3 EF lenses, I'll be next in line to buy one.



There is a 100% certainty an FF mirrorless mount will have an EF adaptor. That's an absolute hammerlock guarantee or the brand is DOA until a solid 10-15 lenses arrive.

It may not be included with the body and it may not be as razor fast as a native EF mount, but it will be available at launch for certain. 

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 28, 2015)

Personally, I prefer camera body as small as possible. And lenses as small as possible - for a given focal length and fully open aperture. Optical/physical limits will of course apply, as long as glass lenses are used = until lightfield imaging is finally and fully worked out. 

I don't get all the clamoring for larger bodies. It is so easy to attach all sorts of grips and rigs to make small gear larger, heavier and bulkier ... if so desired. Making bulky, heavy gear smaller and lighter is typically not possible on the user end. 

Also don't understand all the EF glass whining. As opposed to the transition from FD to EF this time round physics work in our favor: flange distance gets shorter. All existing (EF) lenses can be adapted via really simple and cheap, optics-free adaptors. Canon shall package one with every MILC body and be done with it. Any lens that cannot be built as compact or good for mirrorless as for DSLRS shall not be built. meaning: UWA to moderate tele lenses will come in new native mirrorless mount, everything else will only be replaced over many years - and only when new the lens would have been up for a re-work and better image quality anyways ... 

I want mirrorless gear as small as my EOS M that I can use with small & light lenses for certain applications in a certain focal length and aperture range and with larger lenses if & when required. And no moving parts please. Solid state, 100% electronic for me please. Including fully electronic shutter with 1/8000s X-sync and fully electronic aperture (100% rounded at any opening), everything totally silent (for use in church and classic music concerts) , everything 100% vibration free. 

Now move your butt, Canon, I got money to spend!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> gmon750 said:
> 
> 
> > If this future FF mirrorless camera allows me to use my 5DM3 EF lenses, I'll be next in line to buy one.
> ...



That's a certainty, but the weight of the adapter is a negative. Since it would take 20 years before all the commonly used EF lenses were replaced, I'd not fall for a tiny Mirrorless, it just would take too many years before all the lenses were available in the new mount, and they would probably be a compromise due to the very short flange distance, light falloff at the edges will be even worse due to the extreme angle.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 28, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like something about the size and weight of the SL1, perhaps a little smaller. I'm looking for lighter weight, not so much smaller size. It should use the current EF mount except with a 22mm flange distance and be built
> ...



Reducing the flange distance from 44mm to 22mm can make the camera 22mm (0.87 inches) shallower. As for confusion, everybody except Canon making lenses for EF-S cameras uses the EF lens mount, that can also fit on FF cameras. People somehow manage to figure this out.


----------



## dolina (Oct 28, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> Canon 6D + 70-200 f/4 IS( or 35L II)
> 680g + 760g = 1440g


It should be 755g. 680g is body-only without card, strap or battery.

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.4
556g + 630g = 1,186g

Still lighter.


----------



## erjlphoto (Oct 28, 2015)

Sony seems to attract those willing to use adapters and accept third party limitations.
Of course, Canon could design an adapter for their own EOS lenses which fully
functions with their mirrorless body. Still, it had better offer something really special to attract me.
I do not like evf's.


----------



## dolina (Oct 28, 2015)

The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.



Is it?


----------



## dolina (Oct 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.
> ...


I know it upsets you. Just ignore the comment.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.
> ...



Yes. At least more so than CaNikon's ever-same marginal iterations of big, heavy, semi-analogue, totally antiquated mirrorflippers.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > Canon 6D + 70-200 f/4 IS( or 35L II)
> ...



A little lighter, but poorer ergonomics and handling.


----------



## wsmith96 (Oct 28, 2015)

It would be great if they could retain the EF mount.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.
> ...



Agree with Neuro, Dolina. If you want a camera, you get a camera. In the days prior to mirrorless digital ever existing, someone would buy a point and shoot, a superzoom, an SLR, etc. 

These mirrorless rigs are not 'form factor revolutionary' like the Sony Q lens+sensor combos that pair up with cell phones, they are not GoPros or life-blogging cameras. They fall well within the continuum of still camera products. As such, I have a hard time thinking there's a sizeable chunk of people who had no interesting in a dedicated stills camera at all until mirrorless arrived.

- A


----------



## dolina (Oct 28, 2015)

A lot of people are bothered that mirrorless and smartphones are shrinking point and shoot and older SLR sales.

Understandable because it will narrow choices on the system people have invested in.

But that's the nature of technology, it will obsolete itself every cycle or so.

It will eventually do the same with mirrorless or smartphones in about half a century from now where in your eyeballs are cameras.

I'm honestly not bothered by it. I look forward to it.

Make the technology convenient and cheap enough and whatever dominant technology at present will become as relevant as RFs, TLRs and pagers.

Canon's smartening up if they focus more on mirrorless and higher end dedicated still cameras. Most vulnerable camera brand now is Nikon.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> A lot of people are bothered that mirrorless and smartphones are shrinking point and shoot and older SLR sales.
> 
> Understandable because it will narrow choices on the system people have invested in.
> 
> ...



Please don't mistake my position. Mirrorless is coming, it will supplant the majority of SLRs someday and I welcome that. I'm not butt hurt that my chosen horse in the race will go away someday. Not at all.

I'm simply arguing that _mirrorless isn't bringing that many new photographers to the market_. It's just another form of dedicated camera. Mirrorless rigs are just another option for the existing pool of folks interested in photography.

When we talk about new photographers being created, I think of the GoPro, a DXO One, a Sony Q module, and yes, the cell phone -- in which something _out of the realm of traditional 'cameras'_ gets people jazzed enough to shoot regularly. 

It goes without saying that the cell phone plus (critically) the internet is creating orders of magnitude more photographers than any dedicated rig ever will.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Oct 29, 2015)

MARSVANDER said:


> I currently have an M that I converted to IR because I didn't use it as much as I thought I would as a carry around camera. I just love the 5D III so much, I don't mind carrying the extra weight for image quality most of the time. I would be super excited to get a FF sensor in a smaller package to carry around when the 5D III is too big to take. I am excited to see what Canon produces in the MILC space. If it was something that would take adapters to use vintage lenses and other lens mounts even better. I really do like Canon's lens line-up, but I shoot mostly with Zeiss glass these days because my style does not require fast auto-focus. It would be super exciting though to experiment with some other glass.



How difficult was the conversion? I've got an EOS-M that I don't use much, but converting it could be useful for astro work.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 29, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



*Eyerolling so hard I may need an optician*

I think he was asking for evidence.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2015)

scyrene said:


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



Don't hurt yourself on my account. 

It's easy to toss off statements like that with nothing to back them up. As I noted in another thread, the Reuters article on Canon's Q3 report suggested the, "..._the growing popularity of lighter mirrorless cameras has taken away market share from higher margin single-lens reflex cameras_," which is not supported by CIPA data for the last couple of years (in 2014, dSLRs outsold MILCs by 3.2-fold units, 3.4-fold revenue. In Jan-Aug 2015, dSLRs outsold MILCs by 3.1-fold units, 3.2-fold revenue. Not exactly strong evidence of 'growing popularity'.)


----------



## sdsr (Oct 29, 2015)

Eagle Eye said:


> C'mon full frame with an FD lens mount!



For me, much of the appeal of the a7 line is that the mount allows, via adapters, a huge array of third party lenses to be used easily (a lot of them, especially older ones, considerably smaller than their modern counterparts), including FD Canons. I hope any mirrorless Canon will be similarly versatile and have IBIS; if it has a standard EF mount I will be much less interested. Of course, since my particular interests are likely not widely shared, Canon may well not much care....


----------



## TAF (Oct 29, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> As I see it, Canon should go two ways. They can´t give up their superior EF-line of lenses, and therefore, they have to keep the DSLR´s, or have a mirrorless that is suited to use EF-lenses - that means same flange distance, a quite large body, with 5D-like ergonomics.



That is the camera body I am hoping for. Approx. the size of the 5D (to maintain the ergonomics and all the controls); mirrorless for the potential technical benefits (universal shutter, sync, no vibration, etc); FF for best high ISO capability and overall image quality.



Larsskv said:


> I do think Canon should also develop a full frame MILC to compete with the A7-series, lighter, with a shorter flange distance, and good small prime lenses to work with it. F/4 zooms to keep the size appropriate to the body.
> 
> The idea of a small FF milc is appealing to many, I think.



On this I disagree. Developing an entirely new line of lenses for a full frame MILC with a different flange distance doesn't seem like an investment that will be recovered. What about this notional new line is going to bring enough customers to pay for itself?

Perhaps in the long run it might. But in the near term, I'd suggest starting with a proven system and try out the waters. It would be easy to remove the mirror from the 5D3 and put in an EVF. Try that and see what happens.

As I have said before, I'd really like to see a Canon version of the Rollei 3003 with FF and EF mount. That would be even easier to implement, and that physical configuration has much to recommend it. Imagine our current back oanel screen as the EVF. That would be nice...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 29, 2015)

HaroldC3 said:


> Any chance Sony allows Canon to use one of their sensors for what would be an a7 competitor?
> 
> Hoping for an enthusiast m though but my expectations are kind of low based on past experience.



Sure, now that they spun off the sensor division it makes sense for them to try to give their sensors to everyone they possibly can.

One could hope a 5D4 gets the A7R II sensor and delivers everything the A7R II does, but with DSLR AF, Canon UI and 6fps in FF mode (7-8fps in APS-C RAW, not JPG, RAW crop mode would really make it something). I tend to doubt it. probably no sony sensor, no 4k, but same old sensor and touched up AF and 8-10fps 24-28MP.


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 29, 2015)

sdsr said:


> Eagle Eye said:
> 
> 
> > C'mon full frame with an FD lens mount!
> ...



Admittedly I am an early adopter. Full frame with built in image stabilization, focus peaking perfection. I also have a FD 24mm f2.8, FD Vivitar 28mm f2.5, FD 35mm f2, and several 50mm. It turns out that the EF 85mm was only 25 dollars on more new on sale then used FD 85mm so I just bought it. Full frame prime kit is not perfect but I do not need an instagram filter for the 28 it comes with one built in. How long will it take before canon puts image stabilization in a camera.


----------



## Darkroom317 (Oct 29, 2015)

I just hope they take some design cues from their rangefinder heritage. It would be awesome

Canon L2 + 50mm 1.4


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 29, 2015)

Bob Howland said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



Those lenses work though. A short flange back lens with a EF mount would not work. 

I've seen people struggling with 3rd party APS-C lenses on FF, not knowing what is going on. We just saw a post with the poster confusing E Mount APS-C with FF.

I'd vote for a EF mount with EF flangeback. So much simpler.


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 29, 2015)

Darkroom317 said:


> I just hope they take some design cues from their rangefinder heritage. It would be awesome



I have always seen the Sony Nex6 and A6000 as modern take on rangefinder cameras. But the Fujifilm really take the retro/modern rangefinder crown. I like their look and lenses but decided that they were a little expensive for what would always be a secondary camera. 

I would like to see both a rangefinder style and a DSLR style mirrorless camera from Canon. I mean serious cameras with actual manual controls. I hate touch screens on cameras. A sorry touchscreen is no substitute for a physical dial or button.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2015)

Darkroom317 said:


> I just hope they take some design cues from their rangefinder heritage. It would be awesome



Mark my words. If Canon comes out this body type FF mirrorless(fixed 35mm f2 or interchangeable), I will sell all my Sony gear. 

I will buy that and:
1. Canon 5DR
2. 24-70 II
3. 85L II
4. 11-24

Many people keep wishing for mirrorless in 5D body size. Just to remind all, there are cons in mirrorless, EVF drains battery faster, EVF still slagging compared to OVF, AF tracking will not be as good as DSLR. Can Canon improve all these features at this moment? Maybe yes...bigger question, are we willing to pay for it?

To me, adding Canon FF mirrorless to current Canon FF DSLR is a good step forward for Canon. AF tracking doesn't need to be at A6000 or A7r II level, save that for 7D II, 5D3 or 1Dx. However, AF speed is more important for mirrorless. Throw in some pancake lenses I think we will have a winner.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 29, 2015)

Canon had a lucky strike with the video mode in 2008 and has been sexy and a few years ahead. They probably made the Kodak mistake and thought it will remain forever. Now since 2013 Sony is ahead regarding mirrorless full frame, and when Canon comes out with an alternative in 2017+x, they will be way too late. Probably they will even come out first with another system that should protect their DSLRs, so it might be 2019 when they finally come out with a serious product. By then Sony already might have released an A7R Mark 5. And the people who jumped to this system between 2013-2019 will have no reason to go back to Canon then.

If Canon would be clever, they should go the medium format route right away. It will be very difficult to bring more than 50 megapixels to a full frame sensor combined with lowlight capabilities. Medium format sensors might be able to do that in the future. At least that's probably what Sony will deliver to Hasselblad, Pentax and Phase One next.


----------



## Ruined (Oct 29, 2015)

dolina said:


> A lot of people are bothered that mirrorless and smartphones are shrinking point and shoot and older SLR sales.
> 
> Understandable because it will narrow choices on the system people have invested in.
> 
> ...



In the US, full frame mirrorless as implemented in the A7R II has proven pointless to all but the hobbyist user who primarily value style first; even the casual user, it is not of use to as these users have migrated to smartphones and not mirrorless cameras. The small size of the Sony FF mirrorless body comes with a massive tradeoff in ergonomics, functionality and battery life that frankly is not worth it if you are even only at the semi-pro level, nevermind pro level. The lens size advantage evaporates after 35mm, and since that is the case you still end up trucking around big lenses and hence a big camera bag with an A7R II if you shoot anything other than wide angle all the time.

Maybe someday if there is a FF mirrorless with ergonomics similar to the 6D with an EVF that works as good as an OVF and no major sacrifices in functionality, that would be something that could replace a DSLR as a pro/semi-pro could use them reliably at the same level as a DSLR in all aspects. The current Sony cameras, however, are nowhere near that level.

Also grouping mirrorless cameras and smartphones together as if they are similar, is inappropriate. Smartphones are reducing P&S and DSLR sales immensely, yes. Mirrorless is floundering in the USA market aside from a tiny minority segment of hobbyists, and here have truly made minimal impact on P&S and DSLR.

Bottom line, if you want "small size/low weight mirrorless," you want APS-C or m4/3 mirrorless, period. FF mirrorless discussion should not include size, as that argument is already lost to the size of FF lenses which will remain large due to physics. Comparing body size and weight as if it makes a difference is a bit silly when a telephoto lens obliterates any chance of true portability with FF mirrorless and further calls into question the ability for small body FF mirrorless cameras to handle large FF telephoto lenses in terms of ergonomics.


IMO, Canon should keep it simple:

Line 1: EOS M, APS-C mirrorless using EF-M lenses
Line 2: EOS 6DM, FF mirrorless variant using 6D chassis, updated electronics and EF lenses

The slightly lesser depth a shorter flange can provide is not worth the sacrifice in ergonomics or lens compatibility in full frame, as full frame will remain relatively large as a result of the large lenses anyway.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Bottom line, if you want "small size/low weight mirrorless," you want APS-C or m4/3 mirrorless, period. FF mirrorless discussion should not include size, as that argument is already lost to the size of FF lenses which will remain large due to physics. Comparing body size and weight as if it makes a difference is a bit silly when a telephoto lens obliterates any chance of true portability with FF mirrorless and further calls into question the ability for small body FF mirrorless cameras to handle large FF telephoto lenses in terms of ergonomics.



+1. Agree with everything you said.

- A


----------



## moreorless (Oct 29, 2015)

If you talking size saving I actually think that small flange distance becomes much less of an advantage on FF than other aspects of mirrorless. For one thing most lenses will still be fairly long on FF anyway and judging from the FE system the old "simpler smaller non SLR lens designs" is really just a fantasy on AF digital, if anything Sony FE lenses are often longer than DSLR equivalents to correct light angles or simply due to the focal lengths involved. For another on FF the savings on cutting out the prisms/mirror/AF sensor become significantly greater as they naturally need to be larger on FF.

You look at a Sony A7 camera with lens and compare it to a DSLR like the 6D with both cameras having decent lenses on and really the size saving isnt in depth its in height and grip size(obviously nothing directly to do with SLR/mirrorless tech). A 6D like camera without the mirror and an EVF instead plus perhaps a slightly smaller grip could probably get quite close to the A7.

Were I think there might be a market for a small flange distance mirrorless is actually something quite close to the current EOS M3. The same quite limited lens selection as well with not too fast primes in the wide/normal range and a slower variable aperture short range kit zoom. Canon could use it in the same way I spose as well, selling it on the cheap to try and devalue the market for competitors.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I owned 5d3, 1dx, Fuji x100s, a7, a7r, a7s and a7rii and I found your comments are quite b.s
> 
> Similar b.s 6d is a better camera than 5d3. Didn't you ended up replaced your 6d with 5d3?
> 
> 4/3 system is on the way out...



Dylan, let's spin this a different way. Follow the chain of logic:

1) You are at Canon designing a FF mirrorless platform with interchangeable lenses.
2) You wish to convert photography professionals to this system.
3) Though the lenses will not come overnight, you plan to offer something as comprehensive as the EF line or Nikon F line, either natively or through adapters.
4) A good number of your lenses will be large and heavy, because, you know, _physics._
5) The FF rig cannot be too small/light in comparison to the larger lenses or it will be awkward to hold, so you build a stout body that can counterweight up to 200mm lenses comfortably, and offer a grip to further stabilize/counterweight even larger glass than that.

In other words, to flip the world's photographers to FF mirrorless, _you have to go big._

To pursue a small/thin/light FF mirrorless platform would require you cap focal lengths to something pedestrian (say, 135mm) and would have you forego fast lenses in favor of slower ones. *That system will only sell to enthusiasts or rangefinder lovers.* No pro is going to walk over to this system without that killer 70-200 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4, and once they have that lens, they'll need to hold on to it somehow.

So I contend you leave the tiny rig game to APS-C mirrorless and give 'em what they want for FF mirrorless. Go big or go home.

- A


----------



## moreorless (Oct 29, 2015)

Talking about light angles as well I wonder if there isn't a sizeble problem in the future for FF mirrorless?

There does seem to be a lot of money being put into multi layer Sigma Forevon like sensor design which might finally make it into a mainstream FF ILC in the coming years. The problem I suspect there though will be that multi layer design will be even more intolerant of light hitting the sensor at an angle than current sensor tech is, you look at the recent Sigma DP0 and far from those mythical ultra small wideangle lenses its 20mm equivalent is massive.







I suspect the reason for that is that even on APSC the light angles need to be heavily corrected hence longer lens designs. It could well be that the other Sigma DP cameras all have quite modest lens designs in terms of not being that wide or that fast to avoid this issue and keep them more compact.

Moving to a mirrorless mount could potentially mean you end up with a lens system that can't be used on newer sensor tech. I suspect such tech might be even more likely now the Sony sensor division has spilt off and would now likely have even kless problem producing something that ultimately damages their camera division.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Oct 29, 2015)

Always a good read here!

Leica has, with the SL, daringly gone where Canon can now follow (and should and probably has been investigating...). Mirrorless is not about size and weight (AKA Sony Marketing and earlier 4/3rds ethos), rather this mode is a reasonable step into the future of "screens", historical compatibility and social technology.

Canon cannot abondon the EF line and their first several FF MILCs (I hate the sound of "MILK",-and the taste for that matter...) will be optimized for this system. Battery technology is improving, screens are improving, everything is more and more linked/connected/pinpointed and Canon will give us something when they feel all of these elements are good for us. 
Leica can (even if the product destroys their brand's core message) charge large sums of money and deliver the best EVF, backwards lens compatibility and social connectivity -- and then put out a new model every year and sell to their small market. 
Canon will follow when the time/price/tech is right, and they will try not to destroy their photog empire historically based in SLR-modus-operandi. Over 60 years Canon has done a pretty good job innovating and shifting from: Rangefinger, to SLR, to AE SLR, to AF SLR, to DSLR. I trust their ability to transition here as well.

I want to see an EOS 1M! ...Do you guys remember when canon had the D30 and the D60? -- well, it is time for Canon to do that same name swap again with the M line and have a 1M, 3M, 5M, 10M, 20M, etc..

Finally, bravo to Sony for putting a small fire under their asses -- but there is a reason Sony puts out new models so quickly.

Cheers


----------



## moreorless (Oct 29, 2015)

There is of course the potential to develop a more extreme FF version of EF-S lenses where the rear element pushes into the body to maximise any size saving that can be head but again to be that's starting to look quite limited.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 29, 2015)

[/quote]
The small size of the Sony FF mirrorless body comes with a massive tradeoff in ergonomics, functionality and battery life that frankly is not worth it if you are even only at the semi-pro level, nevermind pro level. 

Not true at all, and i say that as owner of 100+ expensive Canon products. You can assign app. 10 buttons on an A7RII camera, have a third weel just for ISO and can work way faster than with any Canon camera. Ergonomics and battery life are perfect if you use a handgrip for 100 bucks and beat any 5D3. The Sony system has flaws, but so many advantages from focus peaking to modern 4k video to in-body-stabilisation to swivel screen, that you will extremely miss in current Canon products.

And the reason behind is the company's strategies. Sony and Panasonic said: in our top products like the A7R2 or GH4 we give out all features that are available for the money. Canon does artificially limit products, so they think they will make the people buy 3 products instead of 1 to have the same features. But many won't do that anymore. Canon should wake up and at least release a 5D4 with better specs than expected. 4K 60fps video, and not something less because they want to protect a 1DX2 for example. Also why not have a 5D4 lineup with two bodies, so one can have a swivel screen? That's the minimum they need to come up with.


----------



## Bernard (Oct 29, 2015)

douglaurent said:


> You can assign app. 10 buttons on an A7RII camera, have a third weel just for ISO and can work way faster than with any Canon camera.



...and if you have a second body, you need to spend half a day re-assigning the same 10 buttons. Only they've moved (because it's been 6 months and Sony's released 3 new iterations/bug fixes), and the menu system has changed. So now you've got 2 cameras with 20 buttons that do slightly different things and aren't labelled.

I totally get that this kind of thing is considered "fun" by those who spent their childhood memorizing complex button combinations on their PlayStation. I'm not in that camp. I want a camera system with a predictable and consistent interface, so that I can concentrate on images. I can't even imagine what 10 additional functions are needed. Here's what I use: ISO (base or 1600, nothing else), exposure comp, image review/zoom. I shoot raw, manipulation is done in post, don't need instagram filters in the camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2015)

douglaurent said:


> Ergonomics and battery life are perfect if you use a handgrip for 100 bucks and beat any 5D3.



LOL. Don't let your perceptions overcome reality, you only sound foolish. a7RII is rated for 290 shots on a full charge, the 5DIII for 950 shots. Does your 100-buck handgrip hold four batteries? Because that's the only way it would 'beat any 5D3'... :


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 29, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I don't get all the clamoring for larger bodies. It is so easy to attach all sorts of grips and rigs to make small gear larger, heavier and bulkier ... if so desired.



Then you have a bunch of junk hanging all over your body, having few or no controls on it, being loose or falling off, and just making the overall system much less comfortable, integrated and usable.

My 7D Mark II is absolutely as small as I'd ever want it to be. I don't mind lighter, as it really doesn't hurt much, but smaller is just more painful, slower, and harder to use. These Sony mirrorless cameras have the worst ergonomics of any cameras I've ever seen aside from genuine compacts. I don't care if they could walk on water and violate the laws of physics with their EVFs, I wouldn't buy one because they are too small and too hard to use. The only thing I'd consider using one for is mounting on my telescope where I'd use it without touching it or using the EVF. And they'd have to be under $500 for me to consider one for that use.


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 29, 2015)

For all of those that say the Sony A7II family cameras are two small keep in mind they are almost exactly the same size as the Canon AE-1. Compared to old film 35 cameras the modern DSLR is huge. I do not know why modern DSLR cameras with the advancement in electronics need to be so large. I do not like cameras like the Canon SL1 because they are small/round instead of small/thin. I prefer the ergonomics of the Sony A6000. I still would like to see a Rebel F (full frame rebel). Body style similar to the Sony A7 with a mirror box bum like on the Canon AE-1. It would not even have to be mirrorless but that would likely make it easier to manufacture. 

I now think that APC-S mirrorless cameras are pointless there is not enough size difference between them and full frame mirrorless. If you want small go m4/3.


----------



## tcmatthews (Oct 29, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get all the clamoring for larger bodies. It is so easy to attach all sorts of grips and rigs to make small gear larger, heavier and bulkier ... if so desired.
> ...



Personally I find the size of the 7D and 5D bodies unbearably large. That is why I bought a 60D instead of a 7D. I never considered buying a camera that size until I bought my Tamron 150-600. When you have a lens of that size it dwarfs the body. But I think adding a grip to the 6D would fit me better than a larger camera.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I owned 5d3, 1dx, Fuji x100s, a7, a7r, a7s and a7rii and I found your comments are quite b.s
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > No pro is going to walk over to this system without that killer 70-200 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4, ==>* How did you come with that?
> ...



I've used an adapted M/M2 with my 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.2L...it's an ergonomic nightmare.


----------



## dolina (Oct 29, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Please don't mistake my position. Mirrorless is coming, it will supplant the majority of SLRs someday and I welcome that. I'm not butt hurt that my chosen horse in the race will go away someday. Not at all.
> 
> I'm simply arguing that _mirrorless isn't bringing that many new photographers to the market_. It's just another form of dedicated camera. Mirrorless rigs are just another option for the existing pool of folks interested in photography.
> 
> ...


As it appears to me, new photogs considering an interchangeable lens camera will buy into a mirrorless system rather than SLR. Unless SLR has a specific attribute lacking in mirrorless.

Again, new photogs are not highly technical and will only care about what is obvious to them.


----------



## Darkroom317 (Oct 29, 2015)

tcmatthews said:


> For all of those that say the Sony A7II family cameras are two small keep in mind they are almost exactly the same size as the Canon AE-1. Compared to old film 35 cameras the modern DSLR is huge. I do not know why modern DSLR cameras with the advancement in electronics need to be so large. I do not like cameras like the Canon SL1 because they are small/round instead of small/thin. I prefer the ergonomics of the Sony A6000. I still would like to see a Rebel F (full frame rebel). Body style similar to the Sony A7 with a mirror box bum like on the Canon AE-1. It would not even have to be mirrorless but that would likely make it easier to manufacture.
> 
> I now think that APC-S mirrorless cameras are pointless there is not enough size difference between them and full frame mirrorless. If you want small go m4/3.



Because the cameras have more electronics in them and also extra features that have become popular and even considered necessary. 35mm cameras used to be just be a housing for the film with a shutter and winding mechanism possibly with an in camera metering system, now there is so much more stuff in the camera. Look at lens sizes in the past. Autofocus, image stabilization and electronics have made lenses larger as well.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 29, 2015)

tcmatthews said:


> For all of those that say the Sony A7II family cameras are two small keep in mind they are almost exactly the same size as the Canon AE-1.



Which was my very first camera. And it was too small, too hard to use, and had lousy ergonomics. Film was the saving grace for that camera - you didn't want to take too many shots with it because it didn't hold very many, changing film is a pain, and it's expensive.

Digital means I can shoot 2,000 shots in a few hours no problem, and that means I have to have way better ergonomics than the horrible ergonomics I tolerated in the film days.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan, let's spin this a different way. Follow the chain of logic:
> ...



Dylan, in the end, if you don't agree with #2, the rest of the chain of things that follow won't make sense. If you don't care about flipping pros to this system, yes, you are absolutely right -- you can make it smaller, limit the max aperture of the lenses to keep lenses smaller, etc. In effect, if you don't agree with #2, sure: you can make an FF mirrorless system play the 'small' card like Fuji did in APS-C. Absolutely.

But I contend that Canon will not go to FF mirrorless to simply say 'We have FF mirrorless, too!'. I believe that they will eventually be compelled to go to FF mirrorless because their SLR professionals will eventually defect to other companies without such a platform being offered by Canon. That is the overwhelming premise with the rest of my argument: *mirrorless is the inevitable future and Canon needs to think highest-end with that future or risk losing it's biggest spending customers.* Hence: bigger lenses + a need to hold those bigger lenses, hence: a bigger body.

Personally, I would love a small FF mirrorless platform as I rarely shoot above 100mm and today I gladly would give up a stop of speed on a lens to halve its size -- but I am not a professional and I am not the target demo for such a product platform. I think Canon has to go big/comprehensive/inclusive to get those folks.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2015)

dolina said:


> As it appears to me, new photogs considering an interchangeable lens camera will buy into a mirrorless system rather than SLR. Unless SLR has a specific attribute lacking in mirrorless.
> 
> Again, new photogs are not highly technical and will only care about what is obvious to them.



Can't argue with how you choose to perceive something, but the facts and sales data don't support that perception. 

Keep in mind one very important 'specific attribute' that dSLRs have, which is lacking in mirrorless: popularity. dSLRs outsell MILCs ~3:1 – that means your family/friends/neighbors are more likely to have a dSLR, your local store is more likely to have a larger selection of dSLRs, etc. That's something that will be pretty obvious to new photogs.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

dolina said:


> As it appears to me, new photogs considering an interchangeable lens camera will buy into a mirrorless system rather than SLR. Unless SLR has a specific attribute lacking in mirrorless.
> 
> Again, new photogs are not highly technical and will only care about what is obvious to them.



Agree for the most part -- mirrorless appears less intimidating at first glance. What I am saying is: _if mirrorless didn't exist today_, those exact same numbers of not highly technical people needing a camera would still exist today.

In other words, though those people may choose mirrorless now that it's an option, _mirrorless isn't the reason why they are in the Best Buy or Target in the first place_. It's not a market expanding product offering, it just poaches folks from the existing market.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 29, 2015)

tcmatthews said:


> For all of those that say the Sony A7II family cameras are two small keep in mind they are almost exactly the same size as the Canon AE-1.



The issue is all the controls and buttons on a Digital Camera. A AE-1 did not have any tiny buttons that had to be operated. You set ASA when the film is inserted, and have the shutter speed, winder, and shutter button.

Focus and aperture are on the lens.

I have issues even with large cameras that have buttons everywhere. I find my fingers pressing buttons on the small bodies and that becomes a issue. 

A AE-1 size is fine if there is a place to place a large hand without pushing buttons. I have several AE-1 cameras as well as a FT-QL, and Nikon F, and most other camera brands as well.


----------



## Ruined (Oct 29, 2015)

dolina said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't mistake my position. Mirrorless is coming, it will supplant the majority of SLRs someday and I welcome that. I'm not butt hurt that my chosen horse in the race will go away someday. Not at all.
> ...



If you mean ILCs on the US, no way. Canon Rebel is still #1 entry level seller far ahead of any mirrorless options in the US.


----------



## bedford (Oct 29, 2015)

Canon working on FF mirrorless? So they have some spare capacity in R&D? Interesting.
Shouldn't they be working on the 1Dx II, 5D IV and 6D II? 

Oliver


----------



## DigiAngel (Oct 29, 2015)

How hard can it be to build a pro level body, somewhere between a rebel and a 5D in size, with familiar control scheme, EF mount and nice big EVF? 

because thats where the whole mirrorless train is going anyway when you talk fullframe fast glass. why build a second system with new mount, when the lenses will be the same size as they are on DSLRs anyway?


----------



## deleteme (Oct 29, 2015)

Ruined said:


> If you mean ILCs on the US, no way. Canon Rebel is still #1 entry level seller far ahead of any mirrorless options in the US.



Entry level is where newbies start and Rebels and the entry level Nikons rule this space. However, as they get more involved they cannot help but feel the pull of the cheerleading for Sony despite its lack of lens line and accessories.

Canon and Nikon cannot afford to abdicate what they see as the traditional upgrade route in their respective lines. Thus they need to offer mirrorless as an alternative to Sony's offerings. The 1Dx and D4s are superb cameras but to increasing numbers of people are seen as yesterday's news.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Keep in mind one very important 'specific attribute' that dSLRs have, which is lacking in mirrorless: popularity.



;D. ;D. Glad your back to put things into perspective ! 

In the varied photographic circles I move in those that are the strongest advocates of mirrorless 'professional' cameras are those who are into, and love the latest tech, as well as living their lives on the net, and see the reflex design as 'old'. But the majority who just want a camera to take pictures perceive the EVF as a cheap substitute for an slr. 

EVFs are getting better and offer more distracting information that can certainly be useful, and Canon could easily produce a combi dslr/mirrorless if they felt it would be profitable. They have the DPAF: personally I've always felt that they will use this for more than video in the 70D. It would be possible to have an interchangeable pentaprism finder with an alternative EVF. Fit the latter and the mirror automatically locks up and you can have all the pretty information in the viewfinder that you want, coupled with the accuracy of the DPAF. The only thing is the camera will be thicker than mirrorless only bodies, but you'll have all the other benefits that 'Everyone' wants. Except 'Everyone' might turn out to be a lower number than the name suggests.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



M and M2 body are very much similar. It feels like a point & shoot body. The grip is tiny. There is not so much custom buttons to assign to. On top of that, AF speed is not really Canon standard, or should I say today mirrorless standard. 

With all that factors, putting a f1.2 or 70-200 f2.8 zoom lens through an adapter on M/M2 of course you should feel "ergonomic nightmare". Canon seems to learn that lesson and improved in M3 grip.

I have shot a7 with native F4 70-200. Although it's not the best ergonomic when comparing to 5D3 etc...but it's no where near "ergonomic nightmare". I assigned left, right, down and center buttons on my a7s and a7r II as AF point selection(kinda like joystick on 1dx). This way, moving AF point is much faster.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 29, 2015)

DigiAngel said:


> How hard can it be to build a pro level body, somewhere between a rebel and a 5D in size, with familiar control scheme, EF mount and nice big EVF?
> 
> because thats where the whole mirrorless train is going anyway when you talk fullframe fast glass. why build a second system with new mount, when the lenses will be the same size as they are on DSLRs anyway?



On wider lenses (say 24-50mm), you actually get a nice size savings over SLR, i.e. body thickness is a bigger percentage of the aggregate lens + body length in that case, so native FF mirrorless mount lenses pay a bigger dividend there.

But once you shoot for the big aperture primes or longer FL zooms, there really is no upside to going to svelte new mount. At that point, yes, you are correct -- sticking with a native EF mount distance to the sensor makes sense.

We could see a very simple hybrid position taken by Canon: offer an FF mirrorless platform with a very small flange distance and (as many expect) put an EF adaptor right in the box (or sell separately at time of launch). But instead of migrating towards a fully new mount native portfolio of lenses, they may just offer us 2-4 very nice small native lenses and they stop there -- if you want a smaller rig, but one of the new native mount lenses, but everyone else will shoot plain old EF glass through an adaptor.

- A


----------



## kalieaire (Oct 30, 2015)

I've already replaced my 5D3 as my walk around camera with an Olympus EM5. The 1 series is being replaced by the A7R-II very soon. The only thing I cannot replace is my P25+ on my Hasselblad. 

I absolutely cannot see Canon coming through with anything that resembles cutting edge, bleeding edge, or something that will meet my needs with whatever comes out next.

If anyone has ever even shot with Nikon, Sony, or even Phase One or Hasselblad would probably have seen the light with regard to shadow and highlight recovery. There's simply more information and data there that can be pulled back making the "film" look come out even cleaner than whatever Canon can give me.

Unless Canon comes out with something ground breaking/earth shattering/paradigm shifting, I can see their company not doing too well with regard to their share of the camera market. Kinda makes me sad because I still like their glass, but mainly the 85L.

If it weren't for the 85L, I probably wouldn't have stuck around with Canon so long.


----------



## pwp (Oct 30, 2015)

Canon is so late to the party, this rumored release will have to be truly groundbreaking to swing the attention of photographers across the planet back from the competition. 

While most of my stills work happens on 5D3 & 1 Series bodies, my eyes have been opened to the potential of mirrorless with my mostly-video Panasonic GH4. While the stills files are surprisingly good for the sensor size, I still can't work anywhere near as fast as I can with a premium DSLR, mainly because of the ever so slightly laggy EVF. Once EVF's have matured sufficiently which must be just moments away, the mirrorless category will just fly, leaving DSLR's in the museum with twin-lens Rollieflexes and Speed-Graphics.

So if this rumored body is FF, has a best in the business EVF, takes our EF glass and is truly pitched at professionals I'll be first in line with a pre-order.

-pw


----------



## Aglet (Oct 30, 2015)

pwp said:


> So if this rumored body is FF, has a best in the business EVF, takes our EF glass and is truly pitched at professionals I'll be first in line with a pre-order.



.. or will Canon _pull-a-Canon_ and deliver a crippled body with less that stellar IQ and overall performance and still sell container loads of them just because, you know, it's a _Canon?_

Frankly, I'm a little surprised at all the amount of ML bashing going on, especially for a rumored _Canon_ product.
ML has it uses, right now. It's a little different, has many feature advantages over mirror-flappers, and only a few disadvantages which only affect a small segment of all possible users.
IMO, ML has already beaten the SLR at nearly everything that matters except market share. And about the only reason for that is Canon, Nikon and Pentax make crappy, overpriced, and oddly niche ML products (mostly) respectively.
Canon has to tread carefully in the ML market as they have to devise how to keep that large segment of Rebel customers continuing to buy into the Canon cult. Offer a teaser like a FF ML body that's grossly overpriced but attention-getting (the Rebel-esque crowd goes, "Oooh!"), then offer a better version of the M (with EVF) a year after that at a reasonable prince point (The Rebel-esque crowd goes, "Ahh!").

Canon shareholders keep smiling and the cash rolls in while the juggernaut transitions to ML systems that will meet the needs for most users while retaining a line of DSLR products until even the old mirror-box devotees find that advances have made ML the better choice for their next purchase too.

Meanwhile, early adopters have been mostly enjoying the advantages of their ABC ML systems for years but the exciting quacking won't crescendo until the big brands start to deliver more compelling ML options.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 30, 2015)

Anybody else see and think this fan-art is cool??? If this is how the FF Mirrorless will look, I am all in...


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 30, 2015)

If Canon ever brings a FF MILC, it will probably look like the G5X ... just BIGGER ... should please all those wanting a big camera to hold onto ... and with a full-blown EF-mount up front ... for those millions of EF 800/5.6 lenses out there.  ;D

I don't like this "AE-D" design either. Strongly dislike all that retro-styled stuff. Monofunctional time dials ... Never ever. I'd prefer Canon M3 design, but with EVF (in corner, like Sony A6000 or RX100), FF sensor, Canon user interface and Canon lenses. Design as sleek and non-retro as possible. Fully articulated touch screen, of course. No pop-up flash, no hotshoe, but built-in wireless RT flash commander. 



mkabi said:


> Anybody else see and think this fan-art is cool??? If this is how the FF Mirrorless will look, I am all in...


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 30, 2015)

mkabi said:


> Anybody else see and think this fan-art is cool??? If this is how the FF Mirrorless will look, I am all in...


Hi mkabi! 

I can understand that people like this vintage style design. 
And I also think that a 5D3 is way bigger than an AE-1 or else. 
But the ergonomics of a 5D3 are way better than those of the AE-1 and lenses have become bigger and heavier as for AF and IS and so on. And you will get small lenses only for the tradeoff of losing wide aperture and then I am out. 
If it's only about external size and not about sensor size combined with wide aperture to have all control of DOF, then better switch over to m4/3. Here you have a real size advantage.

Back to this concept:
I wouldn't buy such a vintage mirrorless FF because of the ergonomics. 
If Canon could make a decent compromise between small size and good ergonomics esp. a grip big enough for normal hands then i am in. Even with a 40 mm STM pancake the body + lens combo is that deep that you won't lose any depth because of adding a grip.

Everything else (vintage stlye) is for showcase or ego. But not for good and efficient photography.

Edit: when i see that s*****g ISO dial all the bad curses from the 80ies come back to me when I was trying to change value. That is a perfect example of bad ergonomics, esp. when you need it more often like nowadays.


----------



## moreorless (Oct 30, 2015)

douglaurent said:


> Not true at all, and i say that as owner of 100+ expensive Canon products. You can assign app. 10 buttons on an A7RII camera, have a third weel just for ISO and can work way faster than with any Canon camera. Ergonomics and battery life are perfect if you use a handgrip for 100 bucks and beat any 5D3. The Sony system has flaws, but so many advantages from focus peaking to modern 4k video to in-body-stabilisation to swivel screen, that you will extremely miss in current Canon products.
> 
> And the reason behind is the company's strategies. Sony and Panasonic said: in our top products like the A7R2 or GH4 we give out all features that are available for the money. Canon does artificially limit products, so they think they will make the people buy 3 products instead of 1 to have the same features. But many won't do that anymore. Canon should wake up and at least release a 5D4 with better specs than expected. 4K 60fps video, and not something less because they want to protect a 1DX2 for example. Also why not have a 5D4 lineup with two bodies, so one can have a swivel screen? That's the minimum they need to come up with.



Granted I shoot Nikon these days but I use a lot more than 10 buttons on my D810, movig to an A7 camera would mean a lot more lengthy menu diving, then of course you have issue with grip size.

Recently I would say the opposite with Sony, they seem to be charging a similar price to high end Canon and Nikon single gripped DSLR's whilst offering handling beyond entry level FF. Its the same with the lenses, there limiting the max aperture and zoom range to save size and then charging you as much as a faster or wider zoom range lens.

The latter works well with gearheads who couldn't bring themselves to buy something that wasn't the top end of the system so look past smaller DSLR lenses and bodies but go for Sony because there isn't anything above to make them feel inferior.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 30, 2015)

mkabi said:


> Anybody else see and think this fan-art is cool??? If this is how the FF Mirrorless will look, I am all in...



I'll buy two - one for left hand and one for right hand 8)


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 30, 2015)

Rather than pseudo/vintage/retro camera designs with big knurled, but monofunctional dials for only one parameter. I'd like to finally see "smart, multifunctional dials" with context-sensitive visual feedback ... similar to this concept: 





Instead of retro looks I'd much prefer a FF MILC along the lines of Vladimir Markovs 2012 design vision for future mirrorless cameras:




http://photorumors.com/2012/03/23/interesting-mirrorless-camera-concept/

However, since it is Canon we are talking about, a FF mirrorless body might either look like a G5X on steroids or even worse ... 




http://photorumors.com/2010/07/29/canon-evil-concept/


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 30, 2015)

mkabi said:


> Anybody else see and think this fan-art is cool??? If this is how the FF Mirrorless will look, I am all in...



At some point, I'd like someone to explain the aesthetic attractiveness of a simple little box.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 30, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody else see and think this fan-art is cool??? If this is how the FF Mirrorless will look, I am all in...
> ...



The obvious point is that different styles and sizes appeal to different photographers. Those who try to tell others that they are wrong in preferring their favorite style or design are not going to convince them. We have all the various styles and designs because they appeal to different people.

Where it really gets silly, is when name calling begins.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2015)

Again, I see the following chain of logic with FF mirrorless:

EF lenses will work on this thing, and even if they didn't, any FF lens at 200mm or quick like f/1.4 or f/1.2 will be large and heavy (other than, say, the odd double-gauss 50mm design). That weight needs to be controlled, so a stout grip is a certainty in my mind. Maybe not 1D/5D chunky, but stout enough to wield 200mm FF relatively comfortably -- anything bigger would naturally want a vertical grip or tripod collar + monopod.

Also think about all the Canon creature comforts a $2k+ rig will have: top LCD, knobs in the right places, etc. *I don't see Canon going all Leica SL concept car futuristic, and I don't see them going Canon AE retro as it will create a pain point in using this camera in conjunction with SLRs.* I imagine it will heavily leverage Canon's very strong ergonomics to provide a familiar feature set to existing Canon SLR users and to provide a fairly seamless experience for multiple camera carrying photographers who might need to regularly toggle between their 1D/5D and this new mirrorless option.

All of that -- to me -- says to expect something between the 70D and the 6D in terms of control layout and grip size. That doesn't mean the entire rig will be that big -- they have to show off the mirrorless skinny/sexy aspects somehow -- but I expect a top LCD and a chunky grip.

- A


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 30, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



+1 with Mt Spokane Photography


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 30, 2015)

"It was also priced a little too high to be competitive, and sales lagged. Interest (if not profits) got a temporary boost in the North American market in the middle of 2013 when the “firesale” began that saw the price drop by well more than half. I jumped in at that point, *and found that despite some obvious shortcomings the camera was actually very, very useful*. I’ve used it in multiple countries as a lighter option when I didn’t want to carry heavier kit, and I’ve added a bunch of images to my personal portfolio that I think are fantastic. The sensor on it was good – really good, in fact. It put other crop sensor bodies that I used to shame in the image quality department."


Thx Dustin.

This, this, this.

Im quite confident that most who criticize the M has never used it- at all. And most of us are not coming from 1dx's or Olympus or whatever higher order kit.

FOR TAKING PHOTOS, the camera is a little beast- and the M3, that much more so. Indeed, it coudl be better, but if it doesn tfit your needs, then you must look elsewhere, no?

For the touch screen/ no evf haters, there's ano hope for you. You can squawk about having ONLY that one magic build your looking for- and you will keep looking. The Olympus offerings are incredible, with blinding fast Af- but there's no way in hell im investing in a m43, much less Olympus with obscure lenses and customer service that cant match canon. Nope, sorry.

The g5x will be more up some of you guys alley, but lol, cant wait for the complaintrain for that one either. That tiny lil camera feels great and the fully articulating screen is boos.

It's a tool. Admittedly, I bought in when it was dirt cheap, but it continues to be a incredible investment, and the 5d3 can stay at home 90% of the time.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 30, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Rather than pseudo/vintage/retro camera designs with big knurled, but monofunctional dials for only one parameter. I'd like to finally see "smart, multifunctional dials" with context-sensitive visual feedback ... similar to this concept:



Right now I would like to be able to render images like that.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 30, 2015)

ashmadux said:


> Im quite confident that most who criticize the M has never used it- at all. And most of us are not coming from 1dx's or Olympus or whatever higher order kit.
> 
> FOR TAKING PHOTOS, the camera is a little beast- and the M3, that much more so. Indeed, it coudl be better, but if it doesn tfit your needs, then you must look elsewhere, no?
> 
> ...



Soooo much to unpack there, Ash. I hear you. EOS-M takes great pictures in a small package, and has the ability to link to EF lens portfolio. That's huge.

I have shot the EOS-M, the original (but after the AF firmware update). I felt like I was shooting a tiny, laggy Rebel entirely through LiveView 12-18" from my face. It was an (at the time) $799 point and shoot experience with the added upside of nicer lenses and the ability to set my aperture. Yes, it took nice pictures, but that's about it. The entire shooting process was honestly more like a cell phone than my SLR -- awkward, uncomfortable and frustrating.

Let me ask, have you tried *non*-Canon mirrorless in APS-C? The majority have snappy, responsive viewfinders, much quicker focusing, higher burst, you name it. Have you shot an a6000? That rig mops the floor with EOS-M -- it's not even close. In general, for the same price point, mirrorless from other companies feels like it's _2 generations ahead of the EOS-M_.

So -- my comments are not 'the grass is greener elsewhere' or that Canon is ******* or EOS-M is a bad product. I'm saying that for the same money, you can get so so so much more with someone other than Canon right now. And I personally believe that's because Canon is holding one hand behind it's back with mirrorless for fear of upstaging their bread and butter SLRs. We all know they could make a killer mirrorless system -- they just have to go and do it.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Oct 30, 2015)

douglaurent said:


> Canon had a lucky strike with the video mode in 2008 and has been sexy and a few years ahead. They probably made the Kodak mistake and thought it will remain forever. Now since 2013 Sony is ahead regarding mirrorless full frame, and when Canon comes out with an alternative in 2017+x, they will be way too late. Probably they will even come out first with another system that should protect their DSLRs, so it might be 2019 when they finally come out with a serious product. By then Sony already might have released an A7R Mark 5. And the people who jumped to this system between 2013-2019 will have no reason to go back to Canon then.
> 
> If Canon would be clever, they should go the medium format route right away. It will be very difficult to bring more than 50 megapixels to a full frame sensor combined with lowlight capabilities. Medium format sensors might be able to do that in the future. At least that's probably what Sony will deliver to Hasselblad, Pentax and Phase One next.



"Too late". Hmm. All these people talk about jumping ship from one system to another, so can it not work both ways? If Canon brought out something better than Sony (better being entirely subjective and impossible to define universally of course), why wouldn't it work the other way, with Sony customers moving to Canon? Nobody owns a market forever - this argument is made about Canon ('just because they've dominated before means nothing now' etc), but it's always rather one-sided. Either customers are mobile, in which case they can and will move back and forth, or they're loyal, in which case it's not a problem to being with (the truth is in between, but in none of these cases is a Canon FF mirrorless ******* from the outset).


----------



## scyrene (Oct 30, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Rather than pseudo/vintage/retro camera designs with big knurled, but monofunctional dials for only one parameter. I'd like to finally see "smart, multifunctional dials" with context-sensitive visual feedback ... similar to this concept:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mate, for once, I agree (with some of it). Those dials are great.


----------



## moreorless (Oct 31, 2015)

The issue really is that the EOS M was not really targeted at the typical western camera forum user, that might be changing a bit now and in the future but I think its clear that the reason it was released was to compete with ultra small APSC mirror less in Asia.


----------



## Bernard (Oct 31, 2015)

moreorless said:


> The issue really is that the EOS M was not really targeted at the typical western camera forum user, that might be changing a bit now and in the future but I think its clear that the reason it was released was to compete with ultra small APSC mirror less in Asia.



I've been surprised at how popular the M is with (presumably) Japanese tourists in Europe.

I think Canon has picked the right approach: design cameras for the people who actually buy and use them, not for internet shut-ins who feel the need to opine. That probably explains why they sell more cameras than anyone else. You would never know that from reading the comments section on geek sites.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 31, 2015)

Bernard said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > The issue really is that the EOS M was not really targeted at the typical western camera forum user, that might be changing a bit now and in the future but I think its clear that the reason it was released was to compete with ultra small APSC mirror less in Asia.
> ...



Originally, the M system sold so poorly in the US and Canada that it was cancelled, and the inventory sold out on ebay at fire sale prices. However, in Asia, its a huge market, and the market is growing in the USA. Canon USA has agreed to give them another try. If they do not sell, its unlikely that we will see more of the "M" models in the USA. Canon has surveyed US buyers multiple times, and the answer has always been that they perceive a large DSLR as being the best camera. This perception is what drives sales more than technical specs.

At least a part of the reason lies in the tendency for North American and Europeans to have larger hands and many have been unhappy with the lack of a viewfinder.

Price, as always is king. There are a few who buy the highest price models as a status symbol, but they are a exception. Experienced photographers buy a camera based on their intended use, but they do not drive the low end market.


----------



## TeT (Nov 1, 2015)

I am looking forward to a Canon Mirrorless FF that performs as well as my Canon 6D in a smaller body.

I would probably give the M3 a shot now except that I need both viewfinder and Flash at times...


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Nov 1, 2015)

There used to be a time when conceptual designs were floated to test potential market reaction. This FF Canon mirrorless discussion seems to me to be one of those kinds of market tests.

Alas, if it is a test, the FF mirrorless ship has already sailed and Canon will be doing nothing more than playing catch-up. That much should be obvious. Even to Canon's marketing and sales teams.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 2, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Bernard said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



The Canon M sold poorly in the USA because it had the feature set of a Nex5 the price of a Nex7 and the performance of a 2 year old NEX3. It was marketed nowhere. The average American has never seen or heard of the Canon M. The Sony cameras were in Wal-Mart and Best Buy all around the country. You cannot sell something if it is not in the store. 

Canon USA seems to be making the same mistakes with the M3. It is to expensive for what it is and it is already $100 off list price. I understand they are much more reasonably priced in Asia. As you said price is King. 

If Canon is going to try a full frame mirrorless. It will need to be competitive with the Sony A7II series both in price and features. They will also need to market the camera.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 2, 2015)

tcmatthews said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Bernard said:
> ...


+1, especially the part about the M system being marketed nowhere. It also doesn't help that online, a Rebel SL1 with 18-55 lens can be purchased for $500. The SL1 body may be larger than the M3 but, except for depth and even with a full-sized EF lens mount, it is smaller than the Sony A7II series bodies. It's going to be really interesting to see what lens mount Canon uses for its FF mirrorless body.


----------



## Pitbullo (Nov 3, 2015)

I am looking forward to the Canon FF mirrorless, as I am thinking of getting a Sony A7II next year. If I could stay with Canon all would be great. I like Canon. However, as many are saying, they want to use their EF-lenses, and dont want a new mount. I dont really get that. I also want to use my lenses on a Canon mirrorless, but with an adapter. I really hope they shorten the flange distance so we can use legacy lenses like we can on the Sony cameras. Apart from the EVF, the enormous amount of lenses that can be used is one of the greatest strengths of the mirrorless Sonys.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 3, 2015)

Pitbullo said:


> I am looking forward to the Canon FF mirrorless, as I am thinking of getting a Sony A7II next year. If I could stay with Canon all would be great. I like Canon. However, as many are saying, they want to use their EF-lenses, and dont want a new mount. I dont really get that. I also want to use my lenses on a Canon mirrorless, but with an adapter. I really hope they shorten the flange distance so we can use legacy lenses like we can on the Sony cameras. Apart from the EVF, the enormous amount of lenses that can be used is one of the greatest strengths of the mirrorless Sonys.


Which legacy lenses are you hoping to resurrect and how good are they by today's standards? How would they hold up to the current crop of 24/36/42/50 MP sensors?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 3, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > I am looking forward to the Canon FF mirrorless, as I am thinking of getting a Sony A7II next year. If I could stay with Canon all would be great. I like Canon. However, as many are saying, they want to use their EF-lenses, and dont want a new mount. I dont really get that. I also want to use my lenses on a Canon mirrorless, but with an adapter. I really hope they shorten the flange distance so we can use legacy lenses like we can on the Sony cameras. Apart from the EVF, the enormous amount of lenses that can be used is one of the greatest strengths of the mirrorless Sonys.
> ...


That's the $64,000.00 question......
The current crop of lenses is vastly superior to those of 30 years ago.....
When I started in photography, you shot with primes because zooms SUCKED!!! Now we have lenses like the 70-200 and the 24-70 (not to mention 200-400) that are sharper than those primes were..... I have an FD mount 800F5.6 at work and my Tamron 150-600 gives me more detail of distant objects..... I am not nostalgic about mounting them on a new body, we have come so far in materials, coatings, and precision manufacturing that they are relegated to paperweight status....


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 4, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Bottom line, if you want "small size/low weight mirrorless," you want APS-C or m4/3 mirrorless, period. FF mirrorless discussion should not include size, as that argument is already lost to the size of FF lenses which will remain large due to physics. Comparing body size and weight as if it makes a difference is a bit silly when a telephoto lens obliterates any chance of true portability with FF mirrorless and further calls into question the ability for small body FF mirrorless cameras to handle large FF telephoto lenses in terms of ergonomics.
> 
> 
> IMO, Canon should keep it simple:
> ...



+1

Yes, yes, yes. Summed up my feelings on the subject nicely.


----------



## Pitbullo (Nov 4, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > I am looking forward to the Canon FF mirrorless, as I am thinking of getting a Sony A7II next year. If I could stay with Canon all would be great. I like Canon. However, as many are saying, they want to use their EF-lenses, and dont want a new mount. I dont really get that. I also want to use my lenses on a Canon mirrorless, but with an adapter. I really hope they shorten the flange distance so we can use legacy lenses like we can on the Sony cameras. Apart from the EVF, the enormous amount of lenses that can be used is one of the greatest strengths of the mirrorless Sonys.
> ...


TBH I dont really know as I have not studied those lenses (I shoot Canon crop today). However, looking at the Sony forum it seems like people are adapting all sort of lenses. Not just for their qualities, but also for the price. Older lenses tent to be quite cheap compared to modern lenses. I want that option! It would be silly to leave this possibility out when they have the chance to leave it in.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 4, 2015)

Pitbullo said:


> TBH I dont really know as I have not studied those lenses (I shoot Canon crop today). However, looking at the Sony forum it seems like people are adapting all sort of lenses. Not just for their qualities, but also for the price. Older lenses tent to be quite cheap compared to modern lenses. I want that option! It would be silly to leave this possibility out when they have the chance to leave it in.



Yep, that's part of this massive tradeoff. (There is a poll on this right now -- please participate, thx)

Imagine two identical cameras in every way other than the flange distance. The grips are identical. The controls are identical. The weight is identical (drink the Kool-Aid, I know it can't be _exactly_ the same). Now imagine if the flange distance to the sensor is the *only* thing different between the two.

Small flange distance

Pros: 

Skinny body front to back
Adaptation of older or non-Canon lenses is possible
Speedboosters possible? (I'm not well read on those)
Since the lens is closer to the sensor, you don't need as tall a flash to shoot over a standard FL lens without shading the subject, so a lower profile speedlite could be used, I guess (I'm reaching here)

Cons: 

Added cost -- Canon could be will be jerks and make you _buy_ that EF adaptor
Performance with old lenses -- will adaptored EF lenses work as quickly/effectively as on a native EF mount?
You won't have any new native glass to use on day 1 -- perhaps only 1-2 lenses
You will live in a two mount world until all of your lenses are available in the new format


EF flange distance

Pros: 

All EF lenses work perfectly on day 1.
You don't need to live in a two mount world. EF only = simpler, and you aren't staring at a scenario where you might need to offload your EF glass someday.
You investment cost for getting into the mirrorless world is less -- you already own lenses and you don't need an adaptor.

Cons: 

It will be unnecessarily thick front to back.
Adapting older / non-Canon lenses is off the table

I'm sure I missed a bunch of things, but that's how I see it. I'm leaning slightly towards the EF option, but that's from an admittedly ignorant position of thinking that an adapter would hurt performance/responsiveness/AF speed of the EF glass. That may not turn out to be true.

(There is a poll on this right now -- please participate, thx)

- A


----------



## fotonunta (Nov 4, 2015)

When Canon will release the next pro camera, i thinks Sony will release A7S3, that will beat every competitor. I have a lot of L lenses and i am thinking... should i switch to Sony. Come on Canon release the next FF camera!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2015)

fotonunta said:


> When Canon will release the next pro camera, i thinks Sony will release A7S3, that will beat every competitor. I have a lot of L lenses and i am thinking... should i switch to Sony. Come on Canon release the next FF camera!



Yes, Canon had better release their next pro FF camera soon, or else all the pros will flock to Sony in droves for the superior AF tracking, stellar battery life, supremely well-designed ergonomics and menu UI, and most importantly Sony's industry-leading customer support and repair turnaround. 

:


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> fotonunta said:
> 
> 
> > When Canon will release the next pro camera, i thinks Sony will release A7S3, that will beat every competitor. I have a lot of L lenses and i am thinking... should i switch to Sony. Come on Canon release the next FF camera!
> ...



Neuro, you forgot the Sony class leading lens line up and flash system!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Neuro, you forgot the Sony class leading lens line up and flash system!



Well, why didn't you list that among our assets in the first place?


----------



## mkabi (Nov 4, 2015)

fotonunta said:


> When Canon will release the next pro camera, i thinks Sony will release A7S3, that will beat every competitor. I have a lot of L lenses and i am thinking... should i switch to Sony. Come on Canon release the next FF camera!



Yeah and by the time you buy the a7s3, the a7s4 will be announced.
And, if it isn't announced that soon everyone thinks Sony abandoned the E-Mounts. ;D


----------



## Talley (Nov 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> fotonunta said:
> 
> 
> > When Canon will release the next pro camera, i thinks Sony will release A7S3, that will beat every competitor. I have a lot of L lenses and i am thinking... should i switch to Sony. Come on Canon release the next FF camera!
> ...



Haha... best post I've seen in a long time.

All 100% true. People just want fancy gimicks instead of sticking to what works. Oooo the body is small and light weight. ppfff. go home and eat a damn banana.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> fotonunta said:
> 
> 
> > When Canon will release the next pro camera, i thinks Sony will release A7S3, that will beat every competitor. I have a lot of L lenses and i am thinking... should i switch to Sony. Come on Canon release the next FF camera!
> ...



+1. All you get in a conversion is a lovely sensor. 

Everything else that looks good about such a migration is smoke and mirrors, compromise, and added headaches that Canon solved 10 years ago.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 4, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, you forgot the Sony class leading lens line up and flash system!
> ...



oh Princess Bride snap


----------



## Pitbullo (Nov 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> fotonunta said:
> 
> 
> > When Canon will release the next pro camera, i thinks Sony will release A7S3, that will beat every competitor. I have a lot of L lenses and i am thinking... should i switch to Sony. Come on Canon release the next FF camera!
> ...


I do agree with your points, Sony has alot to improve. The camera I actually want is probably a Sony A7II, made by Canon 
On the other hand, we can mock them all we want, but we cant deny that they have made a big impact (at least with enthusiasts) in the industry. Otherwise we would not be discussing them over and over.
Mirrorless cameras have a lot of appeal, and Sony have been good at including loads of bells and whistles. Anybody that likes gadgets and technology will like that. Canon on the other hand is dragging their feet. They produce great cameras, and probably the best colours in the industry, but they are not exciting. Slow and steady wins the race seems to be a good description. What Canon is very good at is building solid, sturdy work horses. They do exactly what it says on the box. If Canon and Sony would join forces they would be unbeatable, but that is not gonna happen. Hopefully Canon can give us the best of both worlds when they finally produce a FF mirrorless.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 6, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Which legacy lenses are you hoping to resurrect and how good are they by today's standards? How would they hold up to the current crop of 24/36/42/50 MP sensors?



People around here keep asking that question (like its close relative, "will I have to replace my lenses if I buy a high MP camera?") as though no-one has used such lenses on modern dslrs or mirrorless cameras. But large numbers of people having been doing so for years, continue to do soon the latest cameras, and report the results on the internet in a wide range of blogs, forums, on flickr and elsewhere. The internet doesn't hide any of this, and you don't even have to venture far afield - check out Dustin Abbott's reviews of some very inexpensive ones, for instance.

If by "good ... by today's standards" you mean "would acquit themselves well in the labs of lenstip, photozone, lensrentals, etc." you might be surprised by how well many of them would do (even the hypercritical, Otus-loving Ming Thein's list of recommended gear includes a Zeiss CY prime and - gasp - a Zeiss CY zoom lens). But today's standards aren't the only ones that matter - one reason why some older lenses are popular is because they have an appealing but quite different look whose virtues result from "flaws" that prevent them from testing well (e.g. Photozone's clueless review of the Helios 40-2). Of course, there are also old lenses that won't seem very good (or worse) by any standard....

For my part, I own several current first rate (by current standards) lenses - including a few first rate Canon Ls, the outstanding Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8 & 55 1.8 primes and the astonishingly good Rokinon 135mm f2 - and a large number of legacy lenses made by a wide range of companies (many of which I hadn't even heard of a couple of years ago), including Canon, some of them ridiculously inexpensive. I use the latter group on my a7rII far more often than the former. (If I needed AF I wouldn't use them at all, of course.)

Some of this is a matter of taste, of course, and whether any of it applies to you depends on the sorts of photos you take....


----------



## Machaon (Nov 7, 2015)

Yet another series of EF lenses for a yet another image circle & flange distance specification?

The dilution of lens development between EF, EF-S, EF-M, EF-M(FF) would dilute Canon's core strength in this area.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 7, 2015)

Pitbullo said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Pitbullo said:
> ...


Using 'legecy" lens is fun, But not practical. You have no AF, therefore you are force to use MF or guess the distance (that is a hit and miss). When you are in out door, the screen may not be bright enough. I brought the Leica Elmar 90/4 and Summicron 35/2 for 2 oversea trip along with the M and 3 EF-M lenses. The 35/2 never got used. The 90/4 has been used a few time as a deflecto 135mm at distance beyond 80 feet. Both lens can beat any M lens in definition and fidelity.


----------

