# FF mirrorless mount -- go thin or go with EF?



## ahsanford (Nov 3, 2015)

Whaddya got? What do you think Canon should do with FF mirrorless?

As everyone has a jillion unique takes on the mount, I am not going to allow entries of 'other' with this poll. 

Keep in mind, this has nothing to do with the size of the grip -- I'm just asking about the flange distance.

COMPANION POLL HERE:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28231.0


- A


----------



## Pitbullo (Nov 3, 2015)

I voted for the first alternative, even though I dont agree with all of it. Size matters, but so does ergonomics, and I dont think mirrorless is all about having small cameras. There are other benefits that for me is vastly more important. EVF is one of them, with all the info I can have directly in the viewfinder. Focus aids and a preview of selected exposure values. Great! The other benefit is all the lenses that can be adapted. Having an adapter to e able to use my EF lenses is a very small tradeoff. 
Also, no more focus adjust would be awesome!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 3, 2015)

Pitbullo said:


> I voted for the first alternative, even though I dont agree with all of it. Size matters, but so does ergonomics, and I dont think mirrorless is all about having small cameras.



Yep. Good comment. I modified the choices to pull the opinions out of it. 

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 3, 2015)

my bet.....

Rebels go mirrorless and with the EOS-M mount and thin bodies
FF goes mirrorless (eventually) and with the full EF mount and camera body size
7D and XXD lines fade away.....


----------



## mkabi (Nov 3, 2015)

Why can't they do both without an adaptor?
I understand the whole flange distance problem, but can't they correct that with an in-body lens or lenses that correct for image size???


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 3, 2015)

mkabi said:


> Why can't they do both without an adaptor?
> I understand the whole flange distance problem, but can't they correct that with an in-body lens or lenses that correct for image size???


every bit of correction adds distortion.....

besides, some will prefer a larger body with more controls, while some will prefer a smaller body with simplified controls..... That's why I think the answer is both.....


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 3, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't they do both without an adaptor?
> ...



+1. EF-mount will not be suitable for making truly (Leica) small and light, and many want that as an option. EF+adapter will be the same frankenstein solution that Sony A7 offers, and I can't see why anybody would want that without native lenses. Sure, Canon must offer compability with EF lenses, but it can't be the only mirrorless solution.


----------



## mkabi (Nov 3, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't they do both without an adaptor?
> ...



I'm not saying that the answer of adding a lens/lenses is an easy answer... what else is a R&D department for?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 3, 2015)

A longer flange distance offers design options with more rigidity in the Z-axis which is important to provide support for longer and heavier, fast-aperture lenses which give the distinctive full frame look. IMHO if you don't need the sweet background blur then you can just as well use lighter APS-C mirrorless options.

Whether it is thick or thin it should have a nice deep grip to provide comfort even with extended use over the course of a day. I don't want cramping hands because it's too small or lacks contouring.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 3, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> A longer flange distance offers design options with more rigidity in the Z-axis which is important to provide support for longer and heavier, fast-aperture lenses which give the distinctive full frame look. IMHO if you don't need the sweet background blur then you can just as well use lighter APS-C mirrorless options.



Or others would say "The heck with that. To keep things small, this is where you settle for an f/2 prime instead of an f/1.4 prime, or an f/4 zoom instead of an f/2.8 zoom."

_I happen to agree with you_, but not everyone is shooting FF for small DOF reasons. Some folks really see FF mirrorless as the light at the end of the tunnel on the big/heavy camera front. But too many folks love fast FF glass to give it up with their mirror boxes, physics is physics and all that, and this new mount will need to be built for war.

If Canon only sold really high end small EOS-M lenses for APS-C, this would be easy. Go EOS-M for small and light, go EOS-Battleship for the FF goodness (and associated back pain).

- A


----------



## dak723 (Nov 3, 2015)

Not sure why people tend to be against adapters to increase the flange distance. They are simple - no glass, no optics, no nothing. I used one with my Olympus OM-D. You put it on. You leave it on. You forget you even have it on fairly quickly. What could be easier? You get the advantage of a slightly smaller, lighter camera and you can use all your EF lenses. Works for me.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 4, 2015)

I like native lenses. Just keep it small and light.

I like the IQ from Zeiss Batis lenses, however, the size is not the best ;D


----------



## brad-man (Nov 4, 2015)

dak723 said:


> Not sure why people tend to be against adapters to increase the flange distance. They are simple - no glass, no optics, no nothing. I used one with my Olympus OM-D. You put it on. You leave it on. You forget you even have it on fairly quickly. What could be easier? You get the advantage of a slightly smaller, lighter camera and you can use all your EF lenses. Works for me.



This. The adapter should be reasonably small and unobtrusive (ideally, it will be identical to the current M adapter). While you're accumulating your new mirrorless lenses, you use the adapter as needed. It should be a smooth transition.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 4, 2015)

The issue with short flange distances is that it becomes more difficult to build wide angle lenses that will cover full frame. The sharper angle of the light rays striking the sensor causes more light fall off which must be compensated for by boosting the ISO of the outer photosites.

I think its a bad solution, its workable, but a compromise in quality.


----------



## brad-man (Nov 4, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The issue with short flange distances is that it becomes more difficult to build wide angle lenses that will cover full frame. The sharper angle of the light rays striking the sensor causes more light fall off which must be compensated for by boosting the ISO of the outer photosites.
> 
> I think its a bad solution, its workable, but a compromise in quality.



Couldn't DO be used to mitigate that problem? It's my understanding that enhanced bending of light is what they do.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 4, 2015)

brad-man said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why people tend to be against adapters to increase the flange distance. They are simple - no glass, no optics, no nothing. I used one with my Olympus OM-D. You put it on. You leave it on. You forget you even have it on fairly quickly. What could be easier? You get the advantage of a slightly smaller, lighter camera and you can use all your EF lenses. Works for me.
> ...



_Unless Canon insists you use the adaptor_ by limiting native the mirrorless FF mount lens offerings. 

There's a strong argument to be had that since FF mirrorless and FF SLR glass are basically the same size/specs, Canon's not going to be a in a hurry to migrate the EF glass over -- it won't save mirrorless owners any size and Canon would have to spin up a new mfg line for those lenses. If they go skinny with the FF mirrorless mount, what's to stop them from only offering a smattering of smaller primes in the new mount and forcing us to use EF through an adaptor?

- A


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 4, 2015)

I definitely would like an ergonomically well integrated adaptor for EF lenses perhaps with a concentric ring to select f-stop or whatever you assign to it - like the S90 and other smaller cameras.

And I would like to have another adaptor to fit my FD lenses to that hypothetical Canon FF mirrorless.

Flexibility rules ... if well made.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 4, 2015)

Canon will use the EF mount. However, they will modify it slightly to accept a new lens type - EF-T. The new EF-T lenses will only mount on full frame mirrorless cameras. (In the same way as EF-S lenses only mount on APS-C bodies). 

The EF-T lenses will extend further into the camera body. This gives designers the option to reduce the size of the protruding, exterior part of the lens. It will also allow Canon to claim full compatibility with existing EF lenses and also display size reduction benefits with the new EF-T lenses.

Further, Canon have been working on reducing the thickness of their sensor modules and LCD dispaly. They've been able to shave 3mm off. This alone helps to create a noticeably more svelte camera body.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 4, 2015)

Is a Full-frame lens to EOS-M speed booster possible?


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 4, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Is a Full-frame lens to EOS-M speed booster possible?



Don't know, but one would think that if Metabones could, they would. They currently don't sell one for the EOS-M mount.

So, it's either:

1) Not possible due to there not being enough room (i.e. the flange distance of EOS-M is too close to that of EF to pull it off), or

2) EOS-M is too small a market for Metabones to make this for.

Gotta believe it's the former and not the latter, but I'm just speculating.

- A


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 4, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The issue with short flange distances is that it becomes more difficult to build wide angle lenses that will cover full frame. The sharper angle of the light rays striking the sensor causes more light fall off which must be compensated for by boosting the ISO of the outer photosites.
> 
> I think its a bad solution, its workable, but a compromise in quality.



A shorter flange distance doesn't cause any compromise on lens design relative to a longer flange. It only has potential benefits.

It's just that, given current sensors' dislike for acute ray angles, it's harder then it used to be with film to exploit this potential. But not impossible as some of Sony's FE lenses show (some FE lenses are dramatically smaller than their DSLR counterparts, taking into account the shorter flange, like the 28mm f2 - yes, I know, it's got software correction, and no IS, but it's one stop faster than the equivalent Canon - and nearly all of them use the extra space for elements), and maybe won't be a problem long term.


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 4, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> Canon will use the EF mount. However, they will modify it slightly to accept a new lens type - EF-T. The new EF-T lenses will only mount on full frame mirrorless cameras. (In the same way as EF-S lenses only mount on APS-C bodies).
> 
> The EF-T lenses will extend further into the camera body. This gives designers the option to reduce the size of the protruding, exterior part of the lens. It will also allow Canon to claim full compatibility with existing EF lenses and also display size reduction benefits with the new EF-T lenses.



I think this is a very bad idea. First, it's not just about shoving lens elements inside a lens mount, but also motors, cams, and other bits. The EF mount is large, but is it large enough ? My guess is that some designs that would have been possible with a shorter flange won't be possible with this solution. Second, it's going to be a lens cap and accessories nightmare (you'll have to produce, sell, maintain, use, two lines of lens caps, and the lens caps will be bigger). Third, it's only going to make changing lenses more annoying than it needs to.


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 4, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



My guess is that, in fact, Canon will most likely be in a hurry to replace all of their EF lenses, regardless of specifications, and just because of one thing : USM.
Nearly all lenses with fast AF and made for mirrorless don't use ring-type USM motors and most of them seem to use linear motors (like the Sony 35mm f1.4 FE). I suppose there is a very good reason for that. 
It's one the reasons I think it's wishful thinking to believe that any current EF lens will work particularly well on a mirrorless, regardless of whether it's got an EF mount of is adapted to a shorter flange mount, and has on sensor PDAF sensors or not.
I've used 43 lenses on an EM1. It's not bad, and totally serviceable for some applications, but compared to dedicated m43 lenses, or a reflex PDAF system, it's much slower and somewhat more unreliable.
Perhaps I'm wrong though and Canon will find a way to make those USM lenses perform as well as dedicated lenses. The Nikon 32mm for the 1 system is SWM, for example - but maybe Nikon's using the SWM label for a technology that isn't ring-type USM/SWM, just like Canon's USM or STM designations can correspond to quite different AF technologies.


----------



## Bernard (Nov 4, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> Canon will use the EF mount. However, they will modify it slightly to accept a new lens type - EF-T. The new EF-T lenses will only mount on full frame mirrorless cameras. (In the same way as EF-S lenses only mount on APS-C bodies).



That solution is the worse of both worlds. You are creating another incompatible lens mount that looks just like an EF mount, which leads to confusion and frustration. Things are bad enough already with EF-S lenses that don't work on a FF body, even though they almost fit. On top of that' you get none of the advantages of mirrorless because you've lost all the flexibility.

I hope that Canon will do the rational thing and use the existing EF-M mount. It's big enough, and it will allow them to take advantage of a shorter flange distance. Sure, you need an adapter for EF lenses, but that adapter already exists and it's really good. The only issue with it is price, they can work on that.

I think people get confused with the flange focal distance and the size of the grip. There's no real link, only the fact that you can make a smaller camera with a shorter mount. It doesn't mean that all mirrorless cameras will be tiny!


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 4, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The issue with short flange distances is that it becomes more difficult to build wide angle lenses that will cover full frame. The sharper angle of the light rays striking the sensor causes more light fall off which must be compensated for by boosting the ISO of the outer photosites.
> 
> I think its a bad solution, its workable, but a compromise in quality.



Wouldn't the same issue of angle sharpness be worse with smaller lens mounts, such as the M-mount compared with the EF mount, necessitating smaller lens rear elements?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 4, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Is a Full-frame lens to EOS-M speed booster possible?
> ...


I would think that if it's possible, there would already be an EF to EF-S speed booster........


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Nov 4, 2015)

SL2 should be mirror-less. ...if they decide to make it.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 4, 2015)

Bernard said:


> I think people get confused with the flange focal distance and the size of the grip. There's no real link, only the fact that you can make a smaller camera with a shorter mount. It doesn't mean that all mirrorless cameras will be tiny!



+1. This poll is about the _mount_. In a clean slate world, any combination of large/small mount and large/small grip could conceivably coexist.

But keep in mind that a 400 prime, an 85 f/1.2, a 70-200 f/2.8 is _going_ to get bolted on this rig on day one -- EF or adapted EF. Done deal. Take it to the bank.

So in my mind, though the mount and grip are independent variables, that 'heavy lens reality' has a grip conversation _starting_ at Rebels and undoubtedly going bigger. I personally see a 70D sized grip at a minimum.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 4, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



EF to EF-S isn't possible, same flange distance means no room for the optics. There was a suggestion some time back they were working on EF to EF-M:

http://www.canonwatch.com/is-metabones-working-on-a-speedbooster-for-eos-m/


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 4, 2015)

COMPANION POLL HERE:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28231.0

- A


----------



## yakman (Nov 5, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Is a Full-frame lens to EOS-M speed booster possible?



There is/was one from a Korean company.

There is no much reason to buy one such for EOS M.
For the same price or lower you can get a used Canon 5D.
You get the speed boost and a camera at the same time.


----------



## yakman (Nov 5, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The issue with short flange distances is that it becomes more difficult to build wide angle lenses that will cover full frame. The sharper angle of the light rays striking the sensor causes more light fall off which must be compensated for by boosting the ISO of the outer photosites.
> 
> I think its a bad solution, its workable, but a compromise in quality.



I thought shorter flange distance is easier for short focal length lenses? Or simpler design to achieve same results


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Nov 5, 2015)

yakman said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The issue with short flange distances is that it becomes more difficult to build wide angle lenses that will cover full frame. The sharper angle of the light rays striking the sensor causes more light fall off which must be compensated for by boosting the ISO of the outer photosites.
> ...



That was only true with film. Unless some different type of sensor tech appears, it does not work well with digital yet.


----------



## FTb-n (Nov 5, 2015)

I voted for the EF mount. If I was interested in a FF mirrorless, it would be for the small body that can leverage my existing EF lenses. In this case, I wouldn't want to mess with adapters.

If I need a more compact system, then the APS-C based M system would suffice.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 5, 2015)

yakman said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Is a Full-frame lens to EOS-M speed booster possible?
> ...


The 5D is 13MP so wouldn't a EOS M3 with it's 24MP and newer sensor technology deliver better IQ given full-image-circle light?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 5, 2015)

Of course a Canon FF mirrorless should come with a new, native short flange-distance mount [unless EF-M really is large enough to create FF image circle lenses without major issues - I seriously doubt that]. 

That's the only way to get small(ish) camera bodies and some small(ish) prime lenses for the most frequently used focal lengths [between 24mm and 100mm] for those who want the option of a small kit - all the time or for some tasks/situations. Plus the option to adapt all sorts of lenses with longer flange distance. 

For other users who prefer a large body with many physical control points and chunky grip and/or use large EF lenses [fast primes, heavy zooms, long tele lenses] all the time or most of the time, a small, Canon will certainly also make somewhat larger mirrorless cameras with larger grip. Adaptor is no problem in real life - just leave it on the camera - think of it as an extension of the camera body. 

There is no rational reason for all the "adaptor angst" ... I use EF and EF-S glass on my EOS M (1) quite frequently. No problem. It is mechanically stable enough. Weight of larger lenses (eg 70-20 / 2.8 II) has to be supported by left hand anyways - on any camera. EF-M adapor is mechanically stable and precise. Have no issues whatsoever. Also love the adapter since it also serves as removable tripod foot for any EF lens. 8)


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> There is no rational reason for all the "adaptor angst" ... I use EF and EF-S glass on my EOS M (1) quite frequently. No problem. It is mechanically stable enough. Weight of larger lenses (eg 70-20 / 2.8 II) has to be supported by left hand anyways - on any camera. EF-M adapor is mechanically stable and precise. Have no issues whatsoever. Also love the adapter since it also serves as removable tripod foot for any EF lens. 8)



I have no _mechanical_ adaptor angst -- Canon won't put something out that will not support the load. But do we know that adaptors will not affect the responsiveness of the lens's AF? That'd be a killer.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2015)

brad-man said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The issue with short flange distances is that it becomes more difficult to build wide angle lenses that will cover full frame. The sharper angle of the light rays striking the sensor causes more light fall off which must be compensated for by boosting the ISO of the outer photosites.
> ...




I've yet to see any wide angle DO lenses, they seem most useful for telephoto. Perhaps there is not much market for $7,000 16mm lenses?


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 5, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> yakman said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Sensor performance doesn't negate lens design. 24mm lenses would be much simpler if we had a 24mm flange dinstance. Sensor tech is constantly changing and should basically be ignored.
Theoretically BSI should solve most of the digital vignetting issue.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 5, 2015)

My opinion is that they should stick to the EF mount at first, and if they release a new mount it should be larger and able to accommodate 50mm sensors in the future.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 5, 2015)

9VIII said:


> My opinion is that they should stick to the EF mount at first, and if they release a new mount it should be larger and able to accommodate 50mm sensors in the future.



So if the bottom-eats-the-top progression we see with cell phones continues, in 20 years, Canon can only remain profitable if they offer medium format products? 

- A


----------



## sdsr (Nov 6, 2015)

I want the mount to be (as it is with Sony and other mirrorless cameras) the length that allows for the attachments of adapters that will allow as wide a range of lenses to be attached as possible (not that it's obviously in Canon's interest to do so). At the very least it should be compatible with EF-S lenses - it seems silly that I can use my Canon EF-S 10-18mm on my Sony a7rII in crop mode but can't on any current Canon body.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 6, 2015)

sdsr said:


> I want the mount to be (as it is with Sony and other mirrorless cameras) the length that allows for the attachments of adapters that will allow as wide a range of lenses to be attached as possible (not that it's obviously in Canon's interest to do so). At the very least it should be compatible with EF-S lenses - it seems silly that I can use my Canon EF-S 10-18mm on my Sony a7rII in crop mode but can't on any current Canon body.



That clearly is not what you actually meant, obviously you can use it on any Canon crop camera and you don't need to put it in crop mode! 

But, you can also use in on any Canon M body, again no crop mode selection needed.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 6, 2015)

No need to nitpick. It is 100% clear, that sdsr was referring to the fact, that no current canon camera with FF sensor has a crop mode to allow use of APS-C lenses. Whereas every Nikon and Sony FF camera (DSLR and Mirrorless) does have a crop mode.

Personally I do not miss the feature at all - i only use lenses that will cover the entire imaging circle of the camera sensor. But i can see, that 1. some people would want a crop mode and 2. that it is technically feasible and that 3. Canon has decided against it as far as DSLRs are concerned.

Future Canon mirrorless FF cameras open up the possibility again. We shall see, what Canon is going to offer ... Once they do get around to offering anything at all.


----------



## brad-man (Nov 6, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Let's not exaggerate. There's a lot less glass in a 16mm for an APSC than a 400mm for FF. Shouldn't cost more than $2100


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 6, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion is that they should stick to the EF mount at first, and if they release a new mount it should be larger and able to accommodate 50mm sensors in the future.
> ...



Maybe? Is that a bad thing?
I should mention here, the current EF mount should already be able to use larger sensors. It can almost take the 645D sensor, measuring the inside diameter it looks like it would be just a few millimeters short, and there's plenty of room around the electronic contacts to take a sensor that tall.
I just think sensor size can still be leveraged as an advantage over other systems, and something like a digital IMAX frame is pretty much an inevitability, it's just a matter of "when". So if the current mount is already competitive with other digital medium-format then a new mount should be future-proof, whether that be a few years or decades before large digital sensors really take off.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 7, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> No need to nitpick. It is 100% clear, that sdsr was referring to the fact, that no current canon camera with FF sensor has a crop mode to allow use of APS-C lenses. Whereas every Nikon and Sony FF camera (DSLR and Mirrorless) does have a crop mode.
> 
> Personally I do not miss the feature at all - i only use lenses that will cover the entire imaging circle of the camera sensor. But i can see, that 1. some people would want a crop mode and 2. that it is technically feasible and that 3. Canon has decided against it as far as DSLRs are concerned.



Oh, it's a perfectly reasonable nitpick - my proofreading failures are what they are. Anyway, what I meant to write was how you read it. I didn't think I would find the feature useful either but have come to appreciate it for this reason - I don't often shoot very wide but have three very inexpensive and very good wide aps-c lenses (the Canon 10-18, the Rokinon 8mm 2.8 fisheye and Rokinon 12mm f2) and don't feel much like buying their much more expensive ff equivalents. They work very well on FF in crop mode (the Canon even goes 1mm wider than it does on Canon, thanks to the different crop factor).


----------



## moreorless (Nov 7, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The issue with short flange distances is that it becomes more difficult to build wide angle lenses that will cover full frame. The sharper angle of the light rays striking the sensor causes more light fall off which must be compensated for by boosting the ISO of the outer photosites.
> 
> I think its a bad solution, its workable, but a compromise in quality.



To tie into this I wonder whether there might be even more of a problem if we finally see some kind of multi layer sensor tech similar to Sigma's finally come to market for the big companies. You look at say the Sigma DP0 with its massive 20mm equivalent lens and that tells me that even on APSC light angles are a significant issue having to pass though three layers. It could well be that the Sony FE lens line-up simply is not compatible with a sensor such as this with there big light drop-off at the boarders.

One thing to consider as well is whether the shorter flange distance is even really much of a size saver on FF. I can see why Leica for example went with it on the SL simply because its the only way there M-mount lenses would be adaptable but just look at the size/length of there native lenses. I would argue that when you move up to FF the bigger size saver of going mirrorless isn't reduced flange distance its actually being able to remove the larger prism and AF sensor. Look at this...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.345,579.394,ha,t

The overhead view with the lenses really isn't too different besides the larger Canon grip that's not directly connected to the camera being an SLR. Its the front on view where the Sony is smaller. Release a 6D like camera with no mirror and an EVF plus maybe a slightly smaller grip and you could get very close to the A7.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 7, 2015)

Behemoth Leica SL1 with behemoth variable aperture kit zooms is laughable and thanks to behemoth Leica prices not relevant to real people. 

Relevant to me is the size difference between e.g. mirrorless Canon EOS-M with 22/2.0 versus canon rebel SL1 with EF-S 24/2.8 attached. Its the smallest canon mirrorslapper with the smallest long flange distance canon lens - and yet it is uncomfortably bulky and will not fit into a coat jacket on a city walk or into a LowePro Dashpoint 20 bag neatly attached to a backpack strap when out and about in the mountains. 

Or in FF territory the difference in size and weight between a Sony A7R II with SonyZeiss 55/1.8 versus a Canon 5DSR or Nikon D810 with Sigma Art 50/1.4 attached. The mirrorless setup offers excellent image quality in a smallish, light package, the other in a big, fat and heavy package. 

Mirrorless done right with reasonably short flange distance offers significant, real and eminently useful size and bulk advantages over mirrorslappers or like the ill-fated, boxy Pentax K-01 - with long flange distance. At least for those 90-99% of situations, occasions and image scenes, that do not require use of EF 600/4 or tilt-shift lens or 11-24 monsters are not needed.


----------



## jd7 (Nov 7, 2015)

EF!! For the same reasons I voted for a FF mirrorless being around the size of a 6D in ahansford's companion poll - although I could see FF mirrorless cameras with an EF mount coming in a range for sizes from something similar to an SL1 up to 1Dx size.

I won't repeat my reasons but they are in the other thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28231.0


----------



## moreorless (Nov 7, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Behemoth Leica SL1 with behemoth variable aperture kit zooms is laughable and thanks to behemoth Leica prices not relevant to real people.



The "variable aperture kit zoom" on the Leica is both faster and longer range than the Sony/Zeiss 24-70mm F/4, the size of the SL overall is I would guess partly a response to the naturally large lenses when aiming for high specs/performance.



> Relevant to me is the size difference between e.g. mirrorless Canon EOS-M with 22/2.0 versus canon rebel SL1 with EF-S 24/2.8 attached. Its the smallest canon mirrorslapper with the smallest long flange distance canon lens - and yet it is uncomfortably bulky and will not fit into a coat jacket on a city walk or into a LowePro Dashpoint 20 bag neatly attached to a backpack strap when out and about in the mountains.



Definitely a good example of the advantages of small flange mirrorless, the EOS M being APSC has smaller lenses and targets a market that desires more limited handling and no viewfinder.



> Or in FF territory the difference in size and weight between a Sony A7R II with SonyZeiss 55/1.8 versus a Canon 5DSR or Nikon D810 with Sigma Art 50/1.4 attached. The mirrorless setup offers excellent image quality in a smallish, light package, the other in a big, fat and heavy package.
> 
> Mirrorless done right with reasonably short flange distance offers significant, real and eminently useful size and bulk advantages over mirrorslappers or like the ill-fated, boxy Pentax K-01 - with long flange distance. At least for those 90-99% of situations, occasions and image scenes, that do not require use of EF 600/4 or tilt-shift lens or 11-24 monsters are not needed.



The Pentax K-01 shows you that the EOS M style small flange mirrorless design is much better suited for that kind of camera but my point is that I think FF changes this significantly. FF means larger lenses with a larger grip and it means users who generally desire more advanced handling and a viewfinder.

Your example with the Song 55mm F/1.8 isn't ideal of course because the Sigma is 2/3rds of a stop faster, the same way comparing the Canon 50mm F/1.8 to the Sony wouldn't be a fair comparison due to the higher performance of the latter. As far as cameras like the D810 or 5D mk3(neither the smallest FF DSLRs) my point was that the flange distance isn't really what makes them larger. Rather its a combination of the large grip, space for more controls AND the large prism and AF sensor.

The reality is that with a FF camera there are going to be very few lens options that will make it slim enough for a short flange distance to be exploited and indeed the short flange distance seems to result in many lenses actually being longer anyway killing any advantage. The more significant size savings with FF mirrorless would be removing the larger prism and AF sensor to make the camera shorter and potentially decreasing the size of the grip/battery.

If you wanted to make something closer to a FF EOS M then yes a new small flange mount would work better but really is there a market for that? nobody seems to think so thus far. If Canon went that route I would say you would be talking more of a fringe product with maybe only a handful of lenses, slower primes and a very short/slow kit zoom.


----------



## martti (Nov 10, 2015)

I would not be surprised if the FF mirrorless looked something like the EOS C movie cameras today.
The point of getting a Canon FF is to be able to use the Canon lenses natively, with the fast and accurate AF.
Yet another set of lenses for yet another body...no, I do not think so.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 10, 2015)

moreorless said:


> ... but my point is that I think FF changes this significantly. FF means larger lenses with a larger grip and it means users who generally desire more advanced handling and a viewfinder.
> ...
> Rather its a combination of the large grip, space for more controls AND the large prism and AF sensor.
> ...
> The reality is that with a FF camera there are going to be very few lens options that will make it slim enough for a short flange distance to be exploited and indeed the short flange distance seems to result in many lenses actually being longer anyway killing any advantage. The more significant size savings with FF mirrorless would be removing the larger prism and AF sensor to make the camera shorter and potentially decreasing the size of the grip/battery.



Of course I would only consider a FF-sensored MILC with built-in EVF and with a full set of control points. Can easily be done in a body sized like Sony A7 (1st Gen), if chunkier grip is absolutely required, then size of A7 Mk. II bodies. As far as control points go, the Sony A7 has enough for my taste and even the Canon EOS M3 has pretty much everything I want in hardware control elements ... front-wheel, rear-wheel, back-AF button, plus all required additional [user-assignable] buttons. AF-selector joystick would be unnecessary, if Canon finally re-implements the most intuitive and easiest method ever of telling a camera where you want it to autofocus: improved Eye Control AF v2.0 -> AF will focus [and track] whatever subject/object you're looking at in the viewfinder. As far as I am concerned, Canon can also call it "virtual touchscreen AF" or "iMagic-AF" or whatever ... as long as they bring it back! 

In terms of FF lenses to exploit a FF MILC size/weight advantage I already see a good number in the current EF lineup: 
* EF 24(2.8 IS
* 28/2 IS
* 35/2.0 IS
* 40 / 2.8 STM
* 50/ 1.8 STM
* 85/1.8 
* 100/2.0 
the latter 2 do need an update, but even with IS and some IQ improvements they should not be larger/heavier than current versions. 
It should also be possible to add a reasonably smallish landscape UWA ... say EF 15mm/4.0 IS 

That would be a pretty neat COMPACT existing lens park for a Canon FF MILC with adapter. 

Of course things would then get even better, smaller and more compact, once the same focal lengths come as native, short flange-back mount with new optical formula. Especially the 3 wide-angles could be pretty much pancake size. Further size/weight savings would be possible with a "pure AF" lens series, without focus ring and manual focus gear, cost savings applied to full weathersealing (easier without focus ring), great IQ, and lower price [in essence a FF version of the current EF-M lenses minus manual focus stuff in them]. 8)


----------



## kphoto99 (Nov 10, 2015)

You can have a thin body and use EF glass at the same time.
Put the sensor on the bottom (looking up) and a fixed mirror at 45 degrees facing the lens mount.

For added points make the sensor be able to move up and down, this way you can change the flange distance, yes I know that is not likely to happen.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 10, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> You can have a thin body and use EF glass at the same time.
> Put the sensor on the bottom (looking up) and a fixed mirror at 45 degrees facing the lens mount.
> For added points make the sensor be able to move up and down, this way you can change the flange distance, yes I know that is not likely to happen.



hehe! nice idea! 8)
However, with an FF sensor at the bottom, resulting camera body would also not be really thin ... 24mm + space around it and LCD in back etc. = closer to DSLR body than to Sony A7 from factor. 
Plus a mirror in the lightpath ... rather than incoming photons hitting that sensor straight in the face.


----------



## moreorless (Nov 11, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > ... but my point is that I think FF changes this significantly. FF means larger lenses with a larger grip and it means users who generally desire more advanced handling and a viewfinder.
> ...



If you look at the difference between a Sony A7 body though and say the Canon 6D its not really the depth of the mount that's the big issue, its the height of the camera...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.345,579.394,ha,t

The big FF prism and the shoulders raised up either side of it at what adds most to the dimensions and weight, remove those and decrease the size of the grip and you have something quite close to an A7 when lenses are included. The size of the grip could also be reduced regardless of the mount the camera uses.

You mention a 15mm F/4 lens, well personally I would disagree that such a lens on a mirrorless FF system would be compact, look at the voigtlander 15mm F/5.6 mk 3 that's been designed for digital use. Much longer than the previous lenses designed for film and that's still an M mount lens as well so add on the length of an adapter plus autofocus and a stop faster. The reality is that the hype of ultra small wide FF mirroress lesnes for FF has turned out to be a myth.


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 12, 2015)

moreorless said:


> One thing to consider as well is whether the shorter flange distance is even really much of a size saver on FF. I can see why Leica for example went with it on the SL simply because its the only way there M-mount lenses would be adaptable but just look at the size/length of there native lenses. I would argue that when you move up to FF the bigger size saver of going mirrorless isn't reduced flange distance its actually being able to remove the larger prism and AF sensor. Look at this...
> 
> http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.345,579.394,ha,t
> 
> The overhead view with the lenses really isn't too different besides the larger Canon grip that's not directly connected to the camera being an SLR. Its the front on view where the Sony is smaller. Release a 6D like camera with no mirror and an EVF plus maybe a slightly smaller grip and you could get very close to the A7.



There's still advantages to draw from a shorter flange distance, and the Sony 28mm f2 is a good example of that. Yes, all right, it's software corrected. But it's one full stop brighter than the Canon 28mm IS USM and yet the overall lens + flange distance remains smaller, and it's dramatically smaller than the Nikon 28mm f1.8G. The following picture uses the Sony 55 and Nikon 24mm as stand in since the 28mm lenses aren't in Camerasize's database, with a blue line to roughly show where the 28mm lenses would end.

Remember that to measure overall thickness you shouldn't look at the back of a body but at the focal plane mark. The A7 series bodies, particularly the II version, are quite thick behind the sensor.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 12, 2015)

It is evident, that mirrorless FF camera with short-flange distance lenses for the most commonly used focal length range can be designed with considerably less overall bulk compared to mirrorflippers with large flange-back lenses. 

Part of the "thickness" of the Sony A7 Mk. II series behind the sensor plane is owed to the IBIS mechanism, that needs some "wiggling room". Also, the A7 series (I and II) comes with articulated LCD screen which also takes a bit more depth than the fixed LCDs found on all Canon and Nikon FF DSLRs [except Nikon D750]. 

A Sony A7R II "reduced to 5D III feature set" = fixed LCD, no IBIS - could be a bit smaller than A7 Mk. I series. It would be still way more compact than any DSLR even if a decent-sized handgrip was added for better grip and to hold a "grown-up" battery - sizewise like Canon LP-E6N or corresponding Nikon / Sony DSLR-batteries - with 14+ Whrs capacity ... even in a power-hungry MILC that should provide for 500+ shots per charge.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 12, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Part of the "thickness" of the Sony A7 Mk. II series behind the sensor plane is owed to the IBIS mechanism, that needs some "wiggling room".



Yes, but but the Canon 28mm has an in-lens-IS, which the Sony (or is it Zeiss?) lens doesn't.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 12, 2015)

I'd have voted for EF. But it seems clear from all these discussions that there are broadly two camps - those who want small, light cameras and lenses, and those who want to retain the current ergonomics. It would seem reasonable to imagine there will be small bodies and larger ones, indeed I see no other way to satisfy the majority of photographers.

For me, the smaller body can have whatever mount they like. As for a larger mirrorless body (if that technology does, as most seem to agree, eventually supplant mirrors) - well, if it came sooner rather than later, EF all the way. If it's another 5 or 10 years, then I could come to terms with a new mount.

Either way, it sounds like what we have now, the same roles but different players - two mounts (one for big/'serious' lenses, one for smaller, lighter/cheaper ones) just as we have EF and EF-S; smaller bodies and larger ones, and perhaps even the larger one only taking one type of lens, whilst the smaller body taking both kinds. Mirrorless starts looking a lot less disruptive than some have contended, when put that way.

But this is of course all supposition, as I'm neither an engineer nor a businessman.


----------



## moreorless (Nov 12, 2015)

MayaTlab said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > One thing to consider as well is whether the shorter flange distance is even really much of a size saver on FF. I can see why Leica for example went with it on the SL simply because its the only way there M-mount lenses would be adaptable but just look at the size/length of there native lenses. I would argue that when you move up to FF the bigger size saver of going mirrorless isn't reduced flange distance its actually being able to remove the larger prism and AF sensor. Look at this...
> ...



I would not say even that 28mm is so small as to make the overall setup thin enough to be pocketable easily, only the 35mm F/2.8 achieves that. So your basically looking at a very slow 35mm and a moderately fast 28mm, both with comprises on light drop-off and distortion to really get much benefit from the reduced flange distance. Added to that when you save flange distance your mostly saving empty space, if you shave height off of a camera your more likely to save both size AND weight.

Its obvious longer focal lengths will need to be larger with a smaller flange distance but even with lenses inside the flange distance of a DSLR the Sony options are often larger.

Sony 35mm F/1.4 - Longer than the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 art

Sony 24-70mm F/4 - Canon lens has that macro function built in but the Nikon 24-85mm VR is shorter despite the longer zoom.

Sony 16-35mm F/4 - Sony lens appears smaller than the Canon and Nikon versions but the difference is the Sony lens expands when zoomed towards the wide end where it is actually longer than they are.

What I think Sony is looking to exploit is following up on film era short flange distance lenses being smaller on 35mm and of course the small size of manual focus M mount lenses. This has lead to a still widely held view to small flange distance digital AF lenses will offer the same size savings when reality hasn't reflected that. Beyond that as well what are the chances a FF foreveon style sensor will throw an even greater spanner in the works? multi layer tech seems even less friendly to extreme light angles.

If you really slimmed down a cameras handling and stuck to a 35mm lens then yes a smaller flange distance leads to a significant advantage with a small flange distance but how big is the market for that and couldn't that market also be appealed to via a fixed lens camera even more successfully?


----------



## MayaTlab (Nov 12, 2015)

moreorless said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



As far as I'm concerned, the only body + 28mm in the photo that I could put in my messenger bag is the Sony .

Also, going by SLRgear's samples, it doesn't have (without correction) much more vignetting than the Canon and doesn't look any softer (despite the distortion correction).

The 35mm is an internally focusing lens, compared to the 40mm, which moves the entire optical block. I'm not sure they're directly comparable.

All of the FE primes use the extra space for elements - if they do so I suppose there is a good reason why . 

Also, if the future might be stacked sensors (or at least sensors that are even less tolerant of acute light angle), why couldn't the future present us with the exact opposite situation (sensors that are more tolerant) ? The decision Canon will take isn't something that they should take to satisfy current users during the transition period, but something that they'll have to stick with for several decades. 

I can understand that people invested in the EF mount would like to see their lenses keep a certain value, but I have a feeling that it's a little delusional when you can notice that nearly none of the lenses specifically made for mirrorless cameras use a USM/SWM type AF motor. EF mount or not, unless Canon accomplishes some miracle and create a mirrorless camera that doesn't need CDAF in any circumstance, I'm afraid USM/SWM motors will rather quickly feel a little obsolete and we'll see something akin to the 43/m43 situation.


----------



## moreorless (Nov 13, 2015)

MayaTlab said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the only body + 28mm in the photo that I could put in my messenger bag is the Sony .



Again though I think the main reason for that wouldn't be the small flange distance, it would be the reduced height of the body and smaller grip, this would be even more true with most other lens options.

I think its telling that the ultra compact FF mirrorless that people here are talking up hasn't been made by Sony at all whilst there newer A7 models are all moving towards larger body designs



> Also, going by SLRgear's samples, it doesn't have (without correction) much more vignetting than the Canon and doesn't look any softer (despite the distortion correction).



The big issue with light dropoff on almost all of the Sony FE wide lenses is that it doesn't diminish nearly as much as you stop down, wide open a lot of people probably desire it but at F/8 I'd expect minimal dropoff.



> Also, if the future might be stacked sensors (or at least sensors that are even less tolerant of acute light angle), why couldn't the future present us with the exact opposite situation (sensors that are more tolerant) ? The decision Canon will take isn't something that they should take to satisfy current users during the transition period, but something that they'll have to stick with for several decades.



Its possible there your probably dealing with existing sensor performance, if forevon is made it work on a FF sensor your dealing with a greatly improved level of performance(at least at abse ISO) that would badly damage any system that cannot use it. I wonder as well whether this isn't now getting more likely with Sony's sensor division being spun off, previously I would imagine they would have held back from creating tech that could damage the imaging divisions sales.



> I can understand that people invested in the EF mount would like to see their lenses keep a certain value, but I have a feeling that it's a little delusional when you can notice that nearly none of the lenses specifically made for mirrorless cameras use a USM/SWM type AF motor. EF mount or not, unless Canon accomplishes some miracle and create a mirrorless camera that doesn't need CDAF in any circumstance, I'm afraid USM/SWM motors will rather quickly feel a little obsolete and we'll see something akin to the 43/m43 situation.



The thing is though DSLR lenses are essentially designed to work with a superior AF system that can quickly tell them exactly what focus distance is needed rather than moving too and fro, if mirrorless gets to the level of performance where its replacing DSLR tech isn't it likely it will have achieved the same by some combination of CAF and PDAF?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 13, 2015)

moreorless said:


> I think its telling that the ultra compact FF mirrorless that people here are talking up hasn't been made by Sony at all whilst there newer A7 models are all moving towards larger body designs
> ...
> The thing is though DSLR lenses are essentially designed to work with a superior AF system that can quickly tell them exactly what focus distance is needed rather than moving too and fro, if mirrorless gets to the level of performance where its replacing DSLR tech isn't it likely it will have achieved the same by some combination of CAF and PDAF?



Yes, sizewise i consider A7 II versions a step in the wrong direction. Some body depth behind the sensor plane is owed to the addition of IBIS, which is probably worth it. Larger grip however should have come with a larger, more powerful battery as well - for more shots per charge.

What i am thinking of is a FF MILC the size of a Sony R1X - just with lens mount and EVF - in a form factor like A6000 ... Rangefinder style, EVF in top left corner .. As on A600 or the RX100 III and IV.

As far as MIL AF systems are concerned, i cannot see a clear correlation between AF performance and a specific AF technology: there are ultrafast CDAF applications out there and slow ones as well as good and poor hybrid CD+PD AF implementations. Certainly Canon is at the bottom of the pack with all EOS M bodies up to now, whereas 2 year old Sony A6000 AF still is top and Samsung (NX1 + NX500) are currently best in class, followed by some Olympus models.

What i like about CDAF is its purely electronic nature. Everything is straightforward. AF performance is solely dependant on CPU power, smartness of algorithms and highly effective linear stepper motors in the lenses. Phase-AF has theoretical advantage, but in solid state version without separate phase AF unit as in mirrorflippers performance in MILCs is mixed and those on-sensor PD-AF sensels are a disturbance in the image. For whatever reason, Canon has also not been able or willing to bring a top-notch dual pixel (phase) plus CD-Af in their mirrorless EOS M bodies.

I think the question of "best mirrorless AF system" is still open right now ... Personally i'll happily take any sort of better performing AF - precision, speed, tracking moving subjects, face recognition, low light performance etc. Hoping that Canon will not fall further behind in this discipline (as they are regarding sensor tech) but bring something really great very soon. Fast, precise mirrorless AF with good tracking capabilities .. Coupled with the most intuitive UI for any AF-system: touch screen on LCD (check) and eye control AF point selection Mark II in (electronic) viewfinder. That would be major progress as far as i am concerned and a huge USP for Canon.


----------



## moreorless (Nov 13, 2015)

The biggest reason for the size increased from the A7 to the A7 II models to me seems to be to improve the handling, better grips and space for a couple of custom function buttons on the top plate. The things demanded by most users of a FF camera system and many still feel Sony should go further in this direction.

Now I'd agree there is a market for smaller FF cameras, my question would be how large the market is and whether it can't better be handled by a fixed lens camera. If your looking at lenses in the 28-35mm range to come up with something relatively compact that doesn't really leave many lens options does it? whats more the RX1 seems to show that by going fixed lens you can have a much better performing lens in a similar sized package.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 13, 2015)

moreorless said:


> The biggest reason for the size increased from the A7 to the A7 II models to me seems to be to improve the handling, better grips and space for a couple of custom function buttons on the top plate. The things demanded by most users of a FF camera system and many still feel Sony should go further in this direction.
> 
> Now I'd agree there is a market for smaller FF cameras, my question would be how large the market is and whether it can't better be handled by a fixed lens camera. If your looking at lenses in the 28-35mm range to come up with something relatively compact that doesn't really leave many lens options does it? whats more the RX1 seems to show that by going fixed lens you can have a much better performing lens in a similar sized package.



For me, fixed lens digital cameras go totally against the universality and flexibility offered by electronic imaging gear. I'd never buy one, I'd always feel *severly limited" and 99% of the market seems to share that perception. It really is the tiniest of all possible imaging gear market niches. 

Again, all I want is something like a FF-sensored Sony RX1 with built-in EVF and a native short-flange back lens mount up front instead of a bolt-on fixed focal length. Such a body would still be large enough to put all required hardware control points on it: front wheel [ideally Nikon style, below shutter trigger, for middle finger], rear wheel [Canon style], mode dial, 3-4 freely assignable Fn-buttons on top, AF-button and AEL-button top rear. Not much else needed, if the LCD is a responsive touchscreen [as on Canon M or Samsung NX] and it comes with a good UI/menu system [Canon-style please, NOT Sony, NOT Oly]. 

A small FF MILC, sensibly priced, instead of insanely ... not 3000+ USD/€ but something between 999 [more plasticky version] to 1799 [more metallicky version] plus a slow kitzoom and more importantly 3 or 5 primes between 20mm and 100mm, "as compact as possible", optically highly competent (but no Otus ambitions), moderate-fast speeds [f2.0 to 2.8], attractively priced .. in essence FF-equivalents to Canon EF-M 22/2 ... that system would sell like hot cakes. 8)


----------



## moreorless (Nov 15, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest reason for the size increased from the A7 to the A7 II models to me seems to be to improve the handling, better grips and space for a couple of custom function buttons on the top plate. The things demanded by most users of a FF camera system and many still feel Sony should go further in this direction.
> ...



My point is though that if you look to create a very small system you are naturally limiting yourself to a very narrow range of lenses, a 100mm F2.8 lens would be grossly unbalanced on an RX1 sized camera with no grip, even 24mm and 50mm lenses would likely be getting large enough to kill the attraction of such a camera.

Beyond that I would say again that I don't think the majority of the demand for FF cameras is for such limited handling either, your simply not going to be able to get A7 II handling onto an RX1 sized body and that includes having a decent EVF.

That's why Sony haven't gone this route IMHO, they don't see any money in it.

My feeling is that Canon should look to expand the APSC EOS M lens lineup and release a slightly larger camera for it with a decent EVF. At APSC I think DSLR's are naturally under more threat from mirrorless simply because the smaller lenses mean that the flange distance savings are also a lot more relevant. If they do anything at FF they should release a mirrorless EOS mount camera, use it to cut down a lot on the height of the body, reduced the grip size and come up with something not too far off an A7II model.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 15, 2015)

moreorless said:


> My feeling is that Canon should look to expand the APSC EOS M lens lineup and release a slightly larger camera for it with a decent EVF.



My feeling is you are not well informed. The size difference between an APS-C mirrorless camera with EVF and one without is rather minimal. 
see EOS M (1) vs. Sony A6000 [unfortunately the comparison with ES M3 is bungled up on this web tool] 
http://camerasize.com/compare/#351,535

I would like a Canon EOS M4 with 
* 24MP sensor performance at least as good as the 2 year old (!) Sony A6000
* body size exactly like the Sony A6000, but somewhat chunkier grip to hold Canon LP-E6N battery (for 500+ shots CIPA-standard rating) 
* build-quality like the EOS M (original M not M2, M3, M10!)
* built-in EVF in the same position as Sony A6000, but tiltable like in Sony RX 1000 IV with at least Full-HD resolution = "6 Mega-Subpixels" 1920x1080x3]
* AF performance - speed, precision, features - at least as goos as in the 2 year old (!) Sony A6000 
* touchscreen as responsive and good as on any EOS M
* EOS-type Canon user interface with rear wheel and front wheel and back-button AF plus 4 well-placed user-assignable Fn buttons
* at a pice not higher than Sony A6000
Why does Canon not make that? 

And then exactly the same beast, just a bit larger to accomodate FF sensor, new native FF "EF-X" mount, with sensor at least as good as the one in A7 II ... for USD/€ 999,- 

As soon as those are avaliable I promise to write a personal thank-you letter to the Canon head honchos, Masaya Maeda (Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Image Communication Products Operations Canon Inc.) and to his freakin' octogenarian boss Mr. Fujio Mitarai.


----------



## Proscribo (Nov 15, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> My feeling is you are not well informed. The size difference between an APS-C mirrorless camera with EVF and one without is rather minimal.
> see EOS M (1) vs. Sony A6000 [unfortunately the comparison with ES M3 is bungled up on this web tool]
> http://camerasize.com/compare/#351,535


Maybe it has something to do with the fact that A6000 screen is nearly useless in terms of size.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 15, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > My feeling is you are not well informed. The size difference between an APS-C mirrorless camera with EVF and one without is rather minimal.
> ...



I'll happily trade in some back LCD screen size for a good EVF.


----------



## moreorless (Nov 16, 2015)

I'm not sure how that goes against my point of "slightly" larger? I would say a little larger screen would be preferable though.

Again I think the issue is you can release an APSC camera that size and still have a lot of wide/normal lenses that balance well with it. You move up to FF though and your naturally limiting which lenses will work plus going with a built in lens does seem to both save size and maximise performance.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 16, 2015)

moreorless said:


> I'm not sure how that goes against my point of "slightly" larger? I would say a little larger screen would be preferable though.
> 
> Again I think the issue is you can release an APSC camera that size and still have a lot of wide/normal lenses that balance well with it. You move up to FF though and your naturally limiting which lenses will work plus going with a built in lens does seem to both save size and maximise performance.



The lenses I've already listed would work nicely on a small FF MILC. And new native short flange distance lenses could be even smaller. And it would still offer the option to work with any EF lens, no matter how small or large it is. I want both options in 1 system: A) small & light kit when thats all I need AND B) use of any EF lens [and possibly all sorts of other lenses] when there is a need for them. That's why I will never ever buy a camera with built-in lens. For thoses tasks I use a smartphone.


----------



## moreorless (Nov 16, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> The lenses I've already listed would work nicely on a small FF MILC. And new native short flange distance lenses could be even smaller. And it would still offer the option to work with any EF lens, no matter how small or large it is. I want both options in 1 system: A) small & light kit when thats all I need AND B) use of any EF lens [and possibly all sorts of other lenses] when there is a need for them. That's why I will never ever buy a camera with built-in lens. For thoses tasks I use a smartphone.



If you mean adapted EF lenses I think only the 40mm pancake would, if you mean non adapted potential lenses I would say probably only fairly slow 28mm and 35mm lenses would. You could obviously mount larger lenses but then why go for an ultra compact body at all?

Again I think you could get an EF mount mirrorless camera/lens package pretty close to the size of the Sony A7's for all but the above handful of very small lenses, What you can't do is make an APSC mirrorless with an EF mount as smaller as the EOS M or even slightly larger models.


----------

