# A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 10, 2018)

```
We reported back in January that Canon had a mystery camera with a new body style in prototype form. We’re now being told by the same source that the camera in question is a full frame mirrorless camera prototype.</p>
<p>We were told a few things about the appearance of the camera.</p>
<ul>
<li>It has a top down LCD like the Leica SL.</li>
<li>The flange distance looks too short for it to be an EF mount, but no lens was attached to the body to be sure.</li>
<li>A press of the shutter button in burst mode sounded like it shot over 10fps.</li>
<li>There were no markings on branding on the body</li>
</ul>
<p>These sorts of leaks are rare, but they more often than not turn out to have some kind of truth to them. I expect multiple full frame mirrorless prototypes to exist.</p>
<p>There is nothing on the 2018 road map that suggests Canon will be announcing a full frame mirrorless camera this year, though that could still change between now and Photokina, but we put the possibility of this happening quite low.</p>
<p>We have been told that the second half of 2018 is going to be “a lot more interesting” than the first half.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## sanj (Mar 10, 2018)

About time. But they have a tough task ahead as the competition is coming out with good cameras.


----------



## sanj (Mar 10, 2018)

But Canon has a blind, mass following and their products will sell.


----------



## -pekr- (Mar 10, 2018)

What is a "top down" LCD? Is it an LCD, which is on top of the camera? Would you want to have one, with a mirrorless?


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 10, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> What is a "top down" LCD? Is it an LCD, which is on top of the camera? Would you want to have one, with a mirrorless?



Yes, that's what it is. Leica SL has it, as do Fuji GFX and X-H1. Instant review of settings without having to look though the camera. It's better to have it than to not have it.

If Canon decides to do FF mirrorless, they will very likely make a better camera than Sony.


----------



## traveller (Mar 10, 2018)

Nah, don’t believe this story. It’s the sort of rubbish that a ‘source fisher’ comes up with: just enough detail to be attributable, vague enough that it can be interpreted many ways and without any ‘killer details’ that give the source away as a hoaxer if the actual release is substantially different. These sorts of ‘rumours’ are there to establish Bulls**tters as ‘a source that has been correct in the past’, so that they can get a kick from winding everyone up with a load of fake specs that get a ‘CR2’ label. 

If this ‘source’ actually had access to a camera, they’d be under NDA and would know a lot more about it than this. If not, are you truly expecting me to believe that a random employee had enough access to a test body to establish that it was full frame, mirrorless and had a 10fps(ish) frame rate, but never saw a lens mounted? 

Shenanigans!


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 10, 2018)

Whatever FF shows up, it will probably use existing Canon EF lenses. The current patent filings do not show any lenses that would suggest a new line.


----------



## transpo1 (Mar 10, 2018)

I certainly hope a FF prototype exists. Multiple prototypes at this stage I would think. And I bet they all have hobbled 4K.


----------



## Mistral75 (Mar 10, 2018)

> We have been told that the second half of 2018 is going to be “a lot more interesting” than the first half.



That won't be difficult...


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 10, 2018)

Other day I saw unicorn it had adamantium horns and pooped gold out of its rearside.


----------



## fentiger (Mar 10, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Other day I saw unicorn it had adamantium horns and pooped gold out of its rearside.


yeah but unicorns have only one horn, the gold coloured poo is a result of food poisoning !!


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 10, 2018)

fentiger said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Other day I saw unicorn it had adamantium horns and pooped gold out of its rearside.
> ...



Indeed, proves fentiger has never actually seen one. And they don't produce gold coloured poo


----------



## sanj (Mar 10, 2018)

Mistral75 said:


> > We have been told that the second half of 2018 is going to be “a lot more interesting” than the first half.
> 
> 
> 
> That won't be difficult...



Burst out laughing. But all times can't be equally exciting.


----------



## fentiger (Mar 10, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> fentiger said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...


indeed we don't have these exotic creatures here in the flatlands of cambridgeshire, But i have seen flying pigs and people with webbed feet, honest its true ;D


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 10, 2018)

I simply don't believe Canon would develop a new mount and make it EF compatible with adaptor.
The EF line is too big and valuable to abandon and start new.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 10, 2018)

What would Canon gain from developing a completely new mount, in contrast to using EF with a shorter flange distance as done for EOS-M?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2018)

sanj said:


> But Canon has a blind, mass following and their products will sell.



Why do people who think they know better insist that many Canon purchasers are just "blind ...followers"? At the entry level Canon compete on price, and do it very effectively, in the middle level they are competitive because of many intangible reasons and DPAF, principally their cameras, lenses and accessories 'just work', at the pro level they provide unmatched features like the 400 DO II, a true range of world class TS-E lenses, reliable products, DPAF, best in class 4k capture, and reliability and back up service second to none in the industry.

For many these features add up to way more personally relevant 'features' than a couple of bullet points on a spec sheet that normally have caveats that make the 'feature' less than useful. 

I'm not saying a Canon camera is the answer to every purchasers needs, but it is the genuine best answer for a lot of them.


----------



## neogomo (Mar 10, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> What would Canon gain from developing a completely new mount, in contrast to using EF with a shorter flange distance as done for EOS-M?



Interesting idea, didn’t think of that possibility to keep the EF-mount but with different flange distance. That would make a lot of sense. You can use your old Canon glass without adapter or with one to keep the field of view as used to. And many new lenses for the new shorter flange distance could also be sold.

Doing it that way could please almost anybody I think.


----------



## larusejunior (Mar 10, 2018)

> I'm not saying a Canon camera is the answer to every purchasers needs, but it is the genuine best answer for a lot of them.



Totally agree !!!


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 10, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > But Canon has a blind, mass following and their products will sell.
> ...



YOU took the bait? Color me surprised.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 10, 2018)

Maybe this is HarryFilm's mythical Canon MFD with all-new lens mount.


----------



## slclick (Mar 10, 2018)

I'm really not sure I could handle any more excitement than what I'm experiencing this first half of 2018.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Ditto...


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 10, 2018)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I simply don't believe Canon would develop a new mount and make it EF compatible with adaptor.
> The EF line is too big and valuable to abandon and start new.



I simply don't believe that Canon would develop a new autofocus camera and make it incompatible with FD lenses. The FD line is too big and valuable to abandon and start new.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> blackcoffee17 said:
> 
> 
> > I simply don't believe Canon would develop a new mount and make it EF compatible with adaptor.
> ...



Automatic focus. 

1-2 centimeters shorter. 

One of those is significantly impactful for a vast majority of shooting situations. The other is not. Which do you think is which?


----------



## zim (Mar 10, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > blackcoffee17 said:
> ...



Well there are some situations where 2cm can make all the difference (so I've heard)


----------



## Monkey Sampan (Mar 10, 2018)

As an owner of a pair of Canon C100 cameras, I find the whole debate about not using EF mount lenses on a full frame Mirrorless pretty strange.

I know the C100 has a Super 35 size sensor, which is pretty close to APS-C and not full frame, but probably my favourite thing is being able to use all my existing EF mount lenses, with full compatibility and auto-focus. Gives me great ease of mind and made the upskilling a lot easier.

I'm in no rush to get a new stills camera, but the A7R III is the first one that meets every need, at a reasonable price. Even more so with the option to record the clean viewfinder as a feed into one of my Atomos Ninja Stars, whilst still taking stills.

If Canon create a FF mirrorless camera to match the A7R III with an EF mount, I'll definitely be getting it.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Mar 10, 2018)

As others have said, this rumor is rubbish and there is no way they will use a mount other than EF.


----------



## KirkD (Mar 10, 2018)

They are so far behind Sony, that it will be a miracle if their FF mirrorless can stop the massive Canon-to-Sony hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche status since the announcement of the "basic" A7III. I'm cheering Canon on, but with pretty much zero expectations they will be able to catch up to Sony within the next two years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2018)

KirkD said:


> They are so far behind Sony, that it will be a miracle if their FF mirrorless can stop the massive Canon-to-Sony hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche status since the announcement of the "basic" A7III. I'm cheering Canon on, but with pretty much zero expectations they will be able to catch up to Sony within the next two years.



Nice post. Completely divorced from reality, but nice nonetheless. Well done!


----------



## csibra (Mar 10, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> If Canon decides to do FF mirrorless, they will very likely make a better camera than Sony.


I don't think so. I think they'll make an overpriced mediocre thing, to check the checkbox beside the full frame MILC.


----------



## rs (Mar 10, 2018)

neogomo said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > What would Canon gain from developing a completely new mount, in contrast to using EF with a shorter flange distance as done for EOS-M?
> ...



Unfortunately the change in flange distance with an identical mount will cause focus issues. Many lenses, especially wide angle lenses will be unable to focus as near as infinity without extension tubes. The best bet is for Canon to find some way to force users to mount EF lenses via a fixed length extension tube, and stop lenses designed for the short mirrorless flange distance from mounting on an EF mount camera to stop the opposite from happening (wide angle lenses being unable to focus as far away as the front element).

All of which sounds pretty similar to the concept of the extension tube which is the EF-M to EF adapter.


----------



## pixel8foto (Mar 10, 2018)

The two things that put me off mirrorless are the expectation that the body must be tiny, even though lenses won't shrink, and the eye-strain of the EVFs I've tried. 

So how about a 5DM to get the ball rolling? Compatibility, comfortable form factor and familiar ergonomics, with a high frequency EVF (or whatever it'll take to make it easier on the eye), with the added benefits of mirrorless. I could pick up and start using one of those today.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 10, 2018)

pixel8foto said:


> The two things that put me off mirrorless are the expectation that the body must be tiny, even though lenses won't shrink, and the eye-strain of the EVFs I've tried.
> 
> So how about a 5DM to get the ball rolling? Compatibility, comfortable form factor and familiar ergonomics, with a high frequency EVF (or whatever it'll take to make it easier on the eye), with the added benefits of mirrorless. I could pick up and start using one of those today.



This is the drum I've been beating for months. Using EF glass on my M5 with the adapter is far from the feeling of nice balance with the 5D IV. 
If I had a say, I would strongly suggest to Canon they skip the short flange body design and go directly to a planform of the 6D or 5D series. Add a quality 4K package and they would have a winner.
Throw in a flippy screen and we're done! 

Beastly



Canon EOS M5 with Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2 by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 10, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> blackcoffee17 said:
> 
> 
> > I simply don't believe Canon would develop a new mount and make it EF compatible with adaptor.
> ...



Yes, joyonralph, that's true. I am one of those who really would like to reuse my FD lenses on a full frame camera e.g. 4.0 17, 50mm macro, 1.4 50, 2.5 135 and without FD compatibility I will switch to SONY.

... o.k., that is not the main reason why I really want a shorter flange distance of the camera mount - I think there are better ways to do ultra IQ wide angles on mirrorless cameras because you can use the last millimeters in front of the sensor for glass to bend the light in some optimized way to get the best IQ possible. If the adapter fits nicely to the camera and can be locked to the camera by some mechanism I do not see a major difference between that solution and a native EF-mount. O.k., native EF makes more room inside the body but that is marginal IMO.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 10, 2018)

KirkD said:


> the massive Canon-to-Sony hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche status since the announcement of the "basic" A7III.



I wasn't aware that sales figures were available yet...could you please link to the info?


----------



## brad-man (Mar 10, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> pixel8foto said:
> 
> 
> > The two things that put me off mirrorless are the expectation that the body must be tiny, even though lenses won't shrink, and the eye-strain of the EVFs I've tried.
> ...



Which ever mount is used for Canon's FF MILC (and I expect there will be two), it is only logical that there will eventually be multiple body sizes/styles available. Initially I would expect a 6D2 body type with some 5D features. Ultimately, they will cram as much FF goodness as possible into the smallest body possible, as well as a 1D body style with all the 1D characteristics, with at least two or three models in between. In the meantime, please release the new EF-M 30-something prime...


----------



## BillB (Mar 10, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > the massive Canon-to-Sony hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche status since the announcement of the "basic" A7III.
> ...



Some of us have special cable packages that the rest of us can't get.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 10, 2018)

I don't know what Canon are going to do but I think they should make that mirrorless full frame the 1DX III.
20FPS with silent shutter would do nicely.
Make a big statement of intent.
I'd prefer it to be EF Mount. I'm not keen on adapters


----------



## dak723 (Mar 10, 2018)

KirkD said:


> They are so far behind Sony, that it will be a miracle if their FF mirrorless can stop the massive Canon-to-Sony hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche status since the announcement of the "basic" A7III. I'm cheering Canon on, but with pretty much zero expectations they will be able to catch up to Sony within the next two years.



Yes, Canon is way behind Sony...except in color science.
Yes, Canon is way behind Sony...except in ergonomics.
Yes, Canon is way behind Sony...except in lens selection and quality.
Yes, Canon is way behind Sony...except in reliability.

Yes, I am cheering Sony on, but I doubt very much they will be able to catch up to Canon within the next two years.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 10, 2018)

We'll see a 1DX Mark III no sooner than 2020 based on previous product cycles.

We'll probably not see a 5D Mark V until after that date too, and 6D Mark III 9 months after that.

So, any new FF mirrorless that Canon launches now is NOT going to be a direct replacement for any of these models.

The only model that is in need of an immediate refresh is the 5DS(R). A 5DSR replacement as a mirrorless could work very well. Except I think it's more likely the 5DSR II will be a normal mirrorslapper in a 5DIV shell.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 10, 2018)

dak723 said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > They are so far behind Sony, that it will be a miracle if their FF mirrorless can stop the massive Canon-to-Sony hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche status since the announcement of the "basic" A7III. I'm cheering Canon on, but with pretty much zero expectations they will be able to catch up to Sony within the next two years.
> ...



I agree that Sony have a way to catch up in these areas, although I think there has been significant improvement in all these fronts over the gen 1 - 3 a7 series, and the gap has been closing, and the list is getting smaller too. Dual card slots and battery life used to be two of the main complaints, and those have been mostly address, at least to a point where it isn't an issue for the majority. 

I'm hoping canon do the same in the areas where they are still behind, like they did with dynamic range in the 5dmk4


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 10, 2018)

Don't expect the 1DXIII to be mirrorless but a new mirrorless action cam could do something that the 1DXII can't which is shoot at very high frame rates. Only people that don't use these cameras think 12 FPS is fast enough. There are times I'd like to shoot 3 or 4 times that fast and Canon is reaching the limits of just how fast they can move the mirror, focus and have a reasonably limited blackout period. That's a "killer app" I might be willing to trade an OVF for. Although the option to interchange between OVF and EVF depending on use would be the ideal solution. 

Personally, I'm having trouble seeing what a mirrorless 5D or 6D can do that the current 5DIV and 6D2 can't. Certainly nothing that I'd be willing to give up the 5DIV's outstanding OVF for. I guess they would be better for shooting Video but still wouldn't be anywhere near as good as a dedicated cinema camera. Squinting at a little display screen in a black box through a magnifier is hardly a replacement for a high quality OVF (in my opinion). A hot shoe mounted EVF or an external touch screen (ie. C200) could be helpful for video. Of course you could also just buy a C200 for video. 

I'll switch to mirrorless when it does most things better than an DSLR and we are a long way from there by my estimation.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Mar 11, 2018)

Why do all of these leaks of information read like they were written by someone who was abducted into an alien spacecraft, drugged, and then shown a prototype camera?


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 11, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Why do all of these leaks of information read like they were written by someone who was abducted into an alien spacecraft, drugged, and then shown a prototype camera?


That's a fairly apt description... ;D

It makes me think that at least some of the leaks are done by people that have nothing to do with the actual development but rather manage somehow to be in the right room at the right time to see things they aren't supposed to. Say a janitor, a printer technician, or errand boy.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 11, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Why do all of these leaks of information read like they were written by someone who was abducted into an alien spacecraft, drugged, and then shown a prototype camera?



Did I miss the part about anal probing? 


_I want to believe..._


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 11, 2018)

brad-man said:


> Kit Lens Jockey said:
> 
> 
> > Why do all of these leaks of information read like they were written by someone who was abducted into an alien spacecraft, drugged, and then shown a prototype camera?
> ...


That's not the sort of thing one can easily miss...perhaps you need to go to a recovered-memory specialist.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 11, 2018)

BillB said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > KirkD said:
> ...



Y'all need to lay off KirkD. Those Sony guys all get one of these when they order the body and kit lens: https://www.amazon.com/Electro-Deflecto-Unisex-Foil-Size/dp/B01I497JAM

They get special facts direct from Alex Jones. Very. Special. Facts.

Sotrolls. :

BTW: The hat also prevents them calling Sony service centers to check on their gear sent in months ago or complain the thing still isn't fixed after 5 tries. Doubles as a rain cover too.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Mar 11, 2018)

Sounds like my EOS M-5 with the markings taped over with black masking tape.

Interesting will be if the same camera is made with EF-m and EF mount. EF mount would be simply the same with the adaptor built into the camera. 

The EF-M mount would include the adaptor.


----------



## Talys (Mar 11, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> Sounds like my EOS M-5 with the markings taped over with black masking tape.



Well the image is obviously not real 

Unless Canon FF MILC is really just a rebadged Leica 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images2000x2000/leica_19000_q_typ_116_digital_1160027.jpg 



eosuser1234 said:


> Interesting will be if the same camera is made with EF-m and EF mount. EF mount would be simply the same with the adaptor built into the camera.
> 
> The EF-M mount would include the adaptor.



I sure hope that it's not a EF-M mount (which is almost exactly the same size as the Sony E mount). It's a PITA mount that doesn't do anything positive for most lenses, and the only thing it accomplishes is to make almost every lens longer.

If they don't sell one with a permanent EF mount, they probably won't have much luck selling the camera to me


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 11, 2018)

Talys said:


> I sure hope that it's not a EF-M mount (which is almost exactly the same size as the Sony E mount). It's a PITA mount that doesn't do anything positive for most lenses, and the only thing it accomplishes is to make almost every lens longer.



Not when you factor in the shorter flange distance. Plus it does allow different designs that take advantage of the shorter distance, such as my two favourite FE lenses, the Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 and the amazing Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8

I dream of having a Canon lens and body combination that provides the superb quality of the 55mm 1.8 along with the ultra-light weight.


----------



## Diko (Mar 11, 2018)

My take:

There'll be an FF MILC: Advanced ONLY in the beginning reflecting the current 5D(s) and 1Dx DSLRs' features and options. At least half of the colleagues want to jump to FF MILC. I want it as well. Later on the cheaper more user-friendly , but limited in functionality versions would appear as well.

Canon are NOT ready to launch a pro series body with new (M or not) class lenses. So they are stuck with the EF mounts. That means there' will be either built-in distance sensor-glass or (more likely) there'll be additional to buy adapter.

I don't expect anything before 2019-2020. ;-)


----------



## Diltiazem (Mar 11, 2018)

slclick said:


> I'm really not sure I could handle any more excitement than what I'm experiencing this first half of 2018.



LOL


----------



## 1252 (Mar 11, 2018)

I hope the new camera will not have a SLR hump, like Sony cameras!


----------



## LDS (Mar 11, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I simply don't believe that Canon would develop a new autofocus camera and make it incompatible with FD lenses. The FD line is too big and valuable to abandon and start new.



That would have been true if you don't take into account the very different state of the FD mount back then, and the EF now. The "new FD" was the third evolution of what was the Canon R mount (1959), going through FL and FD improvements. It had fully mechanical couplings, one of shortest flange distance, and a relatively small diameter.

Canon made an attempt to retrofit AF to FD lenses with the T80 and its AC lenses. Canon believed that the AF motor was to be in the lens, not in the camera with another mechanical coupling. But it didn't like the result, and went for a new mount.

That's why it designed the larger EF mounts, and gave it only electrical signals couplings. That makes the mount still actual - even if a shorter flange distance could be used for a mirrorless camera.


----------



## Woody (Mar 11, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> There is nothing on the 2018 road map that suggests Canon will be announcing a full frame mirrorless camera this year, though that could still change between now and Photokina, but we put the possibility of this happening quite low.



Hmmm... Thom Hogan says otherwise:

"... Canon will be headed into the full frame mirrorless arena at Photokina, and Nikon will launch their "basic camera to expect more from" as mirrorless full frame by the Christmas buying season...

Nobody's going to fault you for buying a Sony A7III. It'll take great pictures, I'm sure. But it also isn't going to launch your fame and fortune because it lets you do things that you were never able to do with competitive products. It's a basic model. 

And it will have competitors by the end of the year.

And that's the way it is."
- http://sansmirror.com/newsviews/wind-in-the-sony-marketing.html


----------



## bwud (Mar 11, 2018)

Woody said:


> - http://sansmirror.com/newsviews/wind-in-the-sony-marketing.html



Boy, there are some ridiculous people out there.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 11, 2018)

bwud said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > - http://sansmirror.com/newsviews/wind-in-the-sony-marketing.html
> ...


ByThom summarised presstitute behaviour nicely regarding sony's launches. Sure there are some good features on A7 III which should have been incorporated by Dumb Canon on 6D mk 2 but there are some compromises with FF MILC most prominently after adding "pro" lenses they are no longer smaller or more portable than FF DSLR. It seems like these presstitutes are too eager to cover end up doing job of Sony Marketing team. This is excluding all the coverage on youtube and "positive" reviews given based on the fact that sony pays for their trips and the so called real world scenarios are all controlled by Sony.


----------



## Talys (Mar 11, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > I sure hope that it's not a EF-M mount (which is almost exactly the same size as the Sony E mount). It's a PITA mount that doesn't do anything positive for most lenses, and the only thing it accomplishes is to make almost every lens longer.
> ...



Yes, there will be like, 5 lens+camera combos that are smaller. But there will be 50+ where the total package size is not any smaller, but the lenses are significantly larger. No thanks.

Plus, there are a lot of 1DXII's sold to people that primarily use lenses that are in the 1.5kg+ category. 

And finally, the last thing in the world I want are $2,000 focus by wire lenses like Sony has.


----------



## bwud (Mar 11, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> ByThom summarised presstitute behaviour



Hah, that’s a great term. I wonder if Sony’s promotions team (I try not to conflate that with marketing, of which it is merely a small part) has managed to build up a sycophantic media following, or whether this is just indicative of the sensational, hysteria style reporting which has become so ubiquitous in the press at large.


----------



## BillB (Mar 11, 2018)

bwud said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > ByThom summarised presstitute behaviour
> ...



It's both syncophants and hysterics. Admittedly, the $2000 price tag is newsworthy. Wonder what it will do to sales of the Sony cameras at the higher price levels.


----------



## bwud (Mar 11, 2018)

BillB said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



My guess is: not much. 

The people after resolution will still be attracted to the R model. Those who need the best AF system will still be attracted to the A9. This release invites upgrades from those who are priced out of the higher end models and/or don’t need what they offer.

Had a7iii been announced and released alongside a7riii, I’d still have purchased the latter.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 11, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> ByThom summarised presstitute behaviour nicely regarding sony's launches.



Does the mean Sony are really PIMPS (got the Press In My Pocket) ....?


----------



## Yasko (Mar 11, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> Yes, joyonralph, that's true. I am one of those who really would like to reuse my FD lenses on a full frame camera e.g. 4.0 17, 50mm macro, 1.4 50, 2.5 135 and without FD compatibility I will switch to SONY.
> 
> ... o.k., that is not the main reason why I really want a shorter flange distance of the camera mount - I think there are better ways to do ultra IQ wide angles on mirrorless cameras because you can use the last millimeters in front of the sensor for glass to bend the light in some optimized way to get the best IQ possible. If the adapter fits nicely to the camera and can be locked to the camera by some mechanism I do not see a major difference between that solution and a native EF-mount. O.k., native EF makes more room inside the body but that is marginal IMO.



Well... if the adapter would work flawlessly, that is no problem. But none did so far... it's always some kind of compromise on the performance... that's first.

Else... look at that M5 and 24-70... The only reason to build a different non-EF-mount MILC would be to make it smaller... how ludicrous does that look on the photo? Handling is bad. One just needs a slightly larger camera than the current Sony MILCs and the M5, to me that is a fact (I have got big hands, and apart from that: Anyone carrying a 70-200 on the front end - no matter what hand size - would recon the suboptimal relation of camera and objective size).
So why change the mount in the first place? For very flat objective lenses like the 22 f/2 EF-M or the 40 mm f/2.8 / 24 mm f/2.8 you would get what you paid for. For larger primes or zoom lenses with f/2.8 aperture, you just buy yourself in a serious handling problem, that becomes even greater for EF-lenses with an adapter.

My view ~


----------



## peters (Mar 11, 2018)

Over 10fps -> pleeeeease let it be a real professional camera. Not again one more toycamera... not a disgrace like a 6d II. If it would be a highend camera with video features from the 1dx II and photo features from the 5d iv, than I wouldn't give a damn about the price. 
Just build a good and high end professional product, no more cheap toys, not the 100th model of the rebel or 4000d or watnot... please!


----------



## KirkD (Mar 12, 2018)

Here's part of that Canon-to-Sony exodus I'm talking about. I needed 4k video and was waiting for the 6D II announcement. When I saw there was no 4K, I went out and bought a mirrorless Sony a6500. Not only does it shoot beautiful 4K videos, but I have been very impressed with it in several other aspects, especially for telephoto photography. The photo below is what I'm talking about. When they announced the Sony A7III, it has everything and more, that the 6D II should have had. It blows the 6D II in the weeds. I'm keeping my best Canon glass, but I'm pre-ordering the A7III (Full frame 4K, in camera image stabilization, fantastic HDR sensor, etc.)


----------



## brad-man (Mar 12, 2018)

KirkD said:


> Here's part of that Canon-to-Sony exodus I'm talking about. I needed 4k video and was waiting for the 6D II announcement. When I saw there was no 4K, I went out and bought a mirrorless Sony a6500. Not only does it shoot beautiful 4K videos, but I have been very impressed with it in several other aspects, especially for telephoto photography. The photo below is what I'm talking about. When they announced the Sony A7III, it has everything and more, that the 6D II should have had. It blows the 6D II in the weeds. I'm keeping my best Canon glass, but I'm pre-ordering the A7III (Full frame 4K, in camera image stabilization, fantastic HDR sensor, etc.)



Wow. You're right. That _is_ proof of a Canon to Sony exodus showing "hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche". If you've done it, there _must_ be tens of thousands of others :


----------



## KirkD (Mar 12, 2018)

brad-man said:


> Wow. You're right. That _is_ proof of a Canon to Sony exodus showing "hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche". If you've done it, there _must_ be tens of thousands of others :


Yep. If a Canon fanatic (for 35 years) like me does something like this, then mere mortals who don't have a lot of accumulated expensive Canon glass in their arsenal must be abandoning ship by the tens of thousands, if not millions (perhaps even billions).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

KirkD said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. You're right. That _is_ proof of a Canon to Sony exodus showing "hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche". If you've done it, there _must_ be tens of thousands of others :
> ...



No, it's just you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 12, 2018)

KirkD said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. You're right. That _is_ proof of a Canon to Sony exodus showing "hemorrhaging that is bordering on avalanche". If you've done it, there _must_ be tens of thousands of others :
> ...


Don't forget to deduct the good number, at least a billion, that switch back.

https://petapixel.com/2018/03/10/5-reasons-switched-back-canon-sony/


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...


Give the dude some credit, at least he's got a sense of humor about it.


----------



## Talys (Mar 12, 2018)

KirkD said:


> Here's part of that Canon-to-Sony exodus I'm talking about. I needed 4k video and was waiting for the 6D II announcement. When I saw there was no 4K, I went out and bought a mirrorless Sony a6500. Not only does it shoot beautiful 4K videos, but I have been very impressed with it in several other aspects, especially for telephoto photography. The photo below is what I'm talking about. When they announced the Sony A7III, it has everything and more, that the 6D II should have had. It blows the 6D II in the weeds. I'm keeping my best Canon glass, but I'm pre-ordering the A7III (Full frame 4K, in camera image stabilization, fantastic HDR sensor, etc.)



I pity you. I have an A7RIII at the moment, and an adapted 100-400LII (as well as the native GMaster 100-400 lens).

On the telephoto end, the 100-400LII is about as awesome as autofocusing a Nikon D850 at 400mm f/5.6 in live view mode. It's god-awful slow in comparison to a 6DII or a native lens, half the time it hunts forever, and many of the advanced AF modes are just plain disabled. 

You'll be happy to know that Eye AF works, but who uses that on a telephoto lens  And good luck trying to shoot stuff moving either towards or away from you, because that 10 fps? You'll be lucky if you get 2 shots out of 10 that aren't blurry. 

Frankly, I think it's unusable if your subject is moving faster than a turtle on pot. If you're really sold on the A7iii, just sell the 100-400LII and buy a GMaster -- which, by the way, is still far inferior in the initial subject acquisition in comparison to a 100-400LII on a 6D or 5D body. It's focus by wire, and by the time it takes to go from near to infinity, the subject is in a land far, far away.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 12, 2018)

1252 said:


> I hope the new camera will not have a SLR hump, like Sony cameras!



+1 ... but i bet future Canon FF MILCs will also come with that ugly hump ... at best they will look like a larger version EOS M5 ... at worst they will be as fugly as a Powershot G5X II ... only bigger and more bloated ...


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



yea, they usual shite ... incessant ongoing personal attacks on anybody critical of Canon ... but it does not take away anything from the fact that other makers have gear that is better suited for many / many tasks ... and that many mirrorslpapper user have swithced and are switching to Sony FF MILCs ... and that every single sale of a Sony A7 / A9 could instead have been a sale for Canon ... had they been able to come up with fully competitive products to A7 series right from the start. 

But, Canon is as infallible as they are innovative ... and they sell loads of gear. LOL


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > KirkD said:
> ...



Clearly, there aren't billions of people switching from Canon to Sony. Nor is there just one, a statement which is just as ludicrous. I guess the subtle mimicry and humor were lost on you. 

For most (if not all) manufacturers, the cost of capturing 'every single sale' is not worth the investment that would be required to do so. But since we've long established that you have the business acumen of a bowling ball, your statements to that effect just represent more of your usual shite. Canon is stupid and you know so much better than them how to make and sell cameras. : : :


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 12, 2018)

1252 said:


> I hope the new camera will not have a SLR hump, like Sony cameras!



You mean like the Sony a7 series? Or the a9? : : :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 12, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> 1252 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope the new camera will not have a SLR hump, like Sony cameras!
> ...



I don’t get the eye roll. Those are certainly the cameras from Sony which 1252 refers to as having an SLR hump.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 12, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > ByThom summarised presstitute behaviour nicely regarding sony's launches.
> ...


Atleast the youtube reviewers seem to be PIMPs , all so called real world reviews done on a paid trip and under conditions that are controlled by Sony(Arizona trip for A7R III, NY trip for A9, and dont recall where A7 III trip was for these people and another paid trip to Thailand factory for A9 launch). When it comes to PC/IT reviews, youtube channels have decency to add paid promotion for video where some manufacturer provides them with free material. So even after getting paid trips, free gear and free shooting setups these PIMPs dont add paid promotion for their so called real world reviews


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 12, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > 1252 said:
> ...



I read 1252's comment like "I hope the new camera will not have a hump, like Sony cameras don't". Like AvTvM appears to have read, a few comments back. And indeed Sony cameras don't have one if you only count their non-fullframe hobbyist cameras...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Sharlin said:
> ...



It has to have an SLR hump. All real cameras have an SLR hump. Just look at the iPad camera...


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 12, 2018)

i was indeed thinking of the "hump-free" Sony camera models ... EVF top left corner [viewed from rear] like A6xxx series ... or even better: pop-up EVF like e.g. Sony RX-1R II ... the latter would be exactly my desired camera size and form factor ... if only it came with 
a) lens mount 
b) Canon UI and 
c) affordable price tag ... 
sigh ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> It has to have an SLR hump. All real cameras have an SLR hump. Just look at the iPad camera...



that notion seems to be a thing with japanese camera makers mainly ... and n00b camera buyers ... or rather: the non-camera-buying selfie masses ...


----------



## Dvash7 (Mar 12, 2018)

Can someone please explain what is the problem/difficulty in just putting an EF mount on a mirrorless camera?
I would really just like a mirrorless camera with an EF mount to accommodate my existing glass.
Is this a possibility or are there real issues before such a thing happens, if at all?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It has to have an SLR hump. All real cameras have an SLR hump. Just look at the iPad camera...
> ...



Exactly. Most people know a ‘real camera’ when they see one. 

On a serious note, the hump does add a little bit of height when using an external flash, and every little bit of extra height helps get the light further off-axis to reduce red-eye. Having said that, I’d prefer a humpless Canon FF MILC (the smaller size is one main reason I went with the humpless EOS M6 over the M5).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

Dvash7 said:


> Can someone please explain what is the problem/difficulty in just putting an EF mount on a mirrorless camera?
> I would really just like a mirrorless camera with an EF mount to accommodate my existing glass.
> Is this a possibility or are there real issues before such a thing happens, if at all?



There is no techincal reason for not using the standard EF mount on a FF MILC. The consequence would be a camera that is thicker/deeper than it could be if a new, shorter flance focal distance mount was used (note that the whole camera would not have to be thicker, the mount could be a ‘snout’ like the Sigma Quattro, and that snout would not protrude further than an ergonomic hand grip).

Obvoiusly, there are plusses to a new mount – smaller body size, smaller lenses in some cases (typically slower lenses in wide/normal focal lengths). There are also minuses – need to use an adapter for EF lenses, those smaller lenses mentioned above are often optically inferior (for example, Leica redsigned the sensor to get around the issue of high incident light angles).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 12, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Sharlin said:
> ...



Ah. Given the context of the thread (canon full frame mirrorless) I read as “I hope they don’t do it like the Sony full frame mirrorless cameras” [all of which have a hump where the EVF display and optics are housed].

Carry on!


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> smaller lenses in some cases (typically slower lenses in wide/normal focal lengths). ... those smaller lenses mentioned above are often optically inferior



But they don't have to be inferior. I know I keep saying this, but you keep repeating this line about these lenses being optically inferior and every single time you do I'm going to repeat "Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 and Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8".

There is NOTHING inferior about these lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > smaller lenses in some cases (typically slower lenses in wide/normal focal lengths). ... those smaller lenses mentioned above are often optically inferior
> ...



“Are often inferior,” ≠ “Have to be inferior.”

Also, since you are going to repeat yourself, so will I...



neuroanatomist said:


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


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 12, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Maybe this is HarryFilm's mythical Canon MFD with all-new lens mount.



===

I doubt it...The thing I saw was MUCH BIGGER 
than a 1DxMk2 with a lens mount nearly the size of an 
Arri Alexa-65 mount in my opinion and that was based
upon a hasty measurement using comparisons to hand 
size and common on-table items.

AND it had actual Canon markings and branding that indicated
to me full-on, near-ready-for-market program development.

The thing I saw LOOKED LIKE A 1DxMk2 but bigger so it
is geared obviously for the PRO-level and at a quoted price
point of 16 000 Euros ($20,000+ US) I suspect Canon wants
Hasselblad's and Leica's market!

Anyways, I still get bits and pieces form multiple online sources that say
sometime likely in 2018/2019 we will at least get an announcement! 
And YES! I still get those same sources saying this is a 50 megapixel 
16-bits per colour channel 4:4:4 RAW MF large-sensor camera at 25 FPS 
burst rate for 3 to 4 seconds to internal SSD flash hard drives!

---

The full-frame mirrorless camera that is being espoused here,
I would not be surprised to be set as a replacement for the 
1Dc series which was the video-specific version of the 1Dx series.
I would also not be surprised to see a built-in on-body diopter-like 
adapter mount that takes NORMAL EF series lenses so you 
can continue to buy normal canon L-series lenses!
I bet you TWO double-chocolate doughnuts that 
this will be announced in August!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> The full-frame mirrorless camera that is being espoused here,
> I would not be surprised to be set as a replacement for the
> 1Dc series which was the video-specific version of the 1Dx series.
> I would also not be surprised to see a built-in on-body diopter-like
> ...



I would estimate the likelyhood of a FF MILC 1Dc replacement being announced in August as





.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I would estimate the likelihood of a FF MILC 1Dc replacement being announced in August as
> 
> 
> 
> ...



---

In the back of my mind, I kinda agree with you that a 1Dc replacement is a bit of wishful thinking BUT like I said earlier it would NOT surprise me! I actually think the M5 is what needs complete replacing at its price point with a FF sensor.

And while you relish disparaging my comments on a large sensor MF, the "Chatter" on the engineering boards I check up on AND based upon some component-sourcing websites I also checkup up on, indicates to me that Canon is actually PREPPING the manufacture of a large sensor body for my-guess within 18 month introduction!

I've even heard nebulous "Chatter" that at least one high level medium format pro-photog has one in his or her hot hands right now and that the 25 fps burst speed at 50 megapixels 16-bits per channel 4:4:4 RAW is confirmed by another set of 3rd party persons who say they have also seen the Canon MF camera up-close saying it is "Right There" in terms of being ready for market!


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 12, 2018)

Wow! People sure are excited over a CR1 rumour....

Of course a mirrorless prototype exists. Is there a single person on this forum who thinks that there isn’t? 

That is a throwaway headline..... sucker bait to build up traffic...... and it works!


----------



## KirkD (Mar 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> I have an A7RIII at the moment, and an adapted 100-400LII (as well as the native GMaster 100-400 lens).
> 
> On the telephoto end, the 100-400LII is about as awesome as autofocusing a Nikon D850 at 400mm f/5.6 in live view mode. It's god-awful slow in comparison to a 6DII or a native lens, half the time it hunts forever, and many of the advanced AF modes are just plain disabled. And good luck trying to shoot stuff moving either towards or away from you, because that 10 fps? You'll be lucky if you get 2 shots out of 10 that aren't blurry.
> 
> Frankly, I think it's unusable if your subject is moving faster than a turtle on pot.



I'm not sure what you are doing wrong. I use my Canon 100-400 II on Sony a6500 mostly for bird photography, where I have, at most, seconds to get the shot. I use the Sigma MC-11 adapter with the firmware upgrade and my Canon 100-400 II snaps into focus, as to all my other Canon lenses. Maybe you are using the Metabones adapter or need to update your MC-11 firmware.


----------



## BillB (Mar 13, 2018)

KirkD said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > I have an A7RIII at the moment, and an adapted 100-400LII (as well as the native GMaster 100-400 lens).
> ...



No problem with the Sony. Must be the flaky Metabones adapter or a Sigma firmware issue. Comforting to know this. Not


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> HarryFilm said:
> 
> 
> > The full-frame mirrorless camera that is being espoused here,
> ...



Sometimes I think you have too much free time on your hands. Perhaps you could have found cures for various dread diseases by now if you'd walked away from camera message boards. I know, you do basic science, not drug development; but with all the free time, you could do both!


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Wow! People sure are excited over a CR1 rumour....
> 
> Of course a mirrorless prototype exists. Is there a single person on this forum who thinks that there isn’t?
> 
> That is a throwaway headline..... sucker bait to build up traffic...... and it works!




+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > HarryFilm said:
> ...



In fact, I do both. I have been involved in taking several molecules from bench research to commercial launch, including a blockbuster immuno-oncology drug (if you're in the US and watch any TV, you've most likely seen ads for it). Currently, my team has a molecule starting Phase 3 in a rare neuromuscular disease. 

But on the flip side, I am good at multitasking and I only need 4-5 hours of sleep per night.

And c'mon, a donut wager and a 0% chance – who could pass that up?


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yer doin' good work, there, so long as people can afford it...but that's not up to you. Really, though, for a few extra mouse clicks, you could have built the % out of 2 more donuts and an eclair.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 13, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > HarryFilm said:
> ...



---

I am assuming by Neuroanatomist, he has something to do with body/brain interaction and my guess does things like nerve conduction studies, diagnoses and/or study of various neuropathies and maybe even study some of the underlying neurogenic or maybe psychosomatic pathologies of Priapism which seems to be endemic around here. Maybe he is just ticked off at all the online research I do here as part of my off-hours. It's like.... Oooh Maaaaan! Ya Know!....I do have a day job researching and designing Electro-Plasmadynamic Field Effects Engines for Aerospace vehicles that have Superluminal Flight Envelopes! So it IS my off-time!


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Yer doin' good work, there, so long as people can afford it...but that's not up to you. Really, though, for a few extra mouse clicks, you could have built the % out of 2 more donuts and an eclair.



But eclairs were not part of the bet


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 13, 2018)

P.S. I also design MASSIVELY PARALLEL convolution neural networks for CRISPR editing that aren't just used for 16k by 16k video edge detection and editing! --- I am assuming you might need some help finding nucleotides that fit specific profiles (i.e. Antisense Oligonucleotides in DMS? Am I right?)


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 13, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> P.S. I also design MASSIVELY PARALLEL convolution neural networks for CRISPR editing that aren't just used for 16k by 16k video edge detection and editing! --- I am assuming you might need some help finding nucleotides that fit specific profiles (i.e. Antisense Oligonucleotides in DMS? Am I right?)



Harry, I enjoy reading your posts. I don't know enough to judge whether the technical verbiage you use is a sign of your actual experience, or whether you're just very good at spinning a yarn. However, until one of your predictions actually proves true, it's all just "Captain Eddie."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> P.S.*B.S.* I also design MASSIVELY PARALLEL convolution neural networks for CRISPR editing that aren't just used for 16k by 16k video edge detection and editing! --- I am assuming you might need some help finding nucleotides that fit specific profiles (i.e. Antisense Oligonucleotides in DMS? Am I right?)



Fixed that for ya.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 13, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> P.S. I also design MASSIVELY PARALLEL convolution neural networks for CRISPR editing that aren't just used for 16k by 16k video edge detection and editing! --- I am assuming you might need some help finding nucleotides that fit specific profiles (i.e. Antisense Oligonucleotides in DMS? Am I right?)



You design both >lightspeed spacecraft propulsion systems, and dataservers for DNA editing? That’s some range.


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

3kramd5 said:



> HarryFilm said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. I also design MASSIVELY PARALLEL convolution neural networks for CRISPR editing that aren't just used for 16k by 16k video edge detection and editing! --- I am assuming you might need some help finding nucleotides that fit specific profiles (i.e. Antisense Oligonucleotides in DMS? Am I right?)
> ...



Star Trek Discovery ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 13, 2018)

Spock said:


> HOLODECK! End simulation!!!!!!!!



omg.
[/perfect]


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

Awwww, c'mon. It's a rumor site  This kind of stuff has its entertainment value ;D


----------



## ewg963 (Mar 13, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> -pekr- said:
> 
> 
> > What is a "top down" LCD? Is it an LCD, which is on top of the camera? Would you want to have one, with a mirrorless?
> ...


 It will be more durable than Sony from what I'm hearing that the A7RIII doesn't take the lumps and bumps like a 1D and 5D Canon.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 14, 2018)

Spock said:


> HarryFilm said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. I also design MASSIVELY PARALLEL convolution neural networks for CRISPR editing that aren't just used for 16k by 16k video edge detection and editing! --- I am assuming you might need some help finding nucleotides that fit specific profiles (i.e. Antisense Oligonucleotides in DMS? Am I right?)
> ...



---

HEY HE HEY! My job is to entertain....I actually work in a warehouse in East Van packaging and snail mailing VHS (!) XXX videos to 3rd world nations who STILL buy them by the truckload! A hella crapolla paying job but it pays for my Saturday night benders which last all the way until the next Thursday! And I get to watch all the multi-national shenanigans I want all day in a general mind-numbing stupor AND I get paid for it! Ya can't beat that!

And not only THAT, my camera is a Nokia Smartphone from 2009! ha ha ha ha ha ha.......

Oh well fooled ya all!

---

P.S. Gotta go back to fixing our downstairs fully optoelectronic Supercomputer which has 1300 of our 475 TeraFLOPs EACH of 60 GHz monolithic microcircuits. Ergo it IS the world's FASTEST supercomputer by a long-shot .....

Neuroanatomist ... I am assuming I was correct on the Duchenne MD part... I am also assuming suppressed Dp71 function, so the introduction of which molecules will cause re-expression? Is not a virus a mere amino acid with a protein coat? Find which of the SMALLEST ones react SPECIFICALLY with Thymepoietin....

Damn it Jim! I'm a Charlatan. Not a Camera Operator!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> Is not a virus a mere amino acid with a protein coat?



A mere nucleic acid with a protein coat. That’s ok, though...the difference is sort of like the difference between the MF camera you claim Canon will announce, and the new multifunction printer that they’ll actually announce.


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 14, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> HarryFilm said:
> 
> 
> > Is not a virus a mere amino acid with a protein coat?
> ...



---

Damn It Jim! I'm an Epson 48 inch wide 2400 dpi Hexachrome inkjet owner. Not a Bind to the Nitrogenous base and replace with some other Ammonium Hydroxide-like weak base solution so I can make a new nucleotide to allow re-expression thingamabob guy!
How else can I create some new polyaromatic hydrocarbon to force a new chain-reaction RNA transcription process...NO JIM! I'm just a Nokia 8208 smartphone owner and ship XXX videos to southeast Kyrgyztan all day every day!


----------



## scyrene (Mar 14, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I only need 4-5 hours of sleep per night.



This explains a lot


----------



## dave hoppus (Mar 14, 2018)

The body looks very similiar to a Leica Q. 
Would be awesome, if Canon will do it like this...it would be a better Q, because of interchangeable lenses. 

dave


----------



## HarryFilm (Mar 14, 2018)

Anyways....to get back on track...the very recent announcement by Sony executives on what THEY understand Canon and Nikon's Mirrorless plans are to be, are based upon the reasoning of a 60 BILLION US DOLLAR+ company who has access to dig-real-deep marketing and business forensics companies who know a LOT MORE than any of us about the inner workings of Canon and Nikon.

So when SONY says it thinks Canon is coming out with something mirrorless in the next 12 months, his information is probably VERY CLOSE to the horse's mouth. I also suspect he is talking about PRO-LEVEL gear such as the replacements or upgrades to 5D and 1D series at pro-level prices and the replacements for the M5 at the prosumer/enthusiast price levels.

Based upon "Chatter", Canon seems to be going for the Ultra High End (i.e. Medium Format Highspeed Mirrorless) AND with prosumer markets probably around the $1400 to $2300 US mark which would put it M5/M6 and 7D Territory for Mirrorless cameras.

I am personally guessing that the FIRST fully-mirrorless higher-end camera released will be around $1400 to $2300 US by this September and will look similar to the M5/M6 with 4k AP-C sensor and I am betting it will have a new H.265 codec for video and likely a JPEG-2000 wavelet codec for stills. To do that though on an M5/M6 body, I will say the 4K will be probably limited to 24/25/30 fps and the 50/60 fps 4K H.265 video will come out in later versions.

---

For the Consumer-side of things in the $1400 US range, I have heard "Online Chatter" about a system quite a bit DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING that Canon has ever produced before and at this point I am reluctant to give it too much credence other than that I have heard in the online darkworld shadows of engineering websites, that a very-long-battery life (i.e. MULTI-DAYS), large-sensor (an actual AP-C sensor!) 4K video SMARTPHONE is in the works! 

YES! You heard that right! A Canon Smartphone with the largest sensor ever put on a smartphone! It is said to be nearly the same sensor used in the 7D Mk2 at 20.2 MP and 5472x3648 resolution but cheaper to manufacture. With a 4.1 micron photosite size smartphone IQ and colour rendering will likely be superb! This phone is rumoured to be much thicker than any major smartphone out there (a full 5/8ths inch or 15.8mm thick!) in order to allow for the specialty optical lens assembly required for such a beast of a chip AND for the larger multi-day battery required to power such a system. It is to be in the 5.5 to 6.0 inch screen size range.

Screen resolution will be HDR display (but NOT OLED!) and on-par with current Samsung and Apple flagship phones. OS is said to be Android and will be UPGRADEABLE! The smartphone innards have been said to NOT come from Foxconn (who makes Apple's phones) but rather Xiaomi who make the 6.0" and larger giant Mi Mix and Mi Note series of phones! Evidently, the ARM-based Qualcomm Snapdragon 635 processor (I did not see any reference to a Snapdragon 645) AND a separate on-sensor image processor will take care of all photo and video IQ. On phone comms and memory it is said to be dual sim AND as much as 8 gigabytes to 12 gigabytes of RAM with 128 gig storage cards accepted. 

No mention of adapters for external lenses but it was said that the lens assembly will be FLAT and FLUSH with the rear surface of the phone. No mention of optical ZOOM capability was made but for this price point it had BETTER be there! And at the $1400 US mark (1100 Euros), it will also be one of the most expensive smartphones out there! 

---

On a technical basis, the fact that the sources say it has a 15.8 mm (5/8th inch) thick case gives the rumour quite a bit more credence than I would usually give because THAT measurement is what would be the PHYSICAL REQUIREMENT to put in an AP-C sensor onto a smartphone AND still keep it flat and flush with the rear surface (i.e. no lens hump!) I am hoping the battery life is VERY high at say 8+ full hours of continuous photo-shoot use! And that the $1400 US price point is so high for a smartphone indicates to me that it is a direct across-the-bow-shot at the hyper-expensive Red Hydrogen smartphone... We shall see further updates as more becomes known!


----------



## Vilmos (Mar 15, 2018)

An EF-S-style protrusion - but deeper - into the mirror-box might be possible...
I have entertained this idea for a while, and although I have arguments against it as well, thought it would be at least an interesting discussion topic...
To make it easier to explain, here is a sketch:


----------



## Talys (Mar 15, 2018)

Vilmos said:


> An EF-S-style protrusion - but deeper - into the mirror-box might be possible...
> I have entertained this idea for a while, and although I have arguments against it as well, thought it would be at least an interesting discussion topic...
> To make it easier to explain, here is a sketch:



This design doesn't help with any of the lens that really matter -- lens that pros who buy $3,000 bodies have -- like a 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 or 85/1.4 or....

The because the focal flange distance, which is the distance between the sensor and the first glass element cannot be shorter than it is now. This is why Sony GM lenses are longer than Canon EF lenses. If you look inside a GM lens, you'll see that basically the first part is just empty space.

If they made a mount as you propose, all of the pro lenses would start with a first lens element near the mount. The recessed lenses, especially if they recess as far back as you propose and with a lens-to-sensor size ration that you've illustrated, would end up being crop lenses of some kind.

Keep in mind that if you recess a lens, you lose a lot of potential throat diameter, because you still need to protect those first glass elements.

On the other hand, there is no reason at all an MILC couldn't just use EF-S. You could mount your recessed lens... and get a crop camera at a lower megapixel (the image wouldn't cover the whole sensor), just like what you get if you use a APSC lens on a Sony FF.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 15, 2018)

Vilmos said:


> An EF-S-style protrusion - but deeper - into the mirror-box might be possible...
> I have entertained this idea for a while, and although I have arguments against it as well, thought it would be at least an interesting discussion topic...
> To make it easier to explain, here is a sketch:



Whilst this in an interesting idea, like Talys pointed out, I think the throat width would reduce the usefulness somewhat. At the very least, I think it'd rule out fast lenses. Slower lenses may work?


----------



## Vilmos (Mar 15, 2018)

As I said, I also have some counter-arguments...
Especially:


Talys said:


> This design doesn't help with any of the lens that really matter -- lens that pros who buy $3,000 bodies have -- like a 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 or 85/1.4 or....


I fully agree with this.
And my sketch indeed shows an unchanged EF geometry, sans mirror.



Talys said:


> The because the focal flange distance, which is the distance between the sensor and the first glass element cannot be shorter than it is now. This is why Sony GM lenses are longer than Canon EF lenses. If you look inside a GM lens, you'll see that basically the first part is just empty space.


I do not agree fully with this, however. FF cameras (Leica M, Contax G2, etc... ) have always had lenses where the rear element was just a few millimeters from the film plane. Wide angle primes.

I'm also curious if all those really big Sony FF G Master zooms actually "need" that space in the back, or they are just reworked SLR optical formulas. Comparable Leica M lenses tend to be smaller, at least that's my impression.

My point would be that there is no real need for a change to the EF mount. Some lenses will anyhow be happy with the flange distance, others - and you are right again here: if the throat diameter is sufficient - could reach into the space. 

I think about FF only, for APS-C there is the EOS-M, and that's already another universe which, I believe, will fully cannibalize the EF-S line...


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 16, 2018)

Vilmos said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The because the focal flange distance, which is the distance between the sensor and the first glass element cannot be shorter than it is now. This is why Sony GM lenses are longer than Canon EF lenses. If you look inside a GM lens, you'll see that basically the first part is just empty space.
> ...



AFAIK, that was possible because film behaves differently than digital sensors. Film chemistry will react with light hitting it at any angle, while digital sensors need light to hits close to perpendicular, and that requires more distance between the back element and the sensor.


----------



## Talys (Mar 16, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Vilmos said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



More generally speaking, pancakes also benefit from mirrorless size benefits. But the thing is, nobody complains about the total package size with a pancake, right? What we are REALLY wanting are the workhorse primes and zooms that are currently awkwardly large to be smaller.

For example, I choose to upgrade my original 24-70/2.8 to the 24-70/4 over the new 2.8, in part because of IS, but in part because of the attractive size.

If a recessed (or mirrorless) full frame 24-70/2.8 could become the size of a f/4IS package, that would be really interesting -- but I don't believe that's possible.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 16, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> AFAIK, that was possible because film behaves differently than digital sensors. Film chemistry will react with light hitting it at any angle, while digital sensors need light to hits close to perpendicular, and that requires more distance between the back element and the sensor.



... all it requires is a little bit more thought and innovative solutions to the design of microlenses over digital imaging sensor. Leica has finally solved it by now (after messing around for about 10 years).


----------



## Vilmos (Mar 16, 2018)

I agree with and accept all your arguments - Talys, Antono Refa, Isaacheus.
So the conclusion is that the most probable outcome could be an FF MILC with unchanged EF mount, unchanged flangeback distance, and a continuation of the current lens line.
Which I would be very, very happy with.
However, those workhorse primes and zooms that are currently awkwardly large, probably won’t get any smaller.

Throwing out the mirror and replacing the prism with an EVF do not seem so big deal, I wonder what takes this much time for Canon? Further refining DPAF? Sensor warming? Battery life?


----------



## Talys (Mar 16, 2018)

Vilmos said:


> I agree with and accept all your arguments - Talys, Antono Refa, Isaacheus.
> So the conclusion is that the most probable outcome could be an FF MILC with unchanged EF mount, unchanged flangeback distance, and a continuation of the current lens line.
> Which I would be very, very happy with.
> However, those workhorse primes and zooms that are currently awkwardly large, probably won’t get any smaller.
> ...



Not to take credit for it, because it was someone else's idea (maybe ahsanford mentioned it?) but the smart move, I think, would be EF-S. That way, you could mount an EF lens, or an APSC EF-S lens, and if you do the latter, the camera goes automatically into crop mode. To their credit, Sony does a great job with this. 

It opens up some really good, cheap EF-S lenses like 10-18, which, in crop mode gives you about a 16-35 equivalent field of view (especially as it pertains to things like tripod sunsets and lake shots, where you're going to stop down anyways), but at a bargain of a price, and at a good enough IQ for a lot of people who only casually use that wide FL's. And, it opens up some great all purpose lenses that aren't heavy, like EFS 18-135, which is a nice video lens and walkaround lens, especially if you're not too worried about the corners or obsessed with the best possible IQ.

I think there is another benefit of a recessed sensor -- I am using an A7R3 right now, and the sensor is frighteningly close to the mount. When I do lens swaps in the field with Canon lens/bodies, I do them pretty quick and it's a "snap-snap" type of deal. I'm a little scared on the Sony that if I am slightly off center, I'll scratch the massive sensor that's right there. Perhaps an unfounded fear; I don't know if anyone has ever done that.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 17, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > AFAIK, that was possible because film behaves differently than digital sensors. Film chemistry will react with light hitting it at any angle, while digital sensors need light to hits close to perpendicular, and that requires more distance between the back element and the sensor.
> ...



Could you, please, provide a source to back this claim, preferably hard data rather than marketing?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 17, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...


Just thinking here, no hard data.......


Lenses, for both film and digital, are designed to focus on the film plane. The longer the focal length, the more perpendicular the light is. Conversely, the wider angle the lens is, the greater the angle that light will hit the sensor, and once you get past a certain angle, the light does not make it to the bottom of the well.

There are two ways to deal with this, make the well shallower (BSI) and redirecting the light. Ideally both.....

Just about everyone uses micro lenses to deal with this and direct the photons down into the well.... if your camera design has a short flange distance, you would be more aggressive with your micro lenses, so in the end result, does it really make a difference?

As an aside, look at the new designs for prime lenses in the 50mm and under range. Almost all of them are BIG! My assumption is that this is give more space to bend the light, allowing shallower angles and lesser aberrations. If we are going FF for image quality, and the lenses required for that are also big, and the required distance between the last element and the sensor is also big, then it becomes a question of do we put that distance in the body, or do we put it in the lens? Either way, we are not talking small.....


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 17, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



not sure whether this qualifies as "marketing material" or not ... but was what i could find on the quick ... http://gmpphoto.blogspot.co.at/2016/01/the-future-of-sensor-technology-at-leica.html

there are quite a number of possibilities to handle small flange focal distance well ... from lens formula to sensor design ... including thickness of sensor cover glass / AA filters and micro lens array ... shape and positioning of micro lenses, eg using "tilted" microlenses towards sensor edge and/or progressively varying microlenses' focal lens between center of sensor and edges etc. ... 

Sony FE lenses with lots of empty barrel space towards camera are not a "natural law" but solely a consequence of Sony's very poor choice of lens mount ... E-mount was designed and optimized for APS-C sensor image circle .. but then pressed into forced FF service as an aftherthought ... 

it is definitely possible to build less complex, smaller sized and lower priced lenses for FF mirrorless systems than Sony FE lenses. AT least for the most frequently used focal lengths. For longer tele lenses, physical size is determined by entrance pupil ... which in turn defines diameter of front element. But anything up to about 100mm focal length could be built nice and small and with excellent IQ at affordable prices.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 17, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



It's a good explanation, I'm not waving it out of hand.

What I was hoping for is hard measurements, ideally comparing vignetting on film & the new sensor, and whether it loses light when aperture is wide open.



AvTvM said:


> there are quite a number of possibilities to handle small flange focal distance well ... from lens formula to sensor design ... including thickness of sensor cover glass / AA filters and micro lens array ... shape and positioning of micro lenses, eg using "tilted" microlenses towards sensor edge and/or progressively varying microlenses' focal lens between center of sensor and edges etc. ...



I'm all for it. I traded in the EF 15mm f/2.8 when I bought the EF 11-24mm f/4L, and miss it a bit and tempted to buy the 8-15mm f/4L.



AvTvM said:


> it is definitely possible to build less complex, smaller sized and lower priced lenses for FF mirrorless systems than Sony FE lenses. AT least for the most frequently used focal lengths. For longer tele lenses, physical size is determined by entrance pupil ... which in turn defines diameter of front element. But anything up to about 100mm focal length could be built nice and small and with excellent IQ at affordable prices.



As time passed, I moved on from 300mm on crop to 200mm on FF, and even my crop has gone from 24-105mm to 24-70mm, so I do hope to see Canon releasing a small FF MILC with small lenses up to 100mm.


Edit: I started with 35-70mm on film & 18-55mm on crop, and was busy thinking the focal lengths were limiting. Now I regret I didn't just take more photos.


----------



## Talys (Mar 17, 2018)

AvTvM, you say that Sony chose poorly with E mount for FF, because it was a crop mount repurposed for full frame. Now, I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you describe how a different mount would result in smaller, better, or cheaper lenses? Only 2 things really matter in a mount design: throat diameter and flange size. Based on your knowledge, what would this superior mount change and why?

Here's the thing;

1. Sigma or Tamron have said that there are challenges that a small throat introduces. Also, I have read that this makes ulrawides much harder to build. But if you widen the throat, you make the camera body larger. You need more vertical and horizontal space, as the fingers are already cramped and the Songs essentially leave no space as it is. 

2. The focal flange distance can't be shorter for lenses that people would like shorter, without along other compromises, as I understand it. So 16-35, 24-80, 70-200 2.8 and popular lenses like 85 1.4 aren't getting any shorter from sensor to the furthest glass element, because this is determined by the optical formula, which requires so much space between the sensor and the first element. 

3. Would not any change from E mount kill compatibility (even with adapter) with existing crop lenses? 

4. You refer to Leica lenses as a company that has 'solved ' the size issue. But these are manual focus, non image stabilized super expensive lenses. Can you cite any examples that are mainstream workhorse zooms, that have been shrunk, have great IQ, and are cheap?


----------



## BillB (Mar 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> AvTvM, you say that Sony chose poorly with E mount for FF, because it was a crop mount repurposed for full frame. Now, I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you describe how a different mount would result in smaller, better, or cheaper lenses? Only 2 things really matter in a mount design: throat diameter and flange size. Based on your knowledge, what would this superior mount change and why?
> 
> Here's the thing;
> 
> ...



There seems to be a chicken or the egg issue here concerning price, assuming there is any technical solution to making small high quality full frame lenses, zoom or prime. To get low prices you have to have high volume to spread fixed design and production costs over more units, but to get high volume you have to have low prices (assuming that price is a main factor in determining demand.). Opinions expressed in this forum to the contrary, I don't think there is all that much demand for primes, pretty much regardless of price or size. So that leaves zooms, and the question becomes the minimum size achievable for high quality, attractively priced, zooms.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 17, 2018)

@Talys - i dont have the slightest knowledge in optics design / engineering. I am just an observer. 

Based on my observations of different lens mounts/lenses and related parameters / performance characteristics may guesstimate for an optimal FF mirrorless lens mount is around 
* as big a hole as possible ... 50mm throat width and 
* FFD not too short ... around 22-24mm - definitely NOT as short as 18 mm 
 

I "believe" (since i cannot do it myself i'm just a believer, so no hard facts .. ) this to be the best possible MILC lens system platform allowing for compact AND high-IQ AND affordable lenses in the most used focal range between 20mm and 100mm ... which is all i really care for.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 18, 2018)

@Talys- Flange distance is the distance between the front of the len mount to the sensor (or film). It will affect the optical design in BIG TIME for short focal length lenses, may be up to 75mm, depends on the actual flange distance. Think about a simple, symetrical single element convex lens. The center of the lens is the focal length of the lens. For Canon EF mount, the flange distance is 44 mm. How do we do the 28 mm wide angle len? The lens will be inside the camera body and will be hit by the mirror.The answer is a reverses telephone design. To put in in a simple way, a concave lens put in front of a convex lens. The conex lens is placed beyond the flange such that it will not be hit by the mirror and the convex lens is way in front of the convex lens.Then you end up with large lens. in real live, it will end up with anywhere from 6 to 8 element for all kinds of optical corrections. Throw in the AF and IS, then you will have a HUGE lens.
Image sensor likes to have close to vertcal incident angle. That also put a big restriction on the system. Leica M choose 28.7 mm flange distance for the compatability of ALL Leica lenses since 1930's via a 1mm thick adapter. The original screw mount is 29.7 mm. This is choosen for mechanical reason. That is the thickness of the Leica body that will allow the usage of reusable film cartrige. It is doing "okay" withthe M8 (APSC-H) with software correction for dark corners. It is not good enough for the full frame sensor. They come up with off-set micro-lens to correct the problem caused by the large incident angle.
So the EF mount(44 mm flange) is a "Blessing In the sky" for Canon to minimize the effect of incident angle. EF-S lense take advantage of the smaller mirror of the APS-C camera. The EF-S lenses get deeper into the camera body to allow easier lens design
Fast forward to EF-M with 18 mm flange. I have no idea where this is from. May be that is the minimum body thicknesss to fit eveything in. May be that is the minimum distance to allow various adapter to be made for vintage lenses, including Leica. Anyway, we will think that making a 22 mm lens will be a piece of cake. NO. The incident angle come to mess up things again. If you look at the EF-M 22/2 closely, you notice that the front elenment is a lot more than 22 mm from the sensor and the back element is a lot bigger that the front element. Also the surface of the front element is convave. All of them is to minize the problem caused by incident angle. Even with all these, the EF-M 22/2 is still -1.5 to -2.0 stop dark corner. In fact, the 22/2 is one of the best "small" lens and still priced at $300.
Leica lenses are small and expensive due to the following reasons: exceptionally tight tolerence and quality control, low volume, no AF and no IS, Some lenses have the rear element go outside of the lens mount


----------



## Talys (Mar 18, 2018)

@Rocky - I understand the issue of incident angle of light striking the sensor to be the reason why Sony has had so much trouble producing full frame ultrawide angle lenses. 

Also, as I understand it, for longer focal lengths, the flange focal distance simply can't be reduced. The variations of the optical formulae being used all have a pretty significant distance between the sensor and the first glass element, so if they shorten the mount, they must lengthen the lens by the same amount to create the same space between glass and sensor.

The two factors I was driving at, was this: For all the people who want Canon to abandon EF and go to a mirrorless mount, I ask, _why?_

1. The camera+lens package isn't going to get much shorter for large aperture bread-and-butter zooms. It IS going to get shorter for low-end consumer lenses that have smaller variable apertures, but do we care, in the context of $2,000+ cameras? It's also going to get smaller in terms of pancakes, but again, do we care? These are small lenses anyways.

2. The lens diameter is not going to get smaller beyond the first glass elements if you reduce the throat diameter on most lenses that are produced that are large aperture. A Sony E mount 100-400 or 70-200 may have a throat diameter of 46mm, which accommodates the nearest glass element just fine. But the furthest glass element and pretty much all of them in between are exactly the same size as a Canon, ending with glass taking a 77mm filter. So who do we benefit with a small throat?

Again, predominantly, small, variable aperture zooms, where the entire lens barrel can miniaturized because none of the glass elements need to be very large. 

For people who use any of the lenses where the diameter of the lens is larger, the smaller throat is a burden, because the camera/lens design becomes like the Sony, where the lens tapering to the mount constrains finger space (the alternative is to make a camera that and feels cavernous for the smaller lenses that don't have large barrels).

I think all of this makes sense in something like EF-M, where the market is for lower price points and portability. But it makes a lot less sense in full frame, where most of the people who are buying it and using it in the way it was intended are going to also invest in expensive glass.

I think Canon has it right at the moment: make APSC small and light, and make full frame ergonomically correct.

AvTvM: I take your point that you only care about focal lengths up to 100mm and you want Canon to make a camera that caters to you. But you already know that Canon is never going to do that, and nor is any other company that makes full frame cameras, because what you describe excludes a HUGE portion of their professional and enthusiast customer base.

So, the lens mount -- the throat diameter and FFD -- and ergonomic design of the camera will be designed for _somebody_ in mind, with compromises so that it can be usable for everyone else. Sony's E mount design is to make the camera body small at any cost, and to use that as a marketing push, and to a large extent, for the segment that really wants that, they have been successful. To an extent, they have even been somewhat successful with people who want more ergonomically fit cameras, by selling them a battery grip that at highway robbery prices.

I do not want this for my camera. I don't want a tapering lens design (certainly not to the extent of Sony), or a body that MUST have a grip to be usable, even with relatively small lenses like 24-70/2.8. I do not want an interchangeable lens point and shoot; I want something that feels right whether it has an 8-15mm or a 100-400mm.

I can accept that EF may not be the optimal design, but the question is, how much smaller to make the throat diameter, and how much shorter to reduce the FFD? 

AvTvM could well be right that 50mm would be an ideal throat diameter. But I don't want to throw out all my lenses, or wait for new lens designs, just for 4mm. I don't think that reducing the FFD is helpful for the same reason: I wouldn't support it unless they could reduce the total package size by enough to make a meaningful benefit for enough focal lengths of professional-grade options, and I don't think that is in the cards.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 18, 2018)

Sigh, so much misinformation again.


Shorter flange distance allows design of lenses suitable for short, medium or long flange distance (yes, you just put the rear element recessed inside the lens if you need to)

Longer flange distance only allows design of lenses with longer flange distance.


In what world is that more flexible than a shorter flange distance?



Talys said:


> @Rocky - I understand the issue of incident angle of light striking the sensor to be the reason why Sony has had so much trouble producing full frame ultrawide angle lenses.



I'm not saying that Sony hasn't had problems but there is no lens design that works currently on the Canon EF mount that would *not work just as well* on the FE mount with the suitable adaptor and/or alteration to lens mount. So, there's absolutely no sense in your statement linking the shorter flange distance to this.

And tell me, if the incident angle of light issue is so bad then how do we have the spectacular Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2.8 lenses? Before you say this is a problem that can't be solved go and actually try the lenses. 

There are some people here with an agenda to poison the atmosphere about possible new mounts for a Canon FF Mirrorless because they don't want to see a fall in the usefulness/value of their EF lens collection.

I can understand why you would want to do this, but please, what you're saying is simply misrepresenting the facts.


----------



## Talys (Mar 18, 2018)

@jolyonralph - You should read my post a little more carefully. I did not say that a shorter FFD is a limiting factor. Rather:

1. On the big lenses with wide apertures, you don't get to make them any smaller. To the contrary, any space you saved o. The mount side needs to be added right back in on the lens side, making for 10 longer lenses and one smaller body. 

2. The lenses that really benefit were not huge to start with, and are generally not pro lenses. 

3. Small throat and small flange mean tapering lens and ergonomic grip issues. 

4. I'm not sure which market wants $2000-$4000 camera bodies and small, cheap, crappy lenses with small and/or variable apertures. 

As to the ulrawide issue, I have read in several places that the E mount makes ultrawides more difficult to build, and Ilit seemed believable to me. It doesn't personally affect me, as I don't own a lens wider than FF 16mm anyhow, nor do I desire one, though It is notable that Sony's 16-35 was released only last year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> And tell me, if the incident angle of light issue is so bad then how do we have the spectacular Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2.8 lenses? Before you say this is a problem that can't be solved go and actually try the lenses.
> 
> There are some people here with an agenda to poison the atmosphere about possible new mounts for a Canon FF Mirrorless because they don't want to see a fall in the usefulness/value of their EF lens collection.
> 
> I can understand why you would want to do this, but please, what you're saying is simply misrepresenting the facts.



Speaking of misrepresenting the facts, have a look through the mount of those two lenses you mention...what do you see? A recessed rear element. In other words, the problem of high incident light angles was 'solved' by avoiding them with an empty spacer tube at the back of the lens.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 18, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > AFAIK, that was possible because film behaves differently than digital sensors. Film chemistry will react with light hitting it at any angle, while digital sensors need light to hits close to perpendicular, and that requires more distance between the back element and the sensor.
> ...



I expect you’re crediting Leica where, if anything, it’s due to CMOSIS.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 18, 2018)

Talys, I am just giving you the technical information of the limitation and advantage and of the EF, EF-S and other shorter mounts. I have not avocatingany new mount yet. As for proffessional lens must be big and large, I will strongly disagree. Have you looked at the Lieca 50/0.95? As for tapppered lens, Canon is just doing that on the 50/1.2. Which optical book that you have found the term "flange focal distance"? The only reason why almost all lenses have the rear element recess into its own mount is to protect the rear element. May be Canon should pay Leica royalty to do off-set micro-lens and start building smaller shorter focal length lenses for their FF mirrorless camera and use adapter for the longer EF lenses with the new FF body.


----------



## Talys (Mar 18, 2018)

Rocky said:


> Talys, I am just giving you the technical information of the limitation and advantage and of the EF, EF-S and other shorter mounts. I have not avocatingany new mount yet. As for proffessional lens must be big and large, I will strongly disagree. Have you looked at the Lieca 50/0.95? As for tapppered lens, Canon is just doing that on the 50/1.2. Which optical book that you have found the term "flange focal distance"? The only reason why almost all lenses have the rear element recess into its own mount is to protect the rear element. May be Canon should pay Leica royalty to do off-set micro-lens and start building smaller shorter focal length lenses for their FF mirrorless camera and use adapter for the longer EF lenses with the new FF body.



Rocky, I'm not disagreeing with you at all from a technical design perspective. The truth is that I am absolutely no expert at this, with not even a fraction of the knowledge of many of the regulars of this board. I don't even have the engineering curiosity to want to learn that. All I go by is my observations, which don't include Leica lenses other than what I've seen on forums, because I don't have any friends with Leica equipment.

When I posed the question about mount design, I was looking for someone who has more knowledge than me to indicate what Sony is doing wrong, and what Canon could do right, to result in a full frame package where the total size is a significantly smaller, including the most popular zooms and primes that a lot of us own. It is unhelpful if that includes lenses that are missing things like IS and certainly AF, because this is something that the overwhelming majority of the customer base wants, so I think that Leica is a poor example anyways. In other words, if you want a Leica, buy a Leica, because nothing else is really like it.

All I have to go on myself is my observations of Canon, Sony, and Nikon lenses, and how the lens + camera package doesn't vary by much.

Also, I didn't say that there weren't ANY professional lenses where the distance between the sensor and the first glass element couldn't be shortened, only that this is the case with most of them, and certainly nearly all of the best-selling pro/enthusiast zooms by every major full frame manufacturer. 

From my (limited) understanding of lens design, the optical formula is the optical formula, and requires a certain distance between the first glass element and the sensor. Unless there is a different formula where that is shortened, any space you take out from between the edge of the mount to the sensor needs to be added back in to the space between the start of the lens and the glass. My understanding is that the existing optical formulae are pretty good, and while there can be tinkering around the edges, the only really significant innovation to shorten the length of lenses has been diffractive optics, which isn't necessarily useful to all focal lengths, and apparently, can't be done on the cheap.

Finally, regarding the 50/1.2 design. Yes, it tapers to the mount. And if you really want to push it, you can say that every superzoom also tapers towards the mount. My issue isn't with the taper (what do I care what shape the lens is?); it's with the taper interfering with my fingers, because (a) of how quickly it flares out and (b) the positioning of the grip. 

If the camera body designer of the A7/A9 simply added a half inch between the camera mount and grip, I wouldn't care about the taper in that direction. And if the camera body designer likewise added a half inch vertically so that a part of my wrist didn't bite against the bottom of the camera without a grip, I wouldn't care about that, either.

But that isn't the case: the reason to build a smaller mount (for Sony) was to shrink the camera body in the Alpha to the minimum size possible. The net effect is that the camera becomes, for me, very uncomfortable -- without having any significant benefits, because all of the small lenses that fit on the 46mm throat with short FFD are not lenses that I want to own.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 18, 2018)

Talys said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Talys, I am just giving you the technical information of the limitation and advantage and of the EF, EF-S and other shorter mounts. I have not avocatingany new mount yet. As for proffessional lens must be big and large, I will strongly disagree. Have you looked at the Lieca 50/0.95? As for tapppered lens, Canon is just doing that on the 50/1.2. Which optical book that you have found the term "flange focal distance"? The only reason why almost all lenses have the rear element recess into its own mount is to protect the rear element. May be Canon should pay Leica royalty to do off-set micro-lens and start building smaller shorter focal length lenses for their FF mirrorless camera and use adapter for the longer EF lenses with the new FF body.
> ...


Canon and Nikon lenses are forced to be big due to the large flange distance. They are not good example either. IS and AF hardly impact the size of the lens. It is evident with the FD, FL and EF are almost the same size, given the same focal length and the same speed. Leica short focal length lenses are smaller due to the short flange distance.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 18, 2018)

Rocky said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses. Bigger than Canon and Nikon because they need to add distance at the end of the lens due to having a too sharp angle of the light reaching the outer portions of the sensor. There have been numerous patents from Canon and Sony (and probably others) to create curved sensors and other solutions to have the light reach the outer portions of the sensor at a better angle. If they are successful, then perhaps we will see some smaller lenses, but probably not until then. Unless Leica makes them and you are willing to pay big $$$.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 19, 2018)

dak723 said:


> The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.



Do you know that for a fact, or is it just supposition? 

What of the throat diameter? It seems that both pieces of geometry affect the incident angle.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.
> ...



One can not compare apples to oranges.... Determining effect of mount on lens length, when you are talking different lens designs, different years, and different manufactures is, to say the least, non deterministic..... 

Control the variables! Look at the Tamron 70-300.... Same optical formula for the Canon, Nikon, and Sony mount.... same length of lens....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I agree.




> Control the variables! Look at the Tamron 70-300.... Same optical formula for the Canon, Nikon, and Sony mount.... same length of lens....



You didn’t control the variables affecting optical formula, you eliminated them ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I figured that the thing to do was to find a lens that could be mounted on all three bodies, and that meant tamron, as Sigma lists Sony months as “future” othe bthat I looked at. What I think they have done is to keep most of the lens the same, but to vary the last group to focus on the flange distance for that particular mount....


----------



## dak723 (Mar 19, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.
> ...



I am not an optical engineer, so I suppose it is supposition. Others are making the same suppositions...

https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

http://ilovehatephoto.com/2015/02/23/3-detailed-reasons-not-to-switch-to-sony-full-frame-mirrorless-system/

Yes, the articles are a couple years old, but I don't believe that the problems associated with a short flange distance have been adequately solved yet. My own experience with both the Sony A7 and A7 Ii was that the corner performance was noticeably poor with their kit 28-70 zoom (I tried 2 different copies). Using a Canon lens with the adapter to create the longer Canon flange distance gave noticeably better results. This was not a scientific test as I used different lenses, but the Canon lens was an old 28-70 (non-L) lens from the 1980's.

It should be noted that the 18mm flange distance for the APS-C Canon M cameras has difficulties as well as many of the M lenses exhibit some of the worst vignetting that some of the lens testing sites have ever seen. Shortening the flange distance and creating a greater angle for the light to hit the sensor seems to create problems. I would say that that is fact.


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2018)

dak723 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



It is not supposition to say that given an optical formula, the focal point is a fixed distance from the last glass element, and that you can't change that distance without changing the optical formula. I mean, that's a fact. It's physics.

It's not absolute that every pro Sony lens is bigger than every Canon lens. Obviously this isn't so. But _many_ of them are this way, including really important ones that are core pro zooms, such as 24-70/2.8. At the end of the day, a whole bunch of random, pro Sony lenses will have a total length greater than the same Canons.

More pertinent to the question is that the difference in flange focal distance between E mount and EF mount _is totally irrelevant_ in the context of the total camera size, when it comes to the vast majority of professional lenses. Because at the end of the day, what is 1 centimeter, when a 24-70/2.8 is 11cm (canon) - 13cm (sony)? Does anyone really care THAT much?

A dramatic savings in size would be instead a 70mm long lens with a maximum diameter of 50mm that's 24-70 f/2.8. If that were possible, I'd absolutely be interested in a much smaller body size that was balanced with that.

Anyways, the photo below is not supposition.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2018)

canon, Sony, Nikon, whoever......

They can design a lens to be shorter, but at the cost of optical performance. One of the reasons for going FF is superior image quality, so why would any of the major players compromise? 

For those who value compactness higher, there are crop cameras....


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> canon, Sony, Nikon, whoever......
> 
> They can design a lens to be shorter, but at the cost of optical performance. One of the reasons for going FF is superior image quality, so why would any of the major players compromise?
> 
> For those who value compactness higher, there are crop cameras....



Bingo!!!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with an APS-C body. If you want a smaller camera+body package... why not buy one of those?  

It just makes so much more sense to me, and it is the primary reason that I can't understand the obsession over "I want a full frame mirrorless and I want it to be tiny".

Even putting quality aside, I don't think it's possible to have large aperture and a large focal range without having a large range -- because after all, you need to let in all that light.


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2018)

Relevant to this topic is an interview posted on DPR:

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1807023531/canon-interview-increased-competition-allows-us-to-level-up 

Some interesting tidbits below. I find it interesting that Canon thinks that viewfinder and autofocus are two stumbling blocks transitioning from DSLR to mirrorless, and this is exactly what I feel after giving the A7R3 a go. The EVF is wonderful, but not quite there. And the autofocus is very good, but also, not quite there in some circumstances.

Also, they said no 4k DPAF in M50 because of price point. And new professional camera for Tokyo 2020 (and by that, I'm sure they mean 1D series, since 5D is referred to as an enthusiast camera in the same article).

The whole thing is worth a read.



> *How important is it for Canon to add higher-end mirrorless products to your lineup?*
> 
> At Canon we have what’s called a ‘full lineup strategy’. This means that we want to satisfy all of the demands in the market, so we have mirrorless and also DSLR, which combined makes an EOS hierarchy. We want to fill the gaps to satisfy customer demands across the board.
> 
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 19, 2018)

Rocky said:


> So the EF mount(44 mm flange) is a "Blessing In the sky" for Canon to minimize the effect of incident angle. EF-S lense take advantage of the smaller mirror of the APS-C camera. The EF-S lenses get deeper into the camera body to allow easier lens design



often quoted, but not true. Or only true "in theory". In practice, Canon has not bothered to produce a single EF-S lens that protrudes into the mirror box! Not even the EF-S 11-22, much less so any other EF-S lens. 

EF-mount parameters were perfectly chosen by Canon (back in in 1987) and are perfectly suited for FF mirrorslappers, no discussion at all. It was the cornerstone for Canon to take market leadership back from Nikon (and their outdated, not so well chosen 1950's F-mount ... with its ridiculously narrow throat width). 

But EF-mount is definitely not the best solution for digital mirrorless FF camera systems. Only a shorter FFD will allow full leverage of mirrorless concept, including but not limited to very compact camera and lenses in the most frequently used focal length range ... with extremely high IQ. 

Sony has gotten FF mirrorless mount (FE) wrong. They made the mistake of pressing E-mount, which [like Canon EF-M] was designed for APS-C image circle only into forced FF-service [then called FE mount]. As a result of this [too narrow throat width coupled with slightly too short FFD] they are faced with severe limitations to lens design. This makes their FE lenses way more complex, way fatter and way more expensive than for a "really right" mirrorless FF mount. 

Not even i think Canon will be "so stupid" to repeat Sony's FE mistake.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2018)

The move from FD to EF was to provide an image circle that was large enough to cover a FF sensor and to allow electronic communications between the camera and the lens. Nothing changes with mirrorless. Essentially, a mirrorless FF camera is a regular camera in live-view mode. There is no absolute compelling reason to change, so why should they?

There are some very vocal forum members who insist that Canon needs a new mount in order to make a mirrorless FF camera as small as possible. This is wrong. Making it smaller is a design choice, not an absolute requirement. If this was the the over-riding design criteria, then canon would act on it, and such a decision would have both positive and negative results.

1) it would be a smaller camera body. Depending on the person, this can be argued as a plus or a minus.

2) new mount. HUGE minus. Canon would have to start from scratch and redesign their lens lineup. Lenses designed for high quality would probably remain the same physical size, so no size savings there. New lenses designed for lower quality could be made smaller, but then again, they could do the same on the EF mount.... note that with the exception of a couple of pancakes, they have not.

3) ergonomics. HUGE minus, you have lost balance and you no longer have the real estate for the advanced controls. Touchscreen helps to mitigate this.....

In the end, if what you really want is small size, you can’t compete with an M camera and a F6.3 zoom....


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 19, 2018)

some people fail to understand that a new, short flange-distance mount is the only way to get BOTH:
* small gear: compact cameras + compact lenses in most frequently used focal length range; no this will not be the right set-up for people with large hands and large lenses. But preferably in almost all other situations. 
* any size larger gear - if and as wanted. No problem at all to make camera bodies in L, XL, XXL and Texas-size

The only "compromise" involved only pertains to continued use of any existing EF lens ... in the form of a simple, compact and cheap mount adapter, with no impact at all on lens IQ. If so desired, that adapter could also be permanently attached to either a lens or to camera body. 

Really don't see why this single argument (adapter for backwards compatibility) should lead to a decision that precludes taking size advantage of removed mirrorbox [and viewfinder prism]. 

Nobody asks for "extra-small" cameras ONLY. Some users want small, some want large/r) gear - depending on preferences and tasks/situation ... and many of us will get both: 1 small FF system and 1 large(r) one. 

I really don't see why people wanting a "smaller, but high IQ and performance gear" solution should be relegated to APS-C systems only.


----------



## BillB (Mar 19, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> some people fail to understand that a new, short flange-distance mount is the only way to get BOTH:
> * small gear: compact cameras + compact lenses in most frequently used focal length range; no this will not be the right set-up for people with large hands and large lenses. But preferably in almost all other situations.
> * any size larger gear - if and as wanted. No problem at all to make camera bodies in L, XL, XXL and Texas-size
> 
> ...



Well, clearly somebody is failing to understand something.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 19, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> some people fail to understand that a new, short flange-distance mount is the only way to get BOTH:
> * small gear: compact cameras + compact lenses in most frequently used focal length range; no this will not be the right set-up for people with large hands and large lenses. But preferably in almost all other situations.
> * any size larger gear - if and as wanted. No problem at all to make camera bodies in L, XL, XXL and Texas-size
> 
> ...


Right on. +10. The only problem is that Canon have to solve the issue of dark corner picture due to short flange and compact wide to normal focal length first. May be Canon should pay Leica royalty for the off-set micro lenses. 100 mm focal length and up will not have problem, regardless.


----------



## BillB (Mar 19, 2018)

Rocky said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > some people fail to understand that a new, short flange-distance mount is the only way to get BOTH:
> ...



There is also the problem of convincing people to buy a mirrorless camera that requires adapters to use EF lenses when they can buy a DSLR that they can use without adapters. Then there are the people with a Canon DSLR who will not add a mirrorless camera that requires an adapter to use the lenses that are compatible with the DSLR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2018)

BillB said:


> There is also the problem of convincing people to buy a mirrorless camera that requires adapters to use EF lenses when they can buy a DSLR that they can use without adapters. Then there are the people with a Canon DSLR who will not add a mirrorless camera that requires an adapter to use the lenses that are compatible with the DSLR.



^^This. 

At issue is the target market. For entry-level APS-C mirrorless, that market is new customers – a new mount is fine, with an adapter for current system owners. But for FF mirrorless, the target market is _current_ ILC owners. For Sony, that means pulling customers away from Canon/Nikon. But for Canon, the largest source of FF MILC buyers is current Canon dSLR owners.


----------



## BillB (Mar 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > There is also the problem of convincing people to buy a mirrorless camera that requires adapters to use EF lenses when they can buy a DSLR that they can use without adapters. Then there are the people with a Canon DSLR who will not add a mirrorless camera that requires an adapter to use the lenses that are compatible with the DSLR.
> ...



There could be a comparability issue between a new FF mirrorless mount and the aps-c M line. An M camera will take an EF lens with an adapter, but it might be difficult to adapt lenses with the new FF mirrorless mount to an M camera


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > There is also the problem of convincing people to buy a mirrorless camera that requires adapters to use EF lenses when they can buy a DSLR that they can use without adapters. Then there are the people with a Canon DSLR who will not add a mirrorless camera that requires an adapter to use the lenses that are compatible with the DSLR.
> ...



Sony is the best example. Their efforts to continue support of mirrorslapper A-lenses have not gotten them much. It would have been much smarter, had they just said: "end of A-mount, now!"and focused on selecting "really right" paramters for their mirrorless FF lens mount. 

Existing EF-lens owners refusing to use an adapter will have to live with their decision. Their problem, not Canon's. Canon should focus on developing, making and selling a state-of-the-art mirrorless product lineup. All they need to do is mirror their DSLR universe:
EF-M is the new EF-S
EF-X is the new EF
.. 
people wanting to use their old glass on new cameras will have to use an adapter. Meanwhile Canon will be selling new cameras and lenses in the millions ... for some years to come ... until computational imaging fully takes over.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2018)

BillB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



Indeed, an issue I've raised previously.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



moot point. FF MILC lens mount should and likely will have a bit longer FFD than EF-M ... for a whole number of reasons. EOS-EF-M mount will then take EF-X lenses with a tiny adapter ring a few millimeters wide.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 19, 2018)

BillB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...


If the flange disttance is about 29 mm, it will not be a problem. I have been adapting the Leica lenses for my M.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Sony is the best example.



The best example of you completely missing the point, true. 




AvTvM said:


> Existing EF-lens owners refusing to use an adapter will have to live with their decision. Their problem, not Canon's.



Except if no adapter is required to mount an EF lens on a Canon FF MILC. I know it will come as a shock to you if Canon chooses to do something you don't think is a good idea…but it won't surprise anyone who lives in the real world.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2018)

Rocky said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



So, Canon will design a new mount to save 15mm? I doubt it…


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 19, 2018)

29mm FFD is likely more than needed. 22-24 mm is probably right. 

And yes, i would be surprised if Canon launches mirrorless FF with EF mount-nozzled cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> 29mm FFD is likely more than needed. 22-24 mm is probably right.



So, a 4-6mm thick adapter to mount ‘EF-X’ lenses on the far more numerous EOS M cameras. EdMika ergonomics, that’s a non-starter.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > 29mm FFD is likely more than needed. 22-24 mm is probably right.
> ...



No prob, it will work - even with 4mm FFD difference. Original Canon adapter, not EdMika, not Novoflex and most definitely not Metabones.  

and besides: once there are - decent and compact (!) - Canon FF MILCs available ... only a tiny minority of EOS M camera owners will want to mount EF-X lenses a few times a year ... overwhelming majority of EF-X owners will go natively with "EF-X" lenses on their FF EOS "M-Pro" cameras - a large one for large hands and large lenses and a small one for small hands and all situations where big, fat gear is not needed but rather contra-productive.


----------



## BillB (Mar 19, 2018)

AvTvM said:


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



So one question is whether a practical adapter can be designed to mount EF-X lenses to EOS-M cameras. Another question is how many people with Canon DSLR's are going to buy EF-X cameras that require them to use adapters to use EF Lenses. A third question is how many people will buy EF-X "Super M" cameras rather than lighter and cheaper plain old aps-c M cameras. Underlying these questions, there is the question of designing significantly smaller high quality, but reasonably priced, zooms.

I am now content to leave it to Canon, the market, and time to work out the answers to these questions. Of course, the wrong answers to any of these questions will merely demonstrate Canon's traditional stupidity, irrespectiive of how many EF mount mirrorless cameras Canon manages to sell.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2018)

AvTvM said:


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



No doubt that's all true in the AvTvM Universe. :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 19, 2018)

Talys said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Of course that’s not supposition. But it doesn’t relate to what I asked. I’ll try to word it differently: given the e-mount Sony lenses which are larger than canon EF lenses (something which seems to occupy a lot of attention on these boards), are they larger *because of* the flange distance as per the assertion, or is it because of a combination of design decisions, including the desire to get the light to strike the sensor close to perpendicularly from a rear element with a significant size constraint relative to the sensor?

In other words, if canon were to design a new mount, but made the throat diameter larger than did Sony, could they not put the rear element closer to the sensor while maintaining close to perpincidularity, and thus achieve a smaller overall length than does Sony?

Note: I’m not talking probabilities or business strategy, just the optics.


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Of course that’s not supposition. But it doesn’t relate to what I asked. I’ll try to word it differently: given the e-mount Sony lenses which are larger than canon EF lenses (something which seems to occupy a lot of attention on these boards), are they larger *because of* the flange distance as per the assertion, or is it because of a combination of design decisions, including the desire to get the light to strike the sensor close to perpendicularly from a rear element with a significant size constraint relative to the sensor?
> 
> In other words, if canon were to design a new mount, but made the throat diameter larger than did Sony, could they not put the rear element closer to the sensor while maintaining close to perpincidularity, and thus achieve a smaller overall length than does Sony?
> 
> Note: I’m not talking probabilities or business strategy, just the optics.



Like I said, I am no expert on the optics and defer to others who know better. I'm only providing observations of what I've seen commercially manufactured by companies I'd consider using, and know too little about the science to add to a meaningful discussion of the optics.

But my obsession is with the reverse: why be so concerned about reducing the flange distance to make a smaller professional camera, when most of the professional lenses are going to just make the total package size the same -- and really, whether it's 1cm larger or smaller, irrelevant, since the total camera size is 15+ cm? 

I mean, are we so obsessed with size that 14cm vs 15cm is meaningful?

I get it: there are some people who want to use cameras that are 7cm total length, with 50mm barrels, rather than 16cm cameras with 88mm barrels. But until the lens issue is resolved -- *where most of that bulk is*-- why obssess over a centimeter in height and depth on the body at the cost of breaking backwards compatibility?

It seems like some people think that Canon and Sony and Nikon are either holding back the ability to make such optics, or, if the body is made, the lenses will follow. I just don't think this is so.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 19, 2018)

I agree that the magnitues we are taking about here might be trivial. Would I take a 1” shorter lens if it came 30% bigger around? Probably not. If size is a major concern, buy a camera with a smaller format.

I’m just curious about the statements of fact being made, and wary of conclusions drawn from a small sample (the Sony designs).


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I agree that the magnitues we are taking about here might be trivial. Would I take a 1” shorter lens if it came 30% bigger around? Probably not. If size is a major concern, buy a camera with a smaller format.
> 
> I’m just curious about the statements of fact being made, and wary of conclusions drawn from a small sample (the Sony designs).



On this, we are in agreement. If you look a page or two back, I posed it as a question as to the benefit of / or in search of the ideal FFD and throat diameter -- to anyone who has expertise in that, but particularly to those who say that Canon's EF is terrible or that Sony's FE botched it. It would be up to Canon to convince me that I really want to make a mount change, and doing so would require some real benefits. It doesn't have to be exclusively size, but sure, _total_ size, as a ratio on lenses that I feel are on the big and heavy end, does matter.

I'm not sure that either is exactly right. What I would absolutely not look forward to is replacing all of my EF lenses with lenses like Sony FE's -- generally a little bigger, no mechanical ring focus, and way more expensive. 

I realize that the sample size of 1 is not a good one. However, the maximum sample size we're going to realistically be looking at is... three  So it's a third of the potential full frame mirrorless mounts. I discount Leica because it's just too specialty, and targets a market that is unlikely to ever be mainstream.

Going to FACTS, Sigma recently said this in an interview:



> *If you had designed the recently-announced E-mount primes from the ground up for Sony’s full-frame cameras, would they be smaller?*
> 
> The wide-angle lenses would be, yes. We just announced E-mount versions of the 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm. Probably, the 14mm, 20mm and 24mm lenses could have been smaller [if they were designed for Sony full-frame from the beginning]. But any lens longer than 35mm, they’d be about the same size. Our 35mm F1.4, for example, is about the same size as the Sony 35mm F1.4. But for wider lenses, because of the short flange-back distance of the E-mount, we could make them smaller.
> 
> ...



So my issue is that the biggest 14mm, 20mm, 24mm and 35mm primes don't have a size issue. I'm certainly not going to buy a whole line of new lenses that 30% more just for those types of sizes. It's the bigger lenses, particularly 2.8 trinity zooms, that would be most interesting.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 19, 2018)

Until Canon fix the dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses (like EF-M 22/2), EF mount may be the only reasonable solution for the new FF mirrorless.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 19, 2018)

Talys said:


> So my issue is that the biggest 14mm, 20mm, 24mm and 35mm primes don't have a size issue. I'm certainly not going to buy a whole line of new lenses that 30% more just for those types of sizes. It's the bigger lenses, particularly 2.8 trinity zooms, that would be most interesting.



forget zooms like a 70-200/2.8 ... size is determined by diameter of entry pupil ... which drives diameter of front element. They will remain the same size, mirrorslap or no mirrorslpa. But for lenses thes size and weight of the f/2.8 "pro" zooms ... certainly adding a small adapter which weighs close to nothing and adds only about 3cm to length should be no issue, following you logic, right? 

To understand the size difference that comes form EF mount vs. shorter FFD "EF-X" mount ... just compare a EOS 6D ii to a Sony A7 (1st gen). 

What i am after is a super compact and fully competent, though not "pro"-level" interchangable lens mirrorless FF camera - sized somewhere between Sony RX-1R II and Sony A7 (first series! not II or even III) ... plus a small lineup of good IQ, moderately fast, ultra-compact and very affordable primes - eg 20/3.5, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.8, all IS STM plus equally good IQ, ultra-compact and affordable constant f/4 zooms ... e.g. 16-35/4 [could definitely be made smaller than EF version with a new-mount and shorter FFD) plus 24-85/4.0 ... and maybe a 50-150/4.0 [not sure how compact that one could be made]. 

Backwards compatible with all existing EF lenses via a simple, original Canon adapter without any glass elements and no impact on IQ. 

I am absolutely convinced there would be "more than enough" buyers for such a Canon FF mirrorless system. 

And no problem with me, if Canon as a "full line-up producer" also makes and sells many other, larger mirrorless bodies and lenses. 

Other way round .. if ONLY large mirrorless Canon cameras with EF mount and large(r than necessary) lenses would be offered, totally negating freed up space by removing mirrorbox = no buy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> I am absolutely convinced there would be "more than enough" buyers for such a Canon FF mirrorless system.



So what?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Rocky said:


> Until Canon fix the dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses (like EF-M 22/2), EF mount may be the only reasonable solution for the new FF mirrorless.



I'm sorry, but I don't understand this 'dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses' that you mention. 

EF-M 22mm f/2 @ f/2 (on APS-C): 1.66 stops of vignetting
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8 (on APS-C): 1.92 stops of vignetting
EF 35mm f/2 IS @ f/2 (on FF): 2.23 stops of vignetting

Can you explain why you believe having _less_ vignetting than similar lenses (on their intended sensor format) is a problem? ??? ??? ???


----------



## Rocky (Mar 20, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Until Canon fix the dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses (like EF-M 22/2), EF mount may be the only reasonable solution for the new FF mirrorless.
> ...


Sorry, I do not have the other two lenses. The EF-M 22/2 is not bad after all. That is the only fast EF-M I got.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Rocky said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



Fair enough. Try the 24/1.4L II on FF – it has well over three stops of vignetting. But then, the M11-22 at 11mm wide open has about 3 stops, too.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 21, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Now I understand why Canon is having in camera vignetting correction for lazy people like me that does not shoot raw.


----------

