# Canon Full Frame Mirrorless [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 24, 2016)

```
We’re told once again that a full frame mirrorless camera is definitely in the works at Canon. As we’ve also said before, the biggest challenge to the design team is making good use of EF mount lenses. There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup.</p>
<p>It’s possible we’re going to see a full frame mirrorless fixed lens camera from Canon before we see an ILC full frame mirrorless. We were told a while ago that such a camera was in development and apparently that is still ongoing.</p>
<p>The product roadmap for mirrorless from Canon has no been finalized and there’s a good chance we’re going to hear a lot of conflicting information over the coming months. The source doesn’t expect any sort of full frame mirrorless announcement until the end of 2017 at the earliest.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 24, 2016)

as long as it gets sensor from 5d mk iv and dual card slots.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told once again that a full frame mirrorless camera is definitely in the works at Canon. As we’ve also said before, the biggest challenge to the design team is making good use of EF mount lenses. There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup.</p>



the path of least resistance for canon is easily the EF mount.

- total "native" lens catalog
- no new sensor redesign or implementing BSI.
- easiest for marketing.

I doubt it's much of a challenge that way outside of the usual suspects a) battery life and b) ergonomics.

going the other way means that canon has to roll out a new lens lineup and then deal with the FUD of an EF-Mx full frame lens lineup being more developed than the EF mount lineup .. aka Sony.

will they go cheap and small .. or will they go premium and larger? I think would be the struggle / challenge for the marketing and development departments. They see Sony doing well in NA.. but struggling domestically.

Canon really cares about domestic. Canon USA has their own "beefs" I'm sure.

I think Canon is more challenged in coming out with something that is good for all regions.

also .. if these are coming out in 2017, the designs and the camera is basically already done.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

*CR: "There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup"*
= the statement heard round the CR Forum world. That's a _massive_ statement. We've been speculating about this for a very long time!

So, if true, that would mean that...


*Mount / body junction*: we're headed to (something resembling) the built-in 'tube' of the recent Sigma Quattro models (see pic below) ...unless they are going to simply pull the mirror from an existing FF rig, which seems very not-serious for something that is relatively long overdue.


*Positive reality of no 4th mount*: No new lenses to buy = less investment burden for existing Canon owners to get in on the new platform = higher adoption rate. Also, there's no way you can leave an EF adaptor at home _if it's built-into the camera_.


*Painful reality of no 4th mount*: no super tiny FF rig with purpose-built small mount lenses. The Tiny Form Factor Committee (a.k.a. the 'Mirrorless is about making is smaller, dummy' folks -- who are not a small group) will be pretty miffed about this. Like a great disturbance in the force, I can hear the 'Stupid Canon' call from AvTvM already.



*Canon is sticking to its strengths rather than making a large investment to follow the A7's lead*: I don't know if this means Canon thinks FF users don't care about size / think size is-what-it-is with FF and they are onboard with it or if they are just being stingy by not offering the thinner mount with a few tiny lenses.


I wonder if Nikon will make the same (no new mount for FF mirrorless) decision or if they will try to keep it small when they make a foray into this market. 

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

the sigma has to be the worst example.

take a rebel body. it will be around the same form factor.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

Still sinking in. This is big news.

As much as our polls correctly pegged this decision by Canon as the practical / 'it is what it is' (this is what FF needs) sort of call, I'm still a little shocked Canon would concede the entire 'keep it small' slice of the FF market to Sony, Leica, etc. 

There are some very big spenders in that camp, are there not?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> the sigma has to be the worst example.
> 
> take a rebel body. it will be around the same form factor.



Well, they could be complete hacks and just pull the mirror from a 5D4 and say 'but the current ergonomics are so great'. In effect, if you are bolting a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on this thing -- which people will 100% do on day one -- you'd actually want a stout body with a chunky grip.

But I think the identity of mirrorless is 'smaller' even if FF sensors mean huge lenses. I think they have to try to put a 5D on a diet and accentuate the lack of a mirror in the body design... even if it has the full EF mount. No idea how they will pull that off.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Oct 24, 2016)

Not a big surprise. Three lens mounts is already about two too many as it is. 

Once you get into full frame, any size advantage to mirrorless evaporates anyway. 

A fixed-mount f4 24-105 zoom mirrorless would meet the needs of about 70% or more of users. But, there might be some psychological resistance to overcome to convince people to pay $2,500 or more for a camera that has only one lens. 

It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next several years. I'm not holding my breath on this materializing any time soon.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Not a big surprise. Three lens mounts is already about two too many as it is.
> 
> Once you get into full frame, any size advantage to mirrorless evaporates anyway.
> 
> ...



If it's fixed, it will be small as hell. Think RX1R or Leica Q -- with a fixed 24, 28 or 35mm lens. No chance they go with a fixed zoom lens, especially not up to 105. I just can't see it.

Fixed lens = the Fuji x100 / Leica Q crowd = moneyed people who either know photography well and want a toy, or wealthy folks who _don't_ know photography but want killer images... but a proper Leica M is terrifyingly complicated to them. (The second group is effectively buying a $3k FF point and shoot at that point.)

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > the sigma has to be the worst example.
> ...



except the reason the 5D is so large (and the 6D) is the ergonomics, and the top panel LCD and buttons.

it's not because of the EF mount.

you get rid of the top panel LCD and the haptic control buttons, and you're down to a rebel sized body.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> except the reason the 5D is so large (and the 6D) is the ergonomics, and the top panel LCD and buttons.
> 
> it's not because of the EF mount.
> 
> you get rid of the top panel LCD and the haptic control buttons, and you're down to a rebel sized body.



But they need the battery and the built-in grip to be large. Mirrorless rigs chew through batteries, and a full EF mount means that current FF owners will be putting their big f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms on this thing -- so it needs a big grip!

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 24, 2016)

Taking the mirror out of the equation, EF and EF-S are the same (same flange distance & radius, and same electronics), except EF-S are made for smaller sensors.

So how is an EF-S mount an option?

Do all EF-S lenses have an image circle that covers a FF sensor, and Canon will make some trick to prevent EF lenses from being mounted on mirrorless FF bodies?


I see two options:

1) An EF mount, same as the 5D & 1D have, possibly with a crop mode to allow for crop lenses, same as Nikon does.

2) An EF-M mount with an extension tube for EF lenses, and a crop mode etc.

I don't see the advantages of option #2 over buying a crop body to begin with.


----------



## MintChocs (Oct 24, 2016)

Let's see, cripple the features that might impede sales of other lines, no small form factor lenses, sensor tech still lagging, huge price (everything new comes with that) but as it has the Canon logo it will sell in bucket loads


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > except the reason the 5D is so large (and the 6D) is the ergonomics, and the top panel LCD and buttons.
> ...



none of which changes the size aspect as much as the ergonomics.


----------



## hmatthes (Oct 24, 2016)

The quality of glass and sensor are the important factors. In my addled brain, the camera itself is an accessory to the glass IF it has the proper sensor.
I shoot manually often. My Leica Q ruined me for other interfaces. I like aperture control on lenses, even when they have an "A" indent. I like a dial for shutter speed. I like manual focus (why I sold my EFs lenses). I love my Q and wish that Leica would build a new "M" with the spectacular EVF found on the Q and SL.
That said, Canon knows engineering very well. *The FF mirrorless could very well have the EFm mount for cropped work and the EF adapter for all of my FF glass*. And perhaps a Leica mount for using other extraordinary lenses.


----------



## pokerz (Oct 24, 2016)

lets wait 400 more days
A 5 axis electronic IS FF mirrorless may come true ;D


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Oct 24, 2016)

This isn't based on any research, or understanding of mine. Is it technically possible to move an EF lens closer to the sensor by utilizing the recently rumoured curved sensor development and placing a lens in the body between the mount and the sensor? Just a thought that came to mind.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 24, 2016)

Is the 5DSR II and FF mirrorless be one in the same? Or do we think this body will come in under the 6DII (since the 6DII is 'moving up market')


----------



## Mistral75 (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> *CR: "There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup"*
> = the statement heard round the CR Forum world. That's a _massive_ statement. We've been speculating about this for a very long time!
> 
> So, if true, that would mean that...
> ...



No fourth mount means that the future Canon 24x36 mirrorless camera will adopt either the EF or the EF-M mount.

EF mount:

Pros:
- Existing lens line-up of EF lenses directly useable.

Cons:
- Lack of compactness due to the 44mm flange-to-sensor distance; either thick body à la Pentax K-01 or 'long-nosed body' à la Sigma SD Quattro.

EF-M mount:

Pros:
- Compact body (short register)

Cons:
- Need of a new line-up of dedicated lenses
- Adapter needed to use the EF and EF-S lenses
- Design of 24x36 lenses complicated by the reduced throat diameter (cf. Sony FE).

The terms of the equation are a bit different for Nikon since they can build a new mount from scratch, with a short register and a wider throat diameter à la Leica L mount (Leica T and SL).


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Is the 5DSR II and FF mirrorless be one in the same? Or do we think this body will come in under the 6DII (since the 6DII is 'moving up market')



i wouldn't be surprised to see it be a full frame "rebel" camera.

performance expectations are less, canon can make the full frame camera smaller and cheaper than the current rebels with an EVF instead of penta mirror / AF sensor.

and around the same size as an A7II .. so people really cant complain about the size or weight of it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

Mistral75 said:


> - Lack of compactness due to the 44mm flange-to-sensor distance; either thick body à la Pentax K-01 or 'long-nosed body' à la Sigma SD Quattro.



that keeps on being said, and it's still wrong.

if you account for a reasonable grip, the mount registration distance makes no difference in the body depth.

PS .. the K-01 isn't mirrorless.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Well, that's unfortunate, but unsurprising.
> 
> At least they made the M5, a new macro and superzoom for it prior to that decision.
> 
> Canon will move forward with mirrorless, it'll be less expensive because it requires less investment, but won't come with the weight/size reductions we've seen in the A7R series. A shame, but on FF it's a more logical move, one I personally don't agree with as it's short sighted in my opinion, but keeping costs down is also important so perhaps not so short sighted?



That's the $64,000 question. Is there more money to be made in the setup on the right or on the left? 

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

not much difference .. 

besides.. canon doesn't make small full frame cameras because they really don't see the need to.







that's how small an EF mount mirrorless camera could be, or even slightly smaller.

Size or weight isn't the issue.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 24, 2016)

The SL1, with its full size EF-S mount, is about the same size as the M5, except for depth, and 20 grams lighter. That would be small and light enough for me.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

Bob Howland said:


> The SL1, with its full size EF-S mount, is about the same size as the M5, except for depth, and 20 grams lighter. That would be small and light enough for me.



But would that same body handle a 70-200 f/2.8 well? I hated my old T1i with a 70-200 on it.

I also would hate the feature/dial tiny spacing compared to my 5D3. 

I still think the body needs to be big and chunky to wield the bigger glass we know people will put on it. But _perhaps_ the money Canon saves on *not* doing a new thin mount and new lenses for FF mirrorless might mean that they can financially afford to offer an SL1-style tiny rig and a chunkier 5D-like rig for those who want to slap bigger lenses on it.

- A


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 24, 2016)

Is Canon supporting me to save money?

I was nearly sure about buying the EOS M5 to make use of
- EF-M 2.0 22mm (very compact solution)
- EF-S 2.8 60mm via adapter (compact macro solution)
- FD 2.5 135 S.C. + FD 3.5 135 S.C. (VERY VERY GOOD LENS) + 1.4 50 S.S.C. + 3.5 50 S.S.C. via FD adapter
the fun solutions and interesting vor technical photo- and videography

But this EOS M FF sounds interesting so should I wait or buy the EOS M5? I think I can't and won't wait any longer for newer sensor tech especially DPAF in conjunction with video and an EVF that makes video much easier compared to non-EVF solutions.

Specs for an EOS M FF that are mandatory for me are:
- adaptability of FD lenses
- DPAF
- some external power supply solution e.g. an USB plug which could be fed by a 2A power bank
(10W total should be enough, if not: combine battery + external power supply to serve peak loads).
good combo between compactness and longer duration if needed.
&
- good ergonomics
- very good IQ


----------



## docsmith (Oct 24, 2016)

During the 5DIV tear down, Roger noted that there was a lot of open air in the 5DIV body. His take, and I would be inclined to agree, is that Canon could have made the 5DIV smaller, if it had wanted too. But, instead, they CHOOSE to make it the size they did. They want that form factor.

I have never been on the mirrorless bandwagon and have always thought the "size" argument was overstated (not completely wrong, but just overstated). All the comparisons of the SLR1 to EOS-M, and various lens/body combos have, IMO, shown this. I own the M1 and sometimes do use it for the size/weight benefit, but it really isn't that small with the EFm 18-55 mounted on it. It is more "smallish." I will likely be buying the G7x II for my "small" camera.

All of these leads to my point: I am not expecting a Canon FF mirrorless camera to be that small. Just smaller. If Canon goes this way, they could put in a reasonable battery. So, I am expecting something a bit larger than the Sony, but not much.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 24, 2016)

I applaud any decision to keep the EF mount and not have a new one for FF mirrorless. As the SL1 showed, you can design a camera that becomes smaller and lighter than the typical design. The camera may remain thicker (due to the flange distance) but they certainly can make it less wide and high than their current DSLR FFs.

The main reason I applaud keeping the EF mount and the current flange distance is due to the problems in lens design the very short flange distance creates. Sony's A7 series have the shortest flange distance for a FF camera and having tried the 28-70mm lens kit lens was astounded at how poor the edge performance was. (Blurrier, for example, than the same shot taken with my SL1 and kit lens). And when I say "edge" I'm talking a good 20-30% of the pic being blurry. There are articles on the web that discuss the challenges and shortcomings of the short flange distance with FF sensors, so this is not just my opinion. I know Sony has some patents for trying to improve on edge performance, but when they may become a reality is unknown. People who decide to go FF are normally not the consumers who only stick with the kit lens, but have many lenses including large zooms, so size for FF users won't be their major concern, in my opinion.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > The SL1, with its full size EF-S mount, is about the same size as the M5, except for depth, and 20 grams lighter. That would be small and light enough for me.
> ...



Powershot S95 introduced the ring around the lens base (if I remember that correctly). This should be possible with mirrorless cameras easily. And two rings on a EOS M FF design with standard EF mount gives enough space on a tube extension for two rings with different haptics to set e.g. f-stop and exp. compensation ... so perhaps this is a solution to circumvent cameras which have a too high population density of controls.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > The SL1, with its full size EF-S mount, is about the same size as the M5, except for depth, and 20 grams lighter. That would be small and light enough for me.
> ...



they could do a bigger one .. it really depends on what market they are trying to hit really.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

Where is AvTvM? I'd expect fire and brimstone for this decision.

- A


----------



## marcel (Oct 24, 2016)

The problem is this:
https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/


----------



## sanj (Oct 24, 2016)

Yayyyyyyyy


----------



## jedy (Oct 24, 2016)

mb66energy said:


> But this EOS M FF sounds interesting so should I wait or buy the EOS M5? I think I can't and won't wait any longer for newer sensor tech especially DPAF in conjunction with video and an EVF that makes video much easier compared to non-EVF solutions.


Well, this post offers no real solid news on a FF mirrorless and states late 2017 at the earliest. Are you really willing to wait for a camera that could be a few years away and with no idea what it will look like or how it will function?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

marcel said:


> The problem is this:
> https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/



And overpopulation surely dooms us all. But let's not jump to the inevitable future so fast, shall we? 

There is still money to be made and cameras to be released, and regardless of the soccer moms and hockey dads opting out of a Rebel or point and shoot in favor of a cell phone, there are fundamental limitations with cell phone cameras that will keep SLRs and (better) mirrorless rigs afloat for a long time.

They'll just cost more and come out less often. 

- A


----------



## jebrady03 (Oct 24, 2016)

I didn't read more than the first few posts so I apologize if this is already been said, but Canon has stated on numerous occasions that the entire purpose of the EOS M line is to have a larger sensor camera with a very small form-factor. That's why they have kept the bodies small and kept the lenses as mostly slow aperture zooms. An EF mount FF mirrorless flies in the face of their own logic.

Rather than create a full frame mirrorless that is the size of their current DSLR full frame cameras, why wouldn't they simply invest the resources into a true, 100% functional evf / ovf combo? To me, that makes a hell of a lot more sense. A lot of people quote Fuji's evf / ovf combo but have never actually held it up to their eye. For longer focal length it's pretty worthless. And at wider lengths the lens barrel obstructs the view. The OVA that is. However, dropping an EVF into the current viewfinder space of the OVF in a DSLR and making both fully functional... That's all that really needs to be done for an EF mirrorless FF camera from Canon.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 24, 2016)

docsmith said:


> I have never been on the mirrorless bandwagon ...



Nor have I. I follow these threads because they are interesting and informative from both technological and business standpoints (what will Canon do / what market(s) are they attempting to target, etc.). 

Personally, I love the form factor of FF SLRs, and use mine with battery grips nearly as often as not. I detest using the back LCD as a viewfinder, and don't want to give up my TTL OVF unless / until the EVF becomes so good that I can't tell the difference between the two.

My wife has been using an S95 for the past 4-5 years and is totally satisfied with it. I'm OK with it, since I've convinced her to shoot in RAW mode (I do all the downloading, post processing and image cataloging in our family). If / when she ever outgrows it, I would attempt to persuade her to consider a Gx or an EOS M series body, but she would probably opt for another Sx, as the small form factor is of paramount importance _to her_. I'd never get her to go for an EF-mount mirrorless, FF or not.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > That's the $64,000 question. Is there more money to be made in the setup on the right or on the left?
> ...



Again: some believe mirrorless is all about size and weight. Others do not share that opinion.

The second group would say that there are some things mirrorless can do _that an SLR cannot_ (gasp!):


Peaking for manual focus use
Histo in the viewfinder
Amplify light in a dark room
AF points all over the map (SLRs can't do this through an OVF)
Less mechanical stuff to fail
No need for AFMA
No mirror slap
The ability to adapt older lenses (Canon would appear to be not pursuing this if they go for a full EF mount)
(Someone will insert 5 more things that I forgot)

Keep in mind all these 'pros' are coming from an SLR guy who does not use mirrorless (other than my cell phone). I'm just interested in how the market copes / avoids / embraces / suffers through first baby steps of mirrorless as it's such a big change.

And yes, there are boatloads of cons with mirrorless right now. I'm not mitigating those so much as answering your question above.

- A


----------



## Mistral75 (Oct 24, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Mistral75 said:
> 
> 
> > - Lack of compactness due to the 44mm flange-to-sensor distance; either thick body à la Pentax K-01 or 'long-nosed body' à la Sigma SD Quattro.
> ...


I stand by my words: "either thick body à la Pentax K-01 or 'long-nosed body' à la Sigma SD Quattro." and the Pentax K-01 is definitely a mirrorless camera: it doesn't even have a viewfinder.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > I have never been on the mirrorless bandwagon ...
> ...



+1 on just about everything you said.

But mirrorless will inevitably swallow the whale and take the place of SLRs except in the most AF / responsiveness demanding applications like sports and wildlife. It won't be soon, say 10-15 years, but I could see a 5D line that is only offered in mirrorless, but a 1D-like SLR will always be here to stay.

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> *CR: "There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup"*
> = the statement heard round the CR Forum world. That's a _massive_ statement. We've been speculating about this for a very long time!
> 
> So, if true, that would mean that...
> ...



I like it. It makes more sense knowing that the EOS-M is designed for minimum size. That (APS-C) is where Canon thinks IQ can be maximized while weight and size are minimized. FF will be reserved for flexibility, highest IQ at the cost of weight and price.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

Mistral75 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mistral75 said:
> ...



Key part of the quotes above has been updated. 

I didn't even know there was a Pentax K-01. That's radioactively bad brand naming. I feel like I'm lost in all the sub-brands of the Olympus OM-D. :-\


----------



## drjlo (Oct 24, 2016)

I vote for Canon to keep things simpler for its first attempt at FF mirrorless and hope they copy Sony RX1r as much as possible, mainly a great 35 f/2 fixed lens (with macro mode like Sony if possible) and a body as small as possible. Price will have to be sane.

If that camera is proven to be capable, then an interchangeable lens version to follow..


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> thetechhimself said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



this crowd that assumes that you would not save size and weight by keeping the EF mount make me shake my head.

what would an EF mount full frame camera not have:

- pentaprism
- af sensor and assembly
- mirror assembly
- metering assembly

removing a 100% pentaprism from the camera body will immediately make it lighter. there's a reason why the rebels use penta mirrors. partly for cost, partly for weight as well.

Making it EVF based allows for a much smaller and lighter because you no longer are required to handle 100% viewfinders - from the mirror assembly to the pentaprism. also there's less room required under the mirrobox, since you don't need to have in there the AF assembly.

Canon could make an EVF based EF mount full frame camera smaller than an SL1 - so why do some think that EF mount makes a huge difference here is beyond me.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

drjlo said:


> I vote for Canon to keep things simpler for its first attempt at FF mirrorless and hope they copy Sony RX1r as much as possible, mainly a great 35 f/2 fixed lens (with macro mode like Sony if possible) and a body as small as possible. Price will have to be sane.
> 
> If that camera is proven to be capable, then an interchangeable lens version to follow..



I've long argued that an RX1R or Leica Q like product is a very low risk way for Canon to get batting practice on a highly performing mirrorless rig... but that would likely be a bigger help to Canon for a different/'smaller' rig that has naturally different ergonomics.

If Canon goes with full EF (remember: this rumor only states _it won't be a new mount_ -- I suppose some witchcraft could fashion an EF-S or EF-M solution), one could argue that they have everything they need to go straight to an interchangeable mount FF body right now:


Body ergonomics -- they have a jillion SLR bodies of different sizes to start from
They have mirrorless + DPAF flight hours being logged right now on the EOS M5
They have been making integral EVFs for some time on the fancier fixed lens rigs (and now the EOS M5)

...so one could argue that the 'batting practice' upside of a fixed lens FF rig won't be that much help if they go full EF and (say) start from a 5D or 6D body.

But I could be wrong. Canon may offer a fixed lens FF rig just to get in on the $$$ crowd buying Leica Q and RX1R II models today. 

- A


----------



## infared (Oct 24, 2016)

Well...since they are the last one's to the party....They better do it right. 8)


----------



## jebrady03 (Oct 24, 2016)

infared said:


> Well...since they are the last one's to the party....They better do it right. 8)



To the Sony party? Because as far as I know that's the only company with a full frame mirrorless camera offering.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Well...since they are the last one's to the party....They better do it right. 8)
> ...



Ahem. You forgot a small company from Germany.

- A


----------



## infared (Oct 24, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Well...since they are the last one's to the party....They better do it right. 8)
> ...



For a FF mirrorless camera...correct..(aside from Leica, which I consider fringe)....but my comment was more about a serious, dynamic mirrorless camera. I do not consider the M a contender in the Mirrorless market. Although with hugely declining camera sales across the market...I am guessing there is less money for Canon to put into a great new FF mirrorless system. 
I own a 5DIII and about 10 lenses... and "another manufacturer's" Mirrorless camera, and about 12 or 13 lenses.. 90% of the time I pick up the mirrorless to go shoot. Thinking of selling my FF gear this winter...I am torn about it. As many are.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Oct 24, 2016)

I am only interested if I can use my EF mount lenses without any adaptor. If so I am indeed very interested.


----------



## jebrady03 (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



My bad! I did Overlook them because how many average or even professional photographers give a s*** about them? They are a niche company. Most companies care about product volume . Companies like Sony and Canon. My point still stands however. With so few players in that game, saying Canon is late to the party is ridiculous.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Those are more trivial items though (no offense), especially compared to AF/OVF performance you sacrifice for those. You need something meaningful, not trivial to trade AF/OVF for.
> 
> Some common sense needs to prevail here.



I happen to agree with you and still shoot SLRs principally for their responsiveness and AF, but _it depends on what you shoot_. Product / macro / landscape / astro folks don't care about their AF nearly as much as folks hitting moving targets.

And it's not like SLRs' AF _works_ and mirrorless rigs' AF _doesn't_ work -- it's a not a binary proposition. Not everyone needs ballbusting AI servo AF reliability. In fact, even though I'm an SLR user today, I'd gladly trade my AI servo functionality (which I almost never use for what I shoot) for broader AF point coverage across the frame. I think a lot of SLR users who aren't in 'high responsiveness needed' AF environments would likely make that trade as well.

- A


----------



## scrup (Oct 24, 2016)

What is the point of EF mirrorless camera if there is no size saving. Canon could just spend development on a hybrid OVF/ EVF instead. 

The full frame mirrorless needs to be EFM mount. So Canon can design smaller lenses for it and get people to buy them.


----------



## David (Oct 24, 2016)

Canon will create a new mirrorless line of EF mount lenses that extend into the space of the removed mirrorbox. Like that and without pentaprism the lens camera combo will appear smaller and lighter. The 'old' EF lenses still will work perfectly on such a camera.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 24, 2016)

*There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup.*

There won't need to be a new mount. the EF-M mount will work fine for full-frame lenses. And EF-M crop and FF lenses will be interchangeable - ie EF-M crop lenses will mount fine on a future full-frame mirrorless - they just won't be able to use the full sensor (exactly the same way as E and FE lenses work on Sony ILCs.) 

If anyone thinks that a Mirrorless camera can survive just on standard EF lenses then they have clearly not been looking at the current market very much.

Firstly.... the big advantage of mirrorless lenses is being able to reduce size and complexity by bringing the lens closer to the sensor. Much of the advantage of having a smaller body is lost if you can only use heavier EF lenses. 

Secondly... Canon aren't stupid. They know that a large market for a future FF mirrorless camera is existing users - who will be tempted into buying it because it will be 100% compatible with their existing lenses. Yes, great! That's exactly what we want... But give them lighter EF-M mount FF lens options and many photographers, including me, will start thinking "maybe I should have both." Why miss out on an additional sales line for lenses? 

I also think this may be a reason why there hasn't been a huge flood of EF-M lenses (especially primes) - I think they'll wait until they can produce FF EF-M lenses before padding the range out a bit more.

Where I can see a EF-only mirrorless option is with some kind of hybrid mirrorless/DSLR (ie the rumoured hybrid digital/optical viewfinder.) Although that won't be a true mirrorless camera (mostly because it has a mirror  ) and it won't have any weight advantage over the current bodies, it would be a great thing to have (6D II perhaps? Maybe a APS-C 7D III with the 80D sensor and a hybrid EVF/OVF first?)

Ok... Other possibilities...

Mirrorless camera with built-in ND filters instead of mirror, which would need EF mount

Mirrorless camera with built-in tilt/shift adaptor (as Canon have a patent for), again would need EF mount.


----------



## scrup (Oct 24, 2016)

David said:


> Canon will create a new mirrorless line of EF mount lenses that extend into the space of the removed mirrorbox. Like that and without pentaprism the lens camera combo will appear smaller and lighter. The 'old' EF lenses still will work perfectly on such a camera.



So how would these new EF lenses work on existing bodies? There is no way they will design EF mount lenses that are not compatible with existing bodies. 

The only way is EFM mount. EF users will have to pony up for new glass or use an adapter which Canon will give for free if and when they launch it.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 24, 2016)

Oh, another prediction.

If we see EF-M full-frame lenses, we won't see a different mount name. If they were to do that it'd be highly confusing (unless they'd started with EF-MS, but too late for that.)

So how would Canon indicate that certain EF-M lenses are full-frame capable? Fortunately they already have a way to do this.

It would mean that every FF EF-M lens would be an 'L' series - something that both would be an obvious differentiator to everyone who understands Canon lenses, and also would help position this mirrorless system as a premium 'professional' range of lenses.

So, don't be surprised in the future if we see things like an EF-M 24-70 F/4L IS STM and EF-M 50mm f/1.4L IS STM


Here's hoping, at least....


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 24, 2016)

David said:


> Canon will create a new mirrorless line of EF mount lenses that extend into the space of the removed mirrorbox. Like that and without pentaprism the lens camera combo will appear smaller and lighter. The 'old' EF lenses still will work perfectly on such a camera.



Interesting idea, but lens rear caps would be the strangest things you'll ever see, and I worry they would be too fragile.


----------



## weixing (Oct 24, 2016)

Hi,
IMHO, 5DS/R replacement is a good candidate for Canon first FF mirrorless camera... 

Have a nice day.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 24, 2016)

weixing said:


> IMHO, 5DS/R replacement is a good candidate for Canon first FF mirrorless camera...



Don't disagree with this. Although I do hope the S model dies out and we get a single variant without an AA filter entirely (rather than the bodge solution currently in the 5DSR)


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 24, 2016)

If they're taking the mirror out of an EF body then I really think they should stick a 40mm sensor in there.

The current "Digital Medium Format" craze is all surrounding 44mm sensors (horizontal width), and Canon can get pretty close to that while using the same mount. There shouldn't be any serious drawbacks to using a significantly larger sensor on the same mount, Canon just needs to announce three or four good lenses for use with the larger sensor and then they'll effectively be serving three markets with the same lens system.
And then EF users can become the "crop" system and still use "Extra Luxury" lenses on 35mm if they want.

Measuring the Fuji GFX mount by comparing it to the sensor size in a picture of the prototype, it looks like they've actually got a 90mm outer diameter and 70mm inner throat diameter on the mount, that would actually fit the proper "6x4.5" sized Hassleblad or Phase One sensor size.
That sounds like planning for future expansion.

I think Canon is still going to make another mount eventually, but for now I really hope they just come out with something larger than 35mm, and make a Full Frame EF body that's much smaller than current offerings.

(Side note, I would also love to see an "Expanded APS-C" sensor with a 1:1 aspect ratio, make it 24mm x 24mm so it perfectly fits the vertical size of a 35mm sensor, making the idea of "portrait" and "landscape" orientations redundant.)


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 24, 2016)

scrup said:


> What is the point of EF mirrorless camera if there is no size saving. Canon could just spend development on a hybrid OVF/ EVF instead.
> 
> The full frame mirrorless needs to be EFM mount. So Canon can design smaller lenses for it and get people to buy them.



you don't read prior comments that well do you?
:


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Brain fart, all of your points, are already / (or can be with software) addressed via live view on the existing 5D IV and said functionality is available on the LCD.
> 
> If they aren't going to make another mount, since they already have DPAF in the 5D IV, really they just need to finish that (already) patented OVF/EVF hybrid so you can switch to EVF for live view as desired.
> 
> ...



I've heard this argument before. 'Mirrorless is just shooting with LiveView and you can do that on an SLR today.' 

Except not while handholding the camera to your face. Functionality existing and the user experience benefiting from that functionality on their terms are two very different things.

So I agree that an EVF/OVF hybrid would be a great game changer if well implemented. 

- A


----------



## photonius (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> *CR: "There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup"*
> = the statement heard round the CR Forum world. That's a _massive_ statement. We've been speculating about this for a very long time!
> 
> So, if true, that would mean that...
> ...





actually, with no mirror you can make pancakes that go deep into the mount, even more so than EF-S


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

photonius said:


> actually, with no mirror you can make pancakes that go deep into the mount, even more so than EF-S




Keep in mind that my entire original post you quoted took the CR rumor and interpreted it to mean that 'Canon would offer a full-blown EF mount camera for mirrorless'.

That's only one of three possibilities based on the rumor. Others on this very thread believe EF-M might well serve a FF sensor. So my theory of a full EF mount / no new lenses needed / no adaptors needed / etc. may very well turn out to be incorrect (even if it is quite practical ).

- A


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 24, 2016)

I'd like to see something like the Sigma sd Quattro with some improvement in battery capacity and a better EVF.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 24, 2016)

More than a year's wait ... I almost wish this was CR0 so I wouldn't take it seriously. :-\


----------



## countofmc95 (Oct 24, 2016)

A fixed lens FF camera doesn't interest me too much tbh.

A mirrorless camera with the EF mount excites me quite a bit. I think the Sony experience shows high quality fast mirrorless FF lenses don't get much smaller/lighter than DSLR lenses anyways.

EF lenses like the 35mm f2 IS, 40mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 stm, etc already give you the potential to keep the kit really small, and of course you have the option of using more expensive, faster, bigger lenses as well. So a lot of flexibility and potential with the existing EF lens mount over creating new lenses.


----------



## scrup (Oct 24, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> scrup said:
> 
> 
> > What is the point of EF mirrorless camera if there is no size saving. Canon could just spend development on a hybrid OVF/ EVF instead.
> ...



I saw your SL1 image. I don't see the point of making it mirrorless if it is still going to be that chunky. If its going to be chunky just leave the mirror in it and spend development on the hybrid OVF/EVF.


----------



## pwp (Oct 24, 2016)

It better have a best in the industry EVF. 

-pw


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

pwp said:


> It better have a best in the industry EVF.
> 
> -pw



Canon has so much best in industry upsides _elsewhere_ (lenses, AF, ergonomics, flashes, customer service, etc.) that being 2nd best in sensors and 'acceptable' at the EVF will sell just fine, IMHO.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 24, 2016)

The whole point of mirrorless is to reduce the back-focus. EF/EF-S is 44mm and EF-M is 18mm so I cannot see a mirrorless Canon camera using the EF/EF-S flange distance. To accommodate a 18mm back-focus and cover FF Canon would need to increase the diameter and thus create a new lens system. 
This is more likely a fixed lens camera to compete against Sony.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 24, 2016)

scrup said:


> David said:
> 
> 
> > Canon will create a new mirrorless line of EF mount lenses that extend into the space of the removed mirrorbox. Like that and without pentaprism the lens camera combo will appear smaller and lighter. The 'old' EF lenses still will work perfectly on such a camera.
> ...


The situation is the same as with EF-S lenses. The new lenses work on the new mirrorless bodies but not on the old DSLR bodies, since, by definition, the lenses protrude into the mirror box far enough to interfere with the mirror. In the case of EF-S cameras, the mirror is smaller and EF-S lenses only can be mounted on EF-S cameras. With a mirrorless lens, the new lens can't be mounted on FF and EF-S DSLRs.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 25, 2016)

> With a mirrorless lens, the new lens can't be mounted on FF and EF-S DSLRs.

This would indicate that they would be doing a 4th mount type (ie, it's not EF, and not EF-S) which is apparently what isn't going to happen.


OK. look at the EF-M mount. It was designed to be able to use a full-frame sensor. If they were going to stick to APS-C forever on EF-M they could have used a smaller mount (if you're not sure about this, check out the size of Sony FE and E lenses. Almost identical mount size.)

Now, having said that I really don't think that Canon should do this, I hate to say that I predicted exactly this (a FF mirrorless camera that takes EF lenses only) almost exactly a year ago  

Apologies for the shameless link, but I think it's appropriate in this case.

http://www.everyothershot.com/full-frame-mirrorless-eos-5dm-in-the-works/


----------



## TeT (Oct 25, 2016)

Biggest draw to mirrorless for me is the size reduction... I would not be opposed to a ff mirrorless with some sort of new mount with L equivilent lenses.. Not sure how they could get L glass quality in a smaller package though


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> > With a mirrorless lens, the new lens can't be mounted on FF and EF-S DSLRs.
> 
> This would indicate that they would be doing a 4th mount type (ie, it's not EF, and not EF-S) which is apparently what isn't going to happen.
> 
> ...



no it wasn't really. if it was the electronic pins would have been more centered at the bottom of the mount.

with those pins offset from center, it makes life very difficult to wedge a full frame sensor in there.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The whole point of mirrorless is to reduce the back-focus



nope, it's to reduce mechanical dependancies on the mirror mechanism - you know.. that's why they call it .. MIRROR-LESS .. and not "short registration distance" cameras?


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

scrup said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > scrup said:
> ...



so "chunky" is a problem.

certainly "size" isn't.

considering that would be a full frame camera WITH a 100% viewfinder and could be smaller than that picture.. canon to make it a DSLR, would have to make it considerably larger. and a hybrid viewfinder would be considerably more expensive and most likely force the camera size to be even larger than a 5D .. 

but hey .. semantics .. right?


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 25, 2016)

The specs of Canon's first full frame mirrorless camera unfortunately will be dictated by their internal decision how it will least cannibalize their other products - not their ability to build in great components, or the needs of consumers who discuss this topics here.

Canon will probably never make the "mistake" again by unintentionally overfulfilling expectations like they did with video in the 5D2, when most likely the Canon camcorder department went on the barricades afterwards. Internal politics and egos of anybody at Canon who is responsible for a stable success of traditional DSLRs will try to limit this new mirrorless FF product. That is life.


----------



## Sator (Oct 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Some believe mirrorless is all about size and weight. Others do not share that opinion.
> 
> The second group would say that there are some things mirrorless can do _that an SLR cannot_ (gasp!):
> 
> ...





I never cease to be amazed when people state that focus peaking is an extraordinary technical feature unique to mirrorless camera designs. In fact, Sony had focus peaking in a DSLR A mount body years before they ever made a mirrorless camera. The Pentax K-1 DSLR also has focus peaking. You can even install focus peaking in a Canon DSLR via Magic Lantern. 

As for ability to adapt older lenses, you can adapt plenty of vintage lenses to an EOS mount e.g. Leica R mount or M42 mount lenses. You can even adapt Nikon lenses to a Canon using an adapter. It makes far more sense to do this on a DSLR than on a mirrorless mount. The reason is that arguably the ONE AND ONLY meaningful advantage that mirrorless has is the short flange distance resulting from the elimination of the mirror box from the optical pathway, with reduction of the back focus, and which also permits the elimination of a retrofocal element on short focal length designs. 

If you mount a DSLR lens on a mirrorless you lose this advantage. The DSLR lens is going to have a now completely useless space for the mirror box, and there may be a pointless retrofocal element too. Mirrorless lenses have to be resigned to adapt for the mirrorless mount in other ways, in particular needing to be made as telecentric as possible to reduce the corner angle of light incidence. There is also a rear element specifically designed so as to increase the distance of rear exit pupil from the sensor. DSLR lenses are missing such features and the mismatch between the lens design and the mount design means you will get degradation in performance. Those who naively use adapters are of the "nobody will notice" school...either that or the "image degradation adds character" school. 

If Canon do make a mirrorless EOS mount mirrorless camera that too would be something of a gross oxymoron. A mirrorless camera that takes DSLR lenses means that Canon will eliminate the single most important feature of mirrorless cameras: the ability to improve lens performance through elimination of the mirror box from the optical formula. 

As for Canon not considering creating a new mount, they have patented curved sensor designs, which means a new mount. That is the whole point of a curved mount: the lenses can be made more compact. For that is the great weakness of mirrorless designs for a non-curved/linear sensor design—the need to make lenses telecentric means that the lens ends up becoming ENORMOUS, cancelling out any advance made from making the body smaller. The only way this can be mitigated is with a curved sensor design, and thus a new mount. If Canon can overcome the manufacturing obstacles to producing such sensors, that would be the ideal solution.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 25, 2016)

Looking at the size and weight of the Sony E-mount 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 plus the lack of a supertele lens, it's probably not possible to build a complete mirrorless full frame system that is small and lightweight. So maybe people and companies should understand that it's not the main priority to expect and build small and light camera bodies, when the lenses can't keep up with it anyway.

A 5D4 body with EVF, articulating screen and sensor stabilization would be the bomb. Of course there can be a long list of more features like 4K 60fps, and other stuff coming from Sony, Panasonic or Pentax cameras. But PLEASE Canon don't come up with a new mount, a new form factor and other experiments. A 5D4M (= mirrorless) would absolutely do it to start somewhere.


----------



## Sator (Oct 25, 2016)

weixing said:


> IMHO, 5DS/R replacement is a good candidate for Canon first FF mirrorless camera...



A high resolution camera would the worst possible candidate for a 35mm format mirrorless camera. The problem is autofocus. 

A better term for a mirrorless camera would be an AF-sensorless camera. It is missing an entire dedicated off-focal plane autofocus sensor, and the camera forced to function with a critical element ripped out of it. Trying to get a 120MP sensor to autofocus sufficiently quickly without that extra autofocus sensor would be rather difficult. I can't image many tolerating a model that shot at a maximum of 2-3 fps.


----------



## aero1126 (Oct 25, 2016)

Perfect camera would be combing DSLT and DSLR. Basically make the reflex mirror translucent so some of the light goes to the sensor for the expanded DPAF coverage, while still getting the low light advantages of the dedicated AF module. Think Sony A99ii without losing light during exposure. Combine with Canon colors and ergonomics + lenses, and you have the perfect system.


----------



## Sator (Oct 25, 2016)

scrup said:


> What is the point of EF mirrorless camera if there is no size saving. Canon could just spend development on a hybrid OVF/ EVF instead.
> 
> The full frame mirrorless needs to be EF-M mount. _*So Canon can design smaller lenses for it*_ and get people to buy them.



Another huge misunderstanding that is often repeated. People think that because a mirrorless body is smaller that therefore the lenses can be made smaller too. The opposite is true. The lenses mostly have to be made LARGER. The only exception is with short focal length designs where the omission of a retrofocal element does permit the design to be more compact. 

There are a couple of factors that determine how much of a size blow out you get with mirrorless lens designs:

1. The shorter the flange distance the more telecentric the design has to be and hence the larger the lens
2. The larger the maximum aperture of the lens, the more telecentric it has to be and hence the larger the lens (that's why Sony FE mount lenses are nearly all slower than DSLR equivalents)

But this is the end result of having this sort of telecentric design causing massive blow outs in lens size:





I am comparing the Leica SL 50mm f/1.4, 24-90, 90-280 vs the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II. So much for a "more compact future". 

Keep in mind that the "more compact" size of the Sony a7 range bodies is also to a large extent achieved by amputating more than the mirror and AF-sensor. Other features that have been ripped out include weather sealing, dual card slots, and a decent sized battery to feed the EVF. It's "more compact"...oh great...


----------



## Sator (Oct 25, 2016)

aero1126 said:


> Perfect camera would be combing DSLT and DSLR. Basically make the reflex mirror translucent so some of the light goes to the sensor for the expanded DPAF coverage, while still getting the low light advantages of the dedicated AF module. Think Sony A99ii without losing light during exposure. Combine with Canon colors and ergonomics + lenses, and you have the perfect system.



Agreed.

Pellicle mirror designs (DSLTs in Sony terminology) are a Canon invention. Ricoh have a patent for a digital "Pellix" which changes its translucency to take the shot. With Sony issuing a warning saying they have been flooded with greater than expected numbers of preorders for the a99II, I am waiting for a Canon digital Pellix patent to appear. 

You then eliminate mirror shock, reduce the size/weight of the body, and you get to keep the extra off-focal plane autofocus sensor to achieve ultra fast focus. Canon also have a patent for a stacked autofocus sensor, meaning that there is a lot of scope for engineering innovation in future DSLR designs too.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> The specs of Canon's first full frame mirrorless camera unfortunately will be dictated by their internal decision how it will least cannibalize their other products - not their ability to build in great components, or the needs of consumers who discuss this topics here.
> 
> Canon will probably never make the "mistake" again by unintentionally overfulfilling expectations like they did with video in the 5D2, when most likely the Canon camcorder department went on the barricades afterwards. Internal politics and egos of anybody at Canon who is responsible for a stable success of traditional DSLRs will try to limit this new mirrorless FF product. That is life.



so much hyperbole.
:


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 25, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> > With a mirrorless lens, the new lens can't be mounted on FF and EF-S DSLRs.
> 
> This would indicate that they would be doing a 4th mount type (ie, it's not EF, and not EF-S) which is apparently what isn't going to happen.
> 
> ...


My reply was intended to address the notion of having the rear lens elements of FF mirrorless lenses extend into the mirror box while "keeping" the same EF lens mount. The people discussing the notion seemed to ignore that putting a lens like that onto a mirrored DSLR could be catastrophic.

How do you "know" that the M-mount and E-mount were "designed" with FF in mind? I don't think that Sony expected the Alpha mount to become so irrelevant and, as I recall, Canon has openly stated that the M-mount will never be FF. However, both the E and M mounts are larger than the Nikon SLR F-mount introduced in 1959.

By your definition, is it the same EF mount if Canon changes only the flange distance for FF mirrorless cameras from 44mm to 22mm?


----------



## Sator (Oct 25, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup



Although most readers have jumped to the conclusion that Canon will make a EOS mount (EF mount) mirrorless camera, there is another way of interpreting this. Canon will convert the EF-M mount into a 35mm mount. There is a growing trend towards creating mirrorless mounts with ultra short flange distances e.g. the Sony FE mount with a 18mm flange distance, Leica SL mount with 19mm, and Hasselblad X mount with 20mm. The reason is that the main advantage of mirrorless is the short flange distance and the improvement in lens acutance this can theoretically engender—and which may be the one and only meaningful point to mirrorless designs.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> Apologies for the shameless link, but I think it's appropriate in this case.
> 
> http://www.everyothershot.com/full-frame-mirrorless-eos-5dm-in-the-works/



Au Mg I heart me a good lens chart. Well done.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

Sator said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Some believe mirrorless is all about size and weight. Others do not share that opinion.
> ...



Apologies. Updated it for you. I've never said focus peaking is revolutionary, but LiveView functionality through the viewfinder is better than having liveview solely through the back display. Taking pictures with two hands on the camera a foot from my face like it's a (fancy) cell phone makes me want to smash something with a hammer.

EVF would (in theory) give me a much more responsive closed chain that resembles (and augments) my OVF shooting experience today: not looking at controls or pressing many buttons -- just framing through the VF, making small adjustments and turning a few key knobs, which I can do without looking.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> so much the most hyperbole ever.
> :



Fixed it for you. 

- A


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > The specs of Canon's first full frame mirrorless camera unfortunately will be dictated by their internal decision how it will least cannibalize their other products - not their ability to build in great components, or the needs of consumers who discuss this topics here.
> ...



Canon's products cannibalize each other all of the time. That is part of the reason for Canon's success. There is a great deal of overlap in the system, and for many consumers the cheaper products can easily substitute for the more expensive ones. At the same time, they make a great deal of specialized gear to meet the needs of consumers. Canon could certainly offer a much smaller system and still do well. Also, a company like Canon is run from the top, not by some guy in one department trying to "limit the success" of another department. That sounds like complete nonsense. Why would mirrorless and DSLRs be in different departments anyway? Likely they have the same people working on both. Why not use the expertise they already have, especially to build cross-system integration and familiar controls, etc.?


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 25, 2016)

TeT said:


> Biggest draw to mirrorless for me is the size reduction... I would not be opposed to a ff mirrorless with some sort of new mount with L equivilent lenses.. Not sure how they could get L glass quality in a smaller package though



And that's the rub, at full frame sensor size, once you factor in the lens (assuming fast L glass and not say the shorty forty) the size/weight savings on the body become pretty much negligible. I think you need to drop down to APS-C to really appreciate a size savings by moving to a mirrorless system.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > actually, with no mirror you can make pancakes that go deep into the mount, even more so than EF-S
> ...



Ugh.
Putting a Full Frame sensor in EOS-M would be so lame.
The E mount is exactly the same size and half of what we've heard about it is trouble, Canon should not repeat the same move...
Unless their curved sensor tech turn out.
That was the main problem with the Sony E mount and if Canon can say "we've done the same thing, only better" then that's compelling, otherwise EF mount seems like it would open up better options.


----------



## pokerz (Oct 25, 2016)

USM len designed for off sensor phase detection AF, you have to buy new STM len anyway.
More important, FF dual pixel AF is a battery drainer, ie. 1dx2 with a 30Wh juice in liveview shooting = 260 shoots.


Lithium-ion rechargeable battery,
(CIPA standard, Optical Viewfinder)
1,210
Lithium-ion rechargeable battery,
(CIPA standard, Live View LCD)
260


----------



## davidmurray (Oct 25, 2016)

I don't care for a mirrorless camera unless it has a view finder so that the shot can be framed.


----------



## canonic (Oct 25, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>The product roadmap for mirrorless from Canon has no been finalized and there’s a good chance we’re going to hear a lot of conflicting information over the coming months. The source doesn’t expect any sort of full frame mirrorless announcement until the end of 2017 at the earliest.</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>



_... until the end of 2017 at the earliest_
... too late!


----------



## Zv (Oct 25, 2016)

Am I right in assuming that current EF-M lenses won't cover a full frame sensor if it were possible to fit one into an EOS M today? So, if that's the case it seems unlikely that they would make a mirrorless EF-M mount FF camera. That would need a new class of lenses and possibly confuse consumers who might try and mount regular EF-M lenses. 

My money's on an EF mount FF mirrorless or a fixed lens camera. And due to the deeper flange of the EF mount the camera would be about the size of a 6D or rebel, wouldn't it. Which then begs the question of why bother? 

Fixed lens would be no doubt an expensive niche market thing like the RX1 

New question - would an APS-H (or something similar) work instead? And could that be fitted into the EOS M to make it useable with existing lenses? (Probably not since APS-H is dead, right?)


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 25, 2016)

Pure gold... Hard to imagine working in live view mode and handholding camera with anything longer than 200-300mm attached. For some shooters not even that... Not very practical in my humble opinion.




ahsanford said:


> *Taking pictures with two hands on the camera a foot from my face like it's a (fancy) cell phone makes me want to smash something with a hammer.*
> 
> EVF would (in theory) give me a much more responsive closed chain that resembles (and augments) my OVF shooting experience today: not looking at controls or pressing many buttons -- just framing through the VF, making small adjustments and turning a few key knobs, which I can do without looking.
> 
> - A


----------



## Mistral75 (Oct 25, 2016)

9VIII said:


> (...)
> 
> Measuring the Fuji GFX mount by comparing it to the sensor size in a picture of the prototype, it looks like they've actually got a 90mm outer diameter and 70mm inner throat diameter on the mount, that would actually fit the proper "6x4.5" sized Hassleblad or Phase One sensor size.
> That sounds like planning for future expansion.
> ...



The throat diameter of the Fujifilm G mount is 65mm. It's enough to accommodate a 36x48 sensor (diagonal=60mm) but probably too narrow for a 'full 645' sensor (currently 40x53.4, diagonal=67mm).


----------



## sanj (Oct 25, 2016)

My need is an almost pocketable full frame with a fixed 35mm 1.4 IS and clean ISO at 3200. Built in flash pls.


----------



## pedro (Oct 25, 2016)

canonic said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <p>The product roadmap for mirrorless from Canon has no been finalized and there’s a good chance we’re going to hear a lot of conflicting information over the coming months. The source doesn’t expect any sort of full frame mirrorless announcement until the end of 2017 at the earliest.</p>
> ...


Until then, the price of the by then still great Sony A7sII will be just about right for me as an ultra lowlight body along with my trusty 6D 8)


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 25, 2016)

no matter what rumors say ... there WILL HAVE To BE a new native mirrorless FF mount. Anything else makes no sense. Simple reason: long EF-mount does not allow for small mirrorless cameras. Market for small(er) camera bodies is much larger than market segment wanting big, fat cameras. 

So yes, for a short transitional period there will be 4 Canon lens mounts, but within 5 years there will only be 2 left: EF-M (APS-C) and "EF-X" (FF). EF-S will be phased out first, EF will be maintained longer, especially for those lenses where short flange distance does not bring any optical and/or size advantages (e.g. tele lenses). 

And yes, stupid Canon is highly likely to first bring an expensive *fixed lens* FF camera ("rich man's point and shoot"] 4 years after Sony RX-1/R/II. Canon entry will be even more expensive, have a lesser sensor but a better user interface. 

All of it just to make us wait an extra 1 or 2 years until we finally get a - hopefully worthwhile - Canon mirrorless FF interchangeable lens camera system. Until then, my Canon purchases will be kept to a minimum. Stupid, Canon!


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 25, 2016)

Zv said:


> Am I right in assuming that current EF-M lenses won't cover a full frame sensor if it were possible to fit one into an EOS M today



Probably, but you may well be surprised. One interesting experiment is to take standard Canon EF-S lenses and, with the metabones adaptor, use them on the Sony A7RII FF mirrorless. By default it recognises these are APS-C lenses and crops down accordingly (ie 18mpx 1.5x crop rather than 40mpx full frame), but in the menu you can force it to use the full sensor and then we see some interesting things.

Most lenses I tried comfortably fill a much greater area than the APS-C rectangle (albeit with decreased sharpness and vignetting). The venerable EF-S 18-55 kit lens almost fills the full frame sensor at 24mm with just a tiny crop at the corners!

Certainly if you had an EF-M lens and could fit it on a FF mirrorless camera I wouldn't expect FF coverage in every case, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get more than the APS-C area. 

If I were Canon, I'd announce a new Mirrorless FF camera as (assuming same sensor size as A7RII) a 18/40mpx camera stating that the standard resolution is 18mpx, with 40mpx full frame available only with suitable lenses.
That way there would be much less confusion.


Also.... It's not like Canon has a huge range of EF-M lenses that would become obsolete right now...


----------



## Zv (Oct 25, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Am I right in assuming that current EF-M lenses won't cover a full frame sensor if it were possible to fit one into an EOS M today
> ...



Thank you for your reply! Yeah I think your last couple of points are good ones. There could be a crop mode on the theoretical FF mirrorless for use with existing EF-M lenses that way you get some use out of them while waiting for more EF-Mx (or whatever you want to call them) lenses are being developed. Obviously the EF-M adaptor would work as a way to get full use out of the sensor in the meantime. 

Hey, wasn't there a rumor about a new EF-M adaptor? I wonder if that's related somehow to this rumor? Will it be something that will work on this FF mirrorless perhaps?


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 25, 2016)

What I'd really like to see is the whole front mount area of the camera being detachable, so that you could swap out an EF-M mount for a dedicated EF-mount (perhaps with a built-in ND filter option) , or a dedicated EF Tilt/shift mount. Enterprising third parties could then even replace the mounts with mounts for whatever favourite lenses you prefer, and unlike adaptors this would allow theoretically almost any type of lens to be connected as you'd have much greater control of flange distance.

So who knows, maybe a future canon mirrorless camera could become the de-facto best mirrorless camera for Nikon shooters 

Of course, Canon would never allow that to happen. but still it would be great.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 25, 2016)

Zv said:


> Hey, wasn't there a rumor about a new EF-M adaptor? I wonder if that's related somehow to this rumor? Will it be something that will work on this FF mirrorless perhaps?



yes, but ... the rumoured "speedbooster-type" adaptor would work just the other way round: allowing use of FF lenses on crop sensor camera.  

There is no adaptor and no method to use crop-lenses usable on FF sensors in any meaningful way. Sensors offering "crop mode" is just a poor workaround when no suitable, proper native FF lenses are available ... either because photog does not have them or because manufacturer does not - yet - make them. 

Why is it so difficult for some to understand and accept, that Canon had 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorslapper past and will have 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorrless future? 

Yesteryear/mirrorslappers: 1 full range of EF lenses for full frame cameras and 1 limited line of EF-S lenses for crop-sensor cameras 

Tomorrow/mirrorless: 1 full assortment of "EF-X" full-frame mirrorless optimized [short flange distance] lenses - including fast, big, fat, expensive L-glass - and 1 limited lineup of size- and budget-oriented EF-M crop lenses

Just like Sony did. From A-mount with FF and a crop lens lines to mirrorless E-Mount, again with crop [E] and FF [FE] lenses. 

perfectly fine with me. That's why I have not been buying any EF lenses for some time and limit purchases to dirt-cheap EF-M crop lenses .. until "EF-X" FF mirrorless line finally arrives.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The whole point of mirrorless is to reduce the back-focus
> ...


----------



## Mistral75 (Oct 25, 2016)

Sator said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup
> ...



Something like that?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

Mistral75 said:


> Sator said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



History repeating itself...a year later, almost to the day...



neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
> ...


----------



## Zv (Oct 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, wasn't there a rumor about a new EF-M adaptor? I wonder if that's related somehow to this rumor? Will it be something that will work on this FF mirrorless perhaps?
> ...



Sorry I don't quite understand that bit at the start. I've read it a few times and it's got me confused. 

I was talking about an EFM adaptor version 2, an updated version of the existing one, which allows use of FF lenses on the EOS M. I was asking if this update would be designed to be used just like the current one is but future proofed for this rumored camera. Basically I was implying that there may be a connection between those two events, a clue if you will. Why do we need a new adaptor, I wonder? 

But you seem to be talking about speedboosters and though I've never used one I was under the impression they allow you to use a lens on a body without the "crop penalty" so in essence providing a boost. 

Or do you mean an adaptor that allows you to use existing EFM lenses on this rumored FF body (which would be dumb because if it's EFM mount you could just stick the lens on it and maybe lose some corners due to the smaller image circle, which is why I mentioned the crop mode that uses 1.6 crop of the FF sensor). This wouldn't be ideal but it would at least make the camera backwards compatible with current lenses in a way (essentially making it into a regular EOS M). No adaptor required unless you want to mount an EF lens.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> no matter what rumors say ... there WILL HAVE To BE a new native mirrorless FF mount. Anything else makes no sense. Simple reason: long EF-mount does not allow for small mirrorless cameras. Market for small(er) camera bodies is much larger than market segment wanting big, fat cameras.



Why? Because you say so? FF and small are not synonymous. If one wants small, you go with a smaller sensor. There are a lot of small, mirrorless systems outs there, even Canon has the small/compact crowd covered with their own M line.

I'm with others who have said this camera will be fixed lens (the ultra conservative approach, test the waters sort of deal) or it will be EF mount (I see this more likely). Let's assume EF mount for a minute. I could see them taking an approach of taking basically a 6D or 5D body, maybe some tweaks, and deliver that. Take out the mirror, replace the pentaprism with an EVF, bam, done! Why lose the solid ergonomics that exist on the current cameras that many already love?


----------



## j-nord (Oct 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mistral75 said:
> 
> 
> > Sator said:
> ...



Canon likes to keep us waiting and guessing so we can have the same discussion over the course of years


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > so much the most hyperbole ever.
> ...



Well, no matter which explanation you will find why Canon's current products lack functions, and why Canon's future releases also will be late and limited, the facts remain the same for someone who has to shoot something.

One very natural 2016 job would be the task to shoot 40-50MP photos with high frame rates, and at the same time stabilized mid range video at f2.8. As a Canon user, you need to carry around a 1DX2, 5D4 and 5DsR, plus a 24-70/2.8 and a 24-70/4 IS, and a 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, and still don't have 50-70/2.8 covered with IS. As a Sony user, you carry around an A99II and a 16-35/2.8 lens. You literally spend 40% of the money and carry 40% of the weight compared to the Canon solution.

A lot of common real world scenarios will end like this example. You either spend more or carry more stuff, or you are limited in functionality. And right now it looks as if the disadvantage of being a Canon customer will remain at least until the year 2020. The traditional idea of buying Canon products should be reinstalled, which is to get the overall best products, and not products with some of the best features.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Why is it so difficult for some to understand and accept, that Canon had 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorslapper past and will have 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorrless future?
> 
> Yesteryear/mirrorslappers: 1 full range of EF lenses for full frame cameras and 1 limited line of EF-S lenses for crop-sensor cameras
> 
> Tomorrow/mirrorless: 1 full assortment of "EF-X" full-frame mirrorless optimized [short flange distance] lenses - including fast, big, fat, expensive L-glass - and 1 limited lineup of size- and budget-oriented EF-M crop lenses



Why is it so difficult for some underrstand and accept, that Canon switching to mirrorless isn't like flipping a switch. At whatever point Canon enters the FF MILC market, there will be a _*long*_ overlap where they make both dSLRs and MILC. Consider...the 1Ds, Canon's first FF dSLR, launched in 2002. Until late 2014, Canon continued producing the 35mm film EOS 1v – that's an overlap of ~12 years!

What you're suggesting means *two* full ranges of FF lenses, and *two* limited ranges of crop lenses. Four distinct lines. For a long time. It's very unlikely that Canon will launch a completely new parallel FF MILC lens lineup with a 4th mount variation, given the current state of the MILC market. And speaking of your delusional state... 




AvTvM said:


> Market for small(er) camera bodies is much larger than market segment wanting big, fat cameras.



Pulling data from your ass again? 

MILCs are still the minority in the market, hovering at ~25%. MILC shipments are falling – so far this year they've dropped nearly 20% compared to last year.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

pokerz said:


> USM len designed for off sensor phase detection AF, you have to buy new STM len anyway.


not quite true. with current versions of DPAF, AF using USM is just fine. STM is better for video.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> One very natural 2016 job would be the task to shoot 40-50MP photos with high frame rates, and at the same time stabilized mid range video at f2.8. As a Canon user, you need to carry around a 1DX2, 5D4 and 5DsR, plus a 24-70/2.8 and a 24-70/4 IS, and a 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, and still don't have 50-70/2.8 covered with IS. As a Sony user, you carry around an A99II and a 16-35/2.8 lens. You literally spend 40% of the money and carry 40% of the weight compared to the Canon solution.
> 
> A lot of common real world scenarios will end like this example. You either spend more or carry more stuff, or you are limited in functionality. And right now it looks as if the disadvantage of being a Canon customer will remain at least until the year 2020. The traditional idea of buying Canon products should be reinstalled, which is to get the overall best products, and not products with some of the best features.



I guess that explains why Canon is hemorrhaging market share and Sony dominates the ILC market. Oh, wait... : : :


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> no matter what rumors say ... there WILL HAVE To BE a new native mirrorless FF mount. Anything else makes no sense. Simple reason: long EF-mount does not allow for small mirrorless cameras. Market for small(er) camera bodies is much larger than market segment wanting big, fat cameras.



except as been stated on this very thread. Full frame cameras with 100% viewfinder coverage using an EVF do not have to be necessarily large. they can be made smaller than the SL1, if you are willing to forgo the ergonomics. the SL1, if you remove the flash hump is MUCH smaller than an A7 II.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> One very natural 2016 job would be the task to shoot 40-50MP photos with high frame rates, and at the same time stabilized mid range video at f2.8. As a Canon user, you need to carry around a 1DX2, 5D4 and 5DsR, plus a 24-70/2.8 and a 24-70/4 IS, and a 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, and still don't have 50-70/2.8 covered with IS. As a Sony user, you carry around an A99II and a 16-35/2.8 lens. You literally spend 40% of the money and carry 40% of the weight compared to the Canon solution.



please direct me to your "pharmacist"


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



well actually you're wrong, short back focus doesn't provide a larger image circle nor does it actually assist with vignetting. it's actually more complicated because the variance in even the sensor stacks can cause significant differences in optical performance. In other words, it's harder for third party manufacturers to provide lenses that work well across different cameras and camera systems.

Not to mention that for full frame sensors, a short back focus, then relies on more expensive sensor fabrication, such as BSI, or clever microlenses (which can use their own sets of problems with adapted lenses, or longer focal lenses) to mitigate the issues of the angle of incidence hitting the microlenses, and the lack of light actually getting to the PD's.

it's not the main benefit of mirror-less at all, the main benefit is reducing manufacturing, QC and warranty costs to the manufacturer, and also providing a more homogeneous view for both stills and video. You can't even really say that small primes are an advantage, because it's in a narrow focal range and some people prefer the god aweful look of an EVF over an OVF. of course it's also a benefit for people that like to adapt lenses, but then again, the EF mount already allows a good amount of that.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

sanj said:


> My need is an almost pocketable full frame with a fixed 35mm 1.4 IS and clean ISO at 3200. Built in flash pls.



If the RX1 line of cameras -- with a 35mm f/2 fixed lens that is somewhat buried in the body -- is nowhere near pocketable, good luck with an f/1.4 pulling that off.

I suppose if your pockets are the size of lunchboxes, there is hope. 

- A


----------



## Mistral75 (Oct 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> (...)
> 
> MILC shipments are falling – so far this year they've dropped nearly 20% compared to last year.



To be more specific, according to CIPA data and comparing January - August 2016 (most recent data available) to January - August 2015:

- DSLRs: -18.7% in number of units and -22.1% in sales
- mirrorless cameras: -16.4% in number of units and -10% in sales.

Source: http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201608_e.pdf


----------



## jebrady03 (Oct 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > My need is an almost pocketable full frame with a fixed 35mm 1.4 IS and clean ISO at 3200. Built in flash pls.
> ...



DAMNIT, why would you let reality get in the way of a wishlist item? There'll be NONE OF THAT HERE! You hear me?!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


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



Just kidding, I'm sure Canon is working on it. Right after they give AvTvM his EF-M 80mm f/2 STM IS in pancake format.

- A


----------



## Zv (Oct 25, 2016)

douglaurent said:


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



Yes. Quite natural indeed. I often shoot 1000 or so 50 megapixel images in a row on burst mode and then immediately turn around and shoot video in low light without a tripod. All.the.flippin.time!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

Mistral75 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > (...)
> ...



To clarify, you mean *value of units shipped*, which doesn't necessarily equal sales.


----------



## Mistral75 (Oct 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mistral75 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I mean sales by the mother company to the local distributors, the latter including subsidiaries of said mother company, and definitely not sales to the end users.

I don't know whether the unit prices used correspond to EXW, DAT or any other Incoterms.


----------



## scrup (Oct 25, 2016)

Zv said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



4k video is also in crop mode as seen on the 5d. The crop lenses will still have a use on full frame mirrorless if the mount remains EF-M.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

Mistral75 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mistral75 said:
> ...



it's not even that really. it's the export value.

but for all practical purposes it's nearly impossible to gauge this year because of the Sony fab plant issues.

so unit / sales being down this year has more to do with Sony's sensor plant than the market.

Canon has happily shipped a shi_ton of MILC's this year as well as DSLR's.

Also looking at just the line item summary is disingenuous because it's really the Asian Market that is carrying MILC volumes right now - which is mostly Canon MILC's.


----------



## sanj (Oct 25, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


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



;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Once again you've incorrectly read my post. I did not say shorter back focus provides a larger image circle I said to provide for better distribution of light you need a larger image circle so the micro lenses can uniformly see the light which normally requires telecentric optical designs and a larger image circle without overly complicating microlens designs on sensors. Telecentric designs allow for better control of many abberations with the correct glass types and coatings. 

I made no mention of lens sizes or EVF. Once an optical stack is "known" their are ways of adjusting lens designs slightly to adjust for flange focal distance say 17mm to 22mm for third party manufacturers. We manufacture lenses and sit with other manufacturers regarding open standards and its clear that flange depth has been decreasing and their has been an increase in the design of telecentric lens types.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

Enough chit chat! POLL: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31154.0

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> MILCs are still the minority in the market, hovering at ~25%. MILC shipments are falling – so far this year they've dropped nearly 20% compared to last year.



the only noteworthy fact beneath the numbers is the absolutely astounding number of MILCS sold, given the fact, that the two companies dominating 80%+ of mirrorslapper market, have NO FF MILC system to market and only 1 half-assed APS-C MILC system ... we are talking of 3 current MILC bodies and 6 native mirrorless lenses for all of Canon and Nikon combined [no Nikon 1 is not current any longer, it is dead in the water]. Versus 10+ CaNikon mirrorslappers and a shitload of CaNikon lenses for them. 

I find the number of MILC shipments *astoundingly high*, given the available supply of cameras and lenses! 

Also, those retro Fuji APS-C MILCs and lenses are rather pricey and those Sony MILCs have quite some UI quirks and very expensive and/or subpar glass only ... and the rest is dwarf-sensor m43 stuff only ... to me this indicates that their is STRONG demand in the amrket for smaller, lighter AND fully capable camera systems. Otrherwise people would not buy so many units of the current few MILC offerings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > MILCs are still the minority in the market, hovering at ~25%. MILC shipments are falling – so far this year they've dropped nearly 20% compared to last year.
> ...



That one Canon system is now #3 in Japan, and because of Sony's sensor fab issues, nearly half of that 'astoundingly high' number of MILCs shipped this year are EOS M cameras.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 26, 2016)

I still don't get why people that are happy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum that obviously is all about future Canon products with obviously changed or additional features.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> I still don't get why people that are happy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum that obviously is all about future Canon products with obviously changed or additional features.



I still don't get why people who are unhappy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum that obviously has no impact on the product development decisions that Canon has and will be making.


----------



## Zv (Oct 26, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> I still don't get why people that are happy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum that obviously is all about future Canon products with obviously changed or additional features.



Because speculation and discussion with other photographers around the world is fun? Do you really not get why we talk about future gear prospects in a gear related forum?


----------



## brad-man (Oct 26, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> I still don't get why people that are happy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum (Canon *Rumors*) that obviously is all about future Canon products with obviously changed or additional features.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I still don't get why people who are unhappy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum that obviously has no impact on the product development decisions that Canon has and will be making.



do you pull this opinion out your ass, or do you have facts to prove it? 
I bet, those Canon folks are watching this forum and others rather closely. After all, they even pay some people to write nothing but nice things about them ... ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't get why people who are unhappy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum that obviously has no impact on the product development decisions that Canon has and will be making.
> ...



Just curious: what enthusiastically sought-after new features have been implemented in the short-term? 


Sony-level DR? No
FF mirrorless? No, and apparently not for a year or more.
Video / liveview features (e.g. zebras, focus peaking)? No
Specific lenses? No
Hybrid viewfinder? No
Multiple card slots in all prosumer cameras? No
Specific feature mix / price-point? No


If they're watching, it's only for comedy value.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 26, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> I still don't get why people that are happy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum that obviously is all about future Canon products with obviously changed or additional features.



Because some people are grounded in reality. They recognize that the quality of even the least expensive DSLRs available today are vastly superior to what was available just a few years ago. They therefore don't feel the urge to rant and rave because Canon isn't making the exact toy they want. They also might find it amusing that some people so desperately need to find flaws in everything that they go to extremes to find "defects" that are at best questionable and at worst non-existent. Many people also enjoy speculating about what the future might hold, even if they are basically satisfied living in the present.



neuroanatomist said:


> I still don't get why people who are unhappy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum that obviously has no impact on the product development decisions that Canon has and will be making.



Because it's not about actually effecting any change or even affecting any decisions, it's about being generally dissatisfied with their lot in life and thinking that a thing will make it all better. Or more accurately, largely insignificant changes in things will make it all better. 

The arguments are so bitter because the stakes are so low.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> Just curious: what enthusiastically sought-after new features have been implemented in the short-term?
> 
> 
> Sony-level DR? No
> ...



Well _doi_. AvTvM told us why all those No's on your list happened...



- A


----------



## hubie (Oct 26, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> Taking the mirror out of the equation, EF and EF-S are the same (same flange distance & radius, and same electronics), except EF-S are made for smaller sensors.
> 
> So how is an EF-S mount an option?
> 
> Do all EF-S lenses have an image circle that covers a FF sensor, and Canon will make some trick to prevent EF lenses from being mounted on mirrorless FF bodies?



So a lens that doesn't work properly with ff you would consider the same (even though its the same mount) just because the flange distance is the same? Only in some focal ranges they work, sometimes with heavy vignetting only.

Another lens mount for ff mirrorless is not acceptable to me, too. How much money is wasted just for the body alone? Well, I would still be happy with a good 6D mk ii approach anyway .


----------



## drob (Oct 26, 2016)

Why is full frame mirrorless such a wanted product? Sony has shown that as soon as you start mounting pro level glass on it the size factor is NOT an advantage anymore. I'd just be happy with a DSLR that is competitive and innovative at a good price point.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 26, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> I still don't get why people that are happy with the status quo and current Canon products waste their time in a forum that obviously is all about future Canon products with obviously changed or additional features.



I don't see why some people cannot understand that the realists among us are happy with the status quo but would be wow'ed by a Rebel-sized version of the 1Dx2 (without compromising weather-sealing), a camera that recorded 25hours of full frame 4k video (battery permitting), allowed multi-platform lenses, switchable OVF/EVF, _all at a cost of 6,000 bucks_. 
The only difference between them and you is that they don't whine like a kid whose Christmas has been spoiled and predict the downfall of the Evil Empire Conspiracy because the final product is not what you want. But then again by your own admission no-one makes the product you want which sort of gives a hint why Canon haven't made it.


----------



## David Littleboy (Oct 26, 2016)

drob said:


> Why is full frame mirrorless such a wanted product? Sony has shown that as soon as you start mounting pro level glass on it the size factor is NOT an advantage anymore. I'd just be happy with a DSLR that is competitive and innovative at a good price point.



Because you get things like the Cosina 10mm f.5.6 lens. Because some other lenses (e.g. 16-35, 24-105) could be made (somewhat) better, lighter, and cheaper. And because it could be lighter and easier to use. It wouldn't necessarily replace the DSLR, but it could be a nice complement. But you need a new mount with a 15mm flange distance.

(And you don't have to flap a stupid mirror ridiculously in bust mode.)

For the nonce, the M5's 11-22 and 18-55mm lenses are insanely tiny and (apparently) quite good. The latter is cheap as all getout (it was US$120 or so here), and according to Canon's (calculated) MTF charts, one of the better normal lenses for APS-C. If Canon could do for full frame what the M5 does for APS-C, many of us would be happy campers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

drob said:


> Why is full frame mirrorless such a wanted product?



What makes you think it is? Outside of AvTvM's head, and his utterly unsupported claims of the 'millions of buyers clamoring for it', there's really no evidence for a huge demand.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 26, 2016)

David Littleboy said:


> drob said:
> 
> 
> > Why is full frame mirrorless such a wanted product? Sony has shown that as soon as you start mounting pro level glass on it the size factor is NOT an advantage anymore. I'd just be happy with a DSLR that is competitive and innovative at a good price point.
> ...



Its a cool lens, but how many copies does it sell?


----------



## drob (Oct 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> drob said:
> 
> 
> > Why is full frame mirrorless such a wanted product?
> ...



Seems like the thread suggests it. It would be cool as mirrorless are fun but honestly I'd rather just have a DSLR that improves on sensor tech and other up to date user improvements.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

drob said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > drob said:
> ...



This thread is a CR2 rumor. There was a CR2 rumor about the imminent release of the 100-400 II...in 2010. That release happened...four years later.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 26, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > Biggest draw to mirrorless for me is the size reduction... I would not be opposed to a ff mirrorless with some sort of new mount with L equivilent lenses.. Not sure how they could get L glass quality in a smaller package though
> ...



People who claim a size and weight advantage have never actually compared size and weight.

It is something they read on a forum, it sounds good to them, so they just parrot the mantra.

https://photographylife.com/the-mirrorless-hype

The Sony must be a joy to hold. It looks like an ergonomic nightmare to me.

If Canon comes to market with a FF mirrorless camera it will have good ergonomics and actually have users who want to use the native lenses. Watch out metabones! Well, metabones will be okay. Sony users will still need the adapters.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The Sony must be a joy to hold.



Those new G Master lenses are massive, I agree. The A7 flange distance is never going to change, but I could see a much chunkier grip body come down the pike before too long. 

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> no matter what rumors say ... there WILL HAVE To BE a new native mirrorless FF mount. Anything else makes no sense. Simple reason: long EF-mount does not allow for small mirrorless cameras. Market for small(er) camera bodies is much larger than market segment wanting big, fat cameras.
> 
> So yes, for a short transitional period there will be 4 Canon lens mounts, but within 5 years there will only be 2 left: EF-M (APS-C) and "EF-X" (FF). EF-S will be phased out first, EF will be maintained longer, especially for those lenses where short flange distance does not bring any optical and/or size advantages (e.g. tele lenses).
> 
> ...



Blah, blah, blah. Sony's system is small. Blah, blah.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> So yes, for a short transitional period there will be 4 Canon lens mounts, but within 5 years there will only be 2 left: EF-M (APS-C) and "EF-X" (FF).



Short transitional period? Like the *12 years* during which Canon made both FF dSLRs and 35mm film SLRs?

And you're predicting the death of the dSLR in five years? : ;D : Yeah, that was predicted in 2010. Then in 2011. In 2012. Then in 2013, 2014, and 2015. At the rate the market share is shifting, a 'dead in 5 years' prediction for dSLRs should come true when that prediction is made in about 2026.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > The Sony must be a joy to hold.
> ...



must be a joy to hold as well in that setup with gloves or somewhat thick fingers.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 26, 2016)

drob said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > drob said:
> ...



+1 I'm eagerly awaiting the 6D2 next spring. Or I may get stupid and upgrade to a 5D4. Either way, at full frame sizes and the lenses I like to attach, I want the current size camera bodies and please give me an OVF.

Besides seeing current camera settings and such (which you get in both EVF and OVF) the main purpose I use either for is framing/composition of the shot. The WYSIWYG claims many argue just isn't there in any of the EVFs I'm used with colors often not being very accurate, brightness etc.

And shooting outdoors in bright sunlight. The beauty of an OVF is that it's brightness increases proportionally with ambient light. An OVF is very bright on a sunny day, not usually the case for an EVF. Also, I'm usually wearing sun glasses and my personal experiences have had issues at time with the very bright ambient light (reflecting from my sunglasses or coming in from just the correct angle behind me) not triggering the eye sensor and not turning on the EVF as I bring my eye to the viewfinder to take the shot. Obviously there are some less then ideal work arounds, but again, just issues I don't have shooting with a DSLR.


----------



## setterguy (Oct 26, 2016)

*Re: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless [CR2]- Using a Sony A7*

I have been a Canon user for decades and now use a 7DII and a 6D with L glass but have been intrigued with the Sony A7 mirrorless camera. I purchased one about six weeks ago and the experience has been very enlightening. I really spent a significant amount of time trying to fully understand the Sony which will continue be a work in progress. However having just completed almost a month trip to Italy, France and Switzerland I have to admit that the A7 is a fantastic landscape camera. It is beautiful to hold but looses some of that compactness when you match it up with Canon glass. I used a Sigma MC 11 EF-E mount converter which works really well with the Canon fixed and zoom lenses. The real beauty of the camera is its AF capability and the ability with the EVF to actually see what the picture will look like. As you change, F-stop, speed, ISO settings you see the difference in the viewfinder. The smaller foot print takes awhile to get comfortable with but once you use it and switch back to my 6D the camera seems huge. I look for lots of improvement in the months and years ahead with this technology. One major disappointment is no GPS, secondly the battery life is terrible but overall Sony has done an outstanding job and it is directly related to the camera output of fantastic images. I am anxious to see if Canon can approach Sony's present level of technology with the new Mirrorless full frame camera.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 26, 2016)

I think there are a couple arguments for mirrorless:

1) EVF - for exposure preview and in particular with customizable options of what data to display
2) no mirror can allow for higher fps 
3) Size and weight can improve if you are happy to use slower/compact lenses.

I don't think #1 and #2 are technologically at a point where I find them compelling over DSLR, particularly when you factor in some of the current cons to mirrorless such as AF and battery consumption. This technology will definitely improve in the not so distant future but I won't be jumping on any 1st gen FF mirrorless system from Canon.


----------



## JP (Oct 26, 2016)

The way I see it happening... is in the way the D30 preceded the 1D, after Nikon came out with their D1.. Gosh... remember how the D1 changed the world..? I sure do... Every newspaper bought their staff shooters D1 cameras and Nikon lenses, plus a Tamron 14mm f3.5, and sold their Canon film gear to make it happen... That was because Nikon did their homework, and they took a huge chunk of the professional market away from Canon..........until Canon released the 1D.. slowly, the newspapers dropped their "crappy".. Nikon stuff and switched back to Canon, because Canon had a much better product... 

Watch and see what happens with Canon.. I'm guessing from experience, when Canon introduces their FF Mirrorles camera body, it will be significantly better than a Sony (or Nikon) product..


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Oct 26, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > TeT said:
> ...



In the comments after the article it was said that FF has no purpose any longer due to wide angle lenses like the Sigma 8-16mm. Without disputing the image quality of the comparable lenses, I'd have to say a statement like this can't be made until the day comes that someone makes a 10mm tilt-shift for APS-C. The TS-E 17mm is the main driving force behind me wanting to add a FF body to my kit. 

I'm no professional, I wouldn't even claim to be the maker of great images, I just enjoy the challenge and process of trying to improve. I don't think it is possible to be so general as people like to be when stating equipment requirements that can satisfy the masses.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

JP said:


> Watch and see what happens with Canon.. I'm guessing from experience, when Canon introduces their FF Mirrorles camera body, it will be significantly better than a Sony (or Nikon) product..



Likely true, but it depends on what you value:

Canon upsides: Ergonomics, menus, familiar controls and handling for Canon users, lenses, flashes, build quality, customer service

Sony upsides: They haven't been held back by the expectation of decades of loyal users -- this gives them some room to innovate with smaller risks of alienation -- they could roll out something nutty that turns out to be a big hit. They also have those damn good sensors.

Of course, I'll take Canon on balance.

- A


----------



## bencam (Oct 26, 2016)

Something like the 80D would be a good size for Canon's full frame mirrorless. There's more internal volume than the Rebels, would still be noticeably reduced in size from the 5D series and still be substantial to handle those big 2.8 zooms and 1.4/1.2 primes. 

I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).

It makes so much sense for Canon to develop a FF ML that would use its EF range than play catch-up creating new FF ML lenses (and of course for its user base, if they want, to just swap DSLR and ML bodies!), especially now that Sony's shown that anyway once you go 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes the lenses are a similar size.


----------



## Mr. Shakes (Oct 26, 2016)

marcel said:


> The problem is this:
> https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/



I prefer the free-weight masochism of the 5D's & EF Lenses, so please keep Canon focused on making better primes!


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Oct 26, 2016)

Mr. Shakes said:


> marcel said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is this:
> ...



The chart shows bad news for digital cameras in general, however, the numbers of interchangeable lens cameras are greater during the decline in total numbers than they were during the accent to the best year for digital cameras.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

bencam said:


> I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).



IBIS is no guarantee with a Canon mirrorless rig, if that's you meant above. (Does Canon sell a single IBIS body today with an interchangeable lens mount?) Wouldn't they just tell us to buy an IS lens for that EF mount?

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 26, 2016)

bencam said:


> Something like the 80D would be a good size for Canon's full frame mirrorless. There's more internal volume than the Rebels, would still be noticeably reduced in size from the 5D series and still be substantial to handle those big 2.8 zooms and 1.4/1.2 primes.
> 
> I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).
> 
> It makes so much sense for Canon to develop a FF ML that would use its EF range than play catch-up creating new FF ML lenses (and of course for its user base, if they want, to just swap DSLR and ML bodies!), especially now that Sony's shown that anyway once you go 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes the lenses are a similar size.



since canon has zero IBIS patents.. I wouldn't expect it.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 27, 2016)

An interesting article that discusses some of the shortcomings of having both a small flange distance and a narrow mount diameter. So, while those aspects may be popular to make the cameras and lenses smaller, they negatively affect image quality and make designing lenses more difficult. As I mentioned earlier, I witnessed the very poor edge performance of the Sony kit lens when using the very short flange distance of the Sony A7 and A& II. It could have been the lenses (I tried two) but when taking pics with the adapter and a Canon lens, the edge performance was greatly improved, making me believe that the problem is the short flange distance.

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


----------



## bencam (Oct 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> bencam said:
> 
> 
> > I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).
> ...


A FF ML would be a great time for Canon to start putting IBIS in their bodies. Even Sony's IBIS-equipped ML started with the FF A7II and not with their crop A6000.

For Canon, if it starts doing IBIS, instead of saying, go buy the cheaper non-L 24/28/35 IS primes, they can instead say, go buy the L primes because IBIS "breathes new life" into the more expensive red rings or some marketing spiel. Or hey, you don't have to settle for the cheaper 24-70/105 F4 IS zooms, because now IBIS will make the more expensive 2.8 work out too for when you think you'll need IS.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> drob said:
> 
> 
> > Why is full frame mirrorless such a wanted product?
> ...



I like the idea of a camera without the moving mirror, because that mechanism is a likely failure point, and because less vibration is always better.

The problem is that with the new dual pixel cameras, one only need put the camera into live view mode, and it becomes a EF mirrorless camera that has slow but accurate autofocus, and the usual poor battery life. 

So, I ask myself what is the point of a dedicated mirrorless when I can have both?

Until Canon figures a way to have fast AF in a mirrorless body, having the option to use a camera as a DSLR or a mirrorless that takes EF lenses seems like what I want.

Now, a small camera like the M5 might cause me to sell my G1X II, but that remains to be seen. 

I'd call a FF fixed lens mirrorless a FF point and shoot. It also might replace my G1X II.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 27, 2016)

People say that camera sales are massively falling because of smartphone use - but nobody talks about one major difference between smartphones and DSLRs:

- With a current iPhone 7 or Samsung S7, hardly any realistic wish for features and functions is left open. It's very hard to imagine which real essential things the manufacturers should come up with in the future. If you own one of the top smartphones of one of the leading manufacturers, there are no real reasons to complain about the few specs that are better in the competitor's product. You can survive with the functions of the current smartphones for decades, and it feels like as if everything's there.

- With a Canon DSLR that is 5-10x as expensive, you can easily make a realistic future wish list of a few dozen relevant missing points, because those functions are already implemented in lots of other existing products by the competition (many in mirrorless cameras). While the quality of the cameras is great in itself and you can use them for many years to come, a lot of things are limited, and logistics and workflow are not as convenient as they can be. A lot of extras and multiple devices need to be bought to be able to have allround capabilities.

Final result is: A 2016 smartphone just feels good and not like an expensive thing to buy for what it gives you. A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do. That is also the main difference to Sony. An A7RII or A99II feel much more as if it's the best Sony could come up with at the time. 

Maybe Canon should try to release products that include all they can give at the moment, and more people than now will see the reasons why it makes sense to buy them and feel good about it, although they have a smartphone and/or an older Canon product.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do. That is also the main difference to Sony. An A7RII or A99II feel much more as if it's the best Sony could come up with at the time.



So _that's_ why Sony is selling so many more ILCs than Canon. Oh, wait... : :


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 27, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> People say that camera sales are massively falling because of smartphone use - but nobody talks about one major difference between smartphones and DSLRs:
> 
> - With a current iPhone 7 or Samsung S7, hardly any realistic wish for features and functions is left open. It's very hard to imagine which real essential things the manufacturers should come up with in the future. If you own one of the top smartphones of one of the leading manufacturers, there are no real reasons to complain about the few specs that are better in the competitor's product. You can survive with the functions of the current smartphones for decades, and it feels like as if everything's there.
> 
> ...



+1 - full agreement. 

No matter, how much the Canon Defense League may be in denial.

However, smartphones still have 2 major disadvantages vs. (good) dedicated cameras: 
* fixed focal length or puny zoom range, no possibility to change lenses/focal lengths
* no viewfinder

yes ... many users are willing and able to live with these constraints and capture excellent images despite of it.
but ... smartphones are no truly universal photographic tool 
and ... most existing cameras are neither

Thats why I am pushing for as small as possible but fully functional solid state cameras - with capable sensor, capable AF system, capable viewfinder and capable lens mount and lenses. 

In APS-C sensor size Sony A6500 + E-lenses and Canon EOS M5 plus EF-M lenses and Fuji XT-2 and X-lenses are "almost there", with various deficiencies in all 3 systems. 

In FF sensor size, only Sony has an entry with A7 II cameras + FE lens family. But is is still some ways off, namely: current A7 II camery bodies are too bulky [goal would be RX1R II size and form factor], UI is still far from ideal and most importantly: there are no good, small and affordable FE lenses available. 

Meanwhile, in late 2016 neither Canon nor Nikon nor the rest of the industry have anything on offer in the mirrorless FF category. And if anything at all, Canon is likely to bring a *fixed-lens* FF mirrorless compact cam only, which shares ione of the 2 main deficiencies with smartphones, only at a much higher pricepoint ... stupid, Canon! Very stupid. And they don't live up to it, but prefer to attribute sinking profits to Brexit and currency fluctuations instead. Crazy stupid. :


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 27, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do.



So glad you feel you can talk on my behalf.
If I paid a shedload of money for something and felt that the company had left out a load of stuff they could have put in _with no impact on cost, _it would not feel expensive it would make me feel they are a load of cheapskates and I'd ditch them without hesitation. 



> An A7RII or A99II feel much more as if it's the best Sony could come up with at the time.


So Sony have a AF that is clearly inferior to Canon and that is understandable because it is the best they can do. Canon leave out a few things you would really like and they are cheating you. 
Peddling such biased bullshit as valid critique is ridiculous.


----------



## pokerz (Oct 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> bencam said:
> 
> 
> > I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).
> ...


Canon made Electronic 5 axis IBIS system for its latest revolutionary mirrorless. ;D


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 27, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do.
> ...



Did you try the A99II AF? I guess not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> +1 - full agreement.
> 
> No matter, how much the Canon Defense League may be in denial.



Apparently facts and data offend you somehow. How sad. :


----------



## Azathoth (Oct 27, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Did you try the A99II AF? I guess not.



To my knowledge that camera is not out yet.... so one can only imagine and look at the specs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

Azathoth said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Did you try the A99II AF? I guess not.
> ...



But douglaurent knows it's awesome and as good if not better than a high-end dSLR. He just knows. Trust him. : : :


----------



## hmatthes (Oct 27, 2016)

_"Meanwhile, in late 2016 neither Canon nor Nikon nor the rest of the industry have anything on offer in the mirrorless FF category. And if anything at all, Canon is likely to bring a *fixed-lens* FF mirrorless compact cam only, which shares ione of the 2 main deficiencies with smartphones, only at a much higher pricepoint ... stupid, Canon! Very stupid. And they don't live up to it, but prefer to attribute sinking profits to Brexit and currency fluctuations instead. Crazy stupid."_

IMHO the Leica M is a 10 year old line of FF mirrorless cameras. Cons: no autofocus, no IS, rangefinder Pros: perhaps the finest glass on the planet, very quiet, drains your wallet faster than anything else!
The one year old Leica SL is more like what the ML Canon should be: FF, world's best EVF, incredible ergonomics.
Cons: huge SL lenses (but you can use M lenses easily) -- even faster wallet draining.

Give me a 6D sized body with stellar EVF & flawless EF adapter and I'll buy it. I've shot EOS since 1987 and I know the Canon way of doing things. Plus I own good Canon glass. IBIS and Leica adapter would just be gravy on a great meal!


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 28, 2016)

Azathoth said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Did you try the A99II AF? I guess not.
> ...



Or test it for an hour at Photokina like I did.


----------



## douglaurent (Oct 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Azathoth said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



Yes, I know the comparison. As I own the 1DX2 since day one, and did spend enough time with the A99II at Photokina.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Azathoth said:
> ...



I'm sure there were plenty of fast, erratically-moving subjects in the convention hall in Cologne. Well done!


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


The subjects don't have to move if the photographer moves the camera to focus on several subjects at widely varying distances.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2016)

Bob Howland said:


> The subjects don't have to move if the photographer rapidly moves the camera to focus on several subjects at widely varying distances.



Did you and douglaurent take the same course in logic? To you, is the ability to focus rapidly on a new subject the same as the ability to track a single subject as it moves toward or away from you? Or do you believe that moving the camera a few inches simulates a subject rapidly moving toward or away from the camera? For most of us, they're different. Standing at the corner of the field and tracking a single player running toward you as s/he passes among other players and referees on the field, for example.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 28, 2016)

How about if you look thru the vf, run really fast and...


----------



## dak723 (Oct 28, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> - With a Canon DSLR that is 5-10x as expensive, you can easily make a realistic future wish list of a few dozen relevant missing points, because those functions are already implemented in lots of other existing products by the competition (many in mirrorless cameras). While the quality of the cameras is great in itself and you can use them for many years to come, a lot of things are limited, and logistics and workflow are not as convenient as they can be. A lot of extras and multiple devices need to be bought to be able to have allround capabilities.
> 
> Final result is: A 2016 smartphone just feels good and not like an expensive thing to buy for what it gives you. A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do. That is also the main difference to Sony. An A7RII or A99II feel much more as if it's the best Sony could come up with at the time.
> 
> Maybe Canon should try to release products that include all they can give at the moment, and more people than now will see the reasons why it makes sense to buy them and feel good about it, although they have a smartphone and/or an older Canon product.



Having tried the Sony A7 and A7 II (and returned them both, I certainly hope this is not the best Sony can do. EVF no where close to the quality of the Olympus E-M1, Color is bland, IQ is poor at the edges of the frame due to a too short flange distance, wide angle lenses are too difficult to make for the same reason (according to Leica execs), ergonomics are poor, etc. etc. 

If you are just counting the number of specs - yes, Sony wins and Canon has left out many things. If counting specs is most important then Sony should be your choice. 

As far as all around capabilities, Canon has at least 3 camera lines (1D, 5D and 7D) that can do everything anyone could want. And they do the important things (in my opinion) as well or better than anyone else: AF, exposure accuracy, color, reliability, ergonomics. I realize that isn't good enough for some folks, unless they do EVERYTHING better than everyone else. 

As I've mentioned before, when people complain it tells us a lot about them and very little about Canon. You can complain about what your camera doesn't have or you can be grateful for what it does extremely well.


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 28, 2016)

I would like to confirm what Neuro just said: there is a big difference between tracking chaotically and rapidly moving object ( background stays relatively static) or just moving camera few inches away ( both object and background moves with identical angular speed). 

On unrelated note, I would like to stress the point that according to multiple sources, IBIS does not work that well with longer glass. Thats where you would really like your image stabilisation to be efficient. So as far as I am aware, MILC tech is not quite ready for challenging Sports, Action, BIF segment of the market. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > The subjects don't have to move if the photographer rapidly moves the camera to focus on several subjects at widely varying distances.
> ...


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 28, 2016)

dak723 said:


> Having tried the Sony A7 and A7 II (and returned them both, I certainly hope this is not the best Sony can do. EVF no where close to the quality of the Olympus E-M1, Color is bland, IQ is poor at the edges of the frame due to a too short flange distance, wide angle lenses are too difficult to make for the same reason (according to Leica execs), ergonomics are poor, etc. etc.



If I understand correctly, if the flange distance is too short, the manufacturer could compensate by making the lens longer, putting more distance between the last element and the sensor. In other words, its a trade off between lens size and IQ.

Am I missing something?


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 28, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> If I understand correctly, if the flange distance is too short, the manufacturer could compensate by making the lens longer, putting more distance between the last element and the sensor. In other words, its a trade off between lens size and IQ.
> 
> Am I missing something?



I believe that is a good summary. And it is something that has been pointed out several times - extending the distance from the last element to the sensor is the same thing as increasing the flange distance. So although the mirrorless may be made smaller, the size of the lens offsets any advantage in overall length. You are then handling a bigger lens on a small body which some find uncomfortable - or you buy the grip, and.....


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ..
> I'm sure there were plenty of fast, erratically-moving subjects in the convention hall in Cologne. Well done!



AF tracking imaging gear makers' staff when they erratically run away from me as soon as I approach their stand and want to ask them something, required considerable AF capability.  ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2016)

AvTvM said:


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



"Egad, here comes that guy who's crazy about some 85/2.4 IS pancake lens...*RUN!!!*"  ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 28, 2016)

I don't feel "let down" by Canon current technology in cameras & certainly not in optics. I feel however its perfectly acceptable that others would not agree and in a free society have the ability to say so. Chastising every comment someone makes we see as negative to the point of making it personal is a weakness in the person making the comment and is unhealthy. I'm guilty of this from time to time but some go too far and should read back before they post.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 28, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I would like to confirm what Neuro just said: there is a big difference between tracking chaotically and rapidly moving object ( background stays relatively static) or just moving camera few inches away ( both object and background moves with identical angular speed).
> 
> On unrelated note, I would like to stress the point that according to multiple sources, IBIS does not work that well with longer glass. Thats where you would really like your image stabilisation to be efficient. So as far as I am aware, MILC tech is not quite ready for challenging Sports, Action, BIF segment of the market.
> 
> ...



We're going to have to agree to disagree about this. I've been running my little test in camera stores for about 20 years (I've owned Elan II and EOS-3 film cameras and 10D, 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D DSLRs.) - put the camera in Servo AI and move it around the scene, forcing it to adjust focus the whole time. There is a very strong correlation between the camera's ability to focus in that visually chaotic situation and its ability to function at Watkins Glen International or a motocross track. I'm sticking with that opinion until one of you can produce solid, replicatable data to the contrary.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 28, 2016)

Bob Howland said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to confirm what Neuro just said: there is a big difference between tracking chaotically and rapidly moving object ( background stays relatively static) or just moving camera few inches away ( both object and background moves with identical angular speed).
> ...



That maybe worked out well enough years ago when Ai Servo was nothing more then continuous focus on a point. But to the point made by others, tracking an object, individual is more nuanced then that. With the algorithms in the cameras these days they are not expecting the subject to magically transport 10 meters to a different location. Like when tracking a player, if another player moves in front of the subject, the camera is not going to instantly change focus as it's expecting you want to continue on the subject. So while you are pointing the camera around the store, you're probably not even seeing the camera focus as fast as it can as it's delaying focus briefly before deciding it's time to acquire a new subject. Now throw those new fancy RGB meters that started showing up with the 7DII and the camera can now sort of see the subject and that aids in tracking as well.

In short, subject tracking of a subject in motion and moving around and focusing on static subjects is really more an apples and oranges comparison.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2016)

Bob Howland said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree about this. I've been running my little test in camera stores for about 20 years (I've owned Elan II and EOS-3 film cameras and 10D, 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D DSLRs.) - put the camera in Servo AI and move it around the scene, forcing it to adjust focus the whole time.



How do you evaluate focus using your little test in a camera store? Seeing the AF point(s) jumping around in the VF or on the rear LCD? Or properly, by viewing the images at full size on a monitor (or print/projected slide, in the case of film cameras)?

An AF point lit up over a subject doesn't necessarily mean the subject is in focus. An example from my 7D...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 28, 2016)

Bob Howland said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree about this. I've been running my little test in camera stores for about 20 years (I've owned Elan II and EOS-3 film cameras and 10D, 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D DSLRs.) - put the camera in Servo AI and move it around the scene, forcing it to adjust focus the whole time. There is a very strong correlation between the camera's ability to focus in that visually chaotic situation and its ability to function at Watkins Glen International or a motocross track. I'm sticking with that opinion until one of you can produce solid, replicatable data to the contrary.



My micro four-thirds cameras focus (one Olympus and one Panasonic) way quicker than my 7D, but you get an E-M5 to track anybody above walking pace...
Your test is a decent guide but as Luds34 says, the algorithms now do so much more and is as much about prediction as it is about actual tracking (which if you think about it is seeing something that has already happened).


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 28, 2016)

This little ( actually, not so little) RC buggy was moving chaotically at 50-70km/h speed. Just a fun shot @300 F2.8 (Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports, handheld, 15m distance to subject approx.) but serves as a solid example of how good AF of modern Canon DSLR can be.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 28, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> This little ( actually, not so little) RC buggy was moving chaotically at 50-70km/h speed. Just a fun shot @300 F2.8 (Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports, handled, 15m distance to subject approx.) but serves as a solid example of how good AF of modern Canon DSLR can be.



That's a great shot Alex, love frozen action, mud in the air, buggy catching air, etc.

How is that Sigma Sport lens? Do you find AF working pretty well? In that do you get shots like that above regularly or is hit and miss sometimes? I had heard the old Sigma 120-300 struggled with tracking/action.


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 29, 2016)

*Luds34*
Thank you, sir! I thought that AF being is very consistent and accurate with the lens. Nothing like the *old* Sigma Art line of product. I guess, thats due to the fact that Sigma used High Torque HSM motor in the Sports lens. I was getting consistenlty sharp shots with the lens. I took some 50 shots on that day and may be 2 or 3 those were out of focus. I found AF speed to be slower than of modern Canon Big Whites but acceptable. This could be also due to suboptimal AF settings on the lens but that could be adjusted via USB Dock. Image Stabiliser performance is also very very solid. I do not have first hand experience with the older lens but it seems that the current Sports model is a better performer?
I bought the lens for about A$2,350.00 ( open box, returned to store) - approx. US$1785.00 and thought that it was very reasonable price to pay at the time.
P.S. The lens is quite a challenge to handhold at approx. 3kg but manageable.

just one more fun shot taken on the same day, @300 F2.8, nothing spectacular as far as composition goes but could be useful for someone who is curious about the lens capabilities.








Luds34 said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > This little ( actually, not so little) RC buggy was moving chaotically at 50-70km/h speed. Just a fun shot @300 F2.8 (Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports, handled, 15m distance to subject approx.) but serves as a solid example of how good AF of modern Canon DSLR can be.
> ...


----------



## PHOTOPROROCKIES (Nov 17, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> I don't feel "let down" by Canon current technology in cameras & certainly not in optics. I feel however its perfectly acceptable that others would not agree and in a free society have the ability to say so. Chastising every comment someone makes we see as negative to the point of making it personal is a weakness in the person making the comment and is unhealthy. I'm guilty of this from time to time but some go too far and should read back before they post.



I would have to agree with you, people get way to defensive over something that you really don't need to. I love Canon, I've shot canon for 8 years. I've used tons of different bodies. I currently shoot with a 60D and a 24-70mm version one, and a few months ago I bought the 100-400 version 2. I LOVE this lens. Now that I own it I will probably never give it up. It's so sharp and the IS just blows me away. That being said, Canon doesn't currently have a camera I really want to upgrade to. 
Part of me wants a huge sensor like the 5DSR for huge prints and the ability to crop in that much more, but the Camera feels rushed to me. The other features just aren't there. 
I've been working in a camera store for awhile now and when I started I thought Canon and Nikon were the end all be all. That just simply isn't the case anymore. Canon and Nikon still have impeccable cameras and in my opinions the best lens line ups. 
Now Olympus drops the EM-1 Mark II, let me tell you... If I didn't currently own and love the 100-400, I'd already have pre-ordered the thing. It's stupid fast, 60fps FULL res raw images, 121 cross-type af points, built in 5 axis stabilization, and has some crazy innovative new features that would be amazingly handy. Where Olympus is lacking in my opinion though is their lens line up. They have some good ones and they have quite a few awful ones. 
Though I am going to stay loyal to Canon for a few more years and hope to hell they do something.


----------



## tnargs (Feb 15, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> More to come…


Those words usually mean, like, the next day, you know..... I mean, everyone already knows this is not the last Canon FF mirrorless rumour _ ever_


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 2, 2017)

I hope not, we dont need another mount.


----------

