# What will be the mirrorless full-frame mount?



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

After all the hubbub caused by the recent CR2 on the FF mirrorless mount situation, what say ye?
*
Don't vote what you want -- vote what you think will happen.*

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

EF-M. One and done.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2016)

As I recall, Chuck Westfal once said that the EOS-M mount was not adequate for FF. Canon has a patent on a new mount for mirrorless FF as well as a EF adaptor. 

Since EOS M lenses will not cover FF, I expect another new mount. This has the advantage (for Canon) that Canon can enforce their patent, and make it difficult for third party lens makers to compete.

Personally, I'd be happy with faster AF in a FF body. Canon does not yet have fast AF with their FF sensors using their dual pixel sensors. 

I see no reason for Canon to produce a FF mirrorless except for those wanting a smaller body, and a new set of consumer grade lenses.

A 80D, 5D MK IV, 1DX II, and 7D MK II can all be operated in a mirrorless like mode using live view mode, complete with short battery life and slower autofocus. They have a huge advantage in that they can also operate as DSLR's with much better performance, and use EF lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As I recall, Chuck Westfal once said that the EOS-M mount was not adequate for FF.



Interesting. Since the Sony FE mount (for FF sensors) actually has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount, I'm not sure why that would be the case.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A 80D, 5D MK IV, 1DX II, and 7D MK II can all be operated in a mirrorless like mode using live view mode, complete with short battery life and slower autofocus. They have a huge advantage in that they can also operate as DSLR's with much better performance, and use EF lenses.



We have heard this many times, and yes, the ability to shoot Live View if you want and go back to vanilla mirror SLR use is undoubtedly an upside. 

But while Live View is great, but it's not the true mirrorless photography experience of having a customize-able viewfinder with all the feedback you do (or don't) want while the camera is in its ideal handhold shooting posture with your eye on the frame and the ability to change settings without looking at knobs/dials/buttons. (I cannot stand shooting handheld in Live View.)

- A


----------



## unfocused (Oct 25, 2016)

Years of reading CR have taught me that it is safer to bet on Craig's information at CR2 and above, rather than bet against it. If his sources are saying no fourth mount, then there probably won't be a fourth mount. 

I doubt if Canon can produce a full frame that will work with all EF-S or EF-M lenses and they won't release a camera that works with some but not all, so that only leaves EF. They may release a couple of new pancakes, but generally, since size isn't going to be the deciding factor, I'd say EF all the way. 

Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if it looks pretty much like a DSLR and isn't all that much smaller.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 25, 2016)

I wish they would go for a full EF mount, but with the curved sensor rumors it makes sense to try and follow Sony's design style.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 25, 2016)

Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size. The lens mount size is not the issue - compare the SL1 size and weight with the size and weight of the M5. Furthermore, if they create an M mount variant for FF, they will have to support both FF and APS-C sensors for both the M and EF lens mounts - four different lens lines. Real photographers will, of course, use the FF EF mount.

Wild guess: if there is a "new" lens mount some time in the future, it will be identical to the EF mount except that the camera will have an 18mm to 22mm flange distance. Every camera body will come with a very secure 22mm to 26mm extension tube. If the flange distance is 22mm, Canon will also introduce an adapter, 4mm thick, permitting the new line of FF mirrorless lenses to be used on M-mount bodies.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 25, 2016)

Bob Howland said:


> Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size.



Of course not. All EF lenses will remain fully functional by use of a simple EF-X/EF adapter. That way whwnever an EF lens is to be used, it can be used. And whenever a new native "EF-X" lens is available and better or smaller/lighter for the task at hand, that one will be used. 

Canon has many years to introduce new EF-X lenses and users have many years to lust and G.A.S. over nwe EF-X lenses. And they will be BUYING, BUYING, BUYING for many years to come. Just like when CDs succeeded vinyl. And then streaming succeeded CDs. I myself have many pieces of music that I bought and paid for 4 times by now. 

So why should Canon NOT introduce a native mirrorless/short flange-distance FF lens line-up along with a new lineup of mirrorless FF cameras?

4 lens lines will only exist for a very short transitional period. EF-S will be killed off first, together with Rebel mirrorslappers. Replaced by EOS M models and EF-M glass. 

EF glass will be maintained for longer, but eventually, only a limited lineup of EF-M (crop) and a full lineup of EF-X (FF) lenses will be made.


----------



## Labdoc (Oct 25, 2016)

I am a dinosaur but the mirror is legacy from the film days and vacuum tube electronics. The SLR was Invented by Thomas Sutton in 1861 in production by 1898 in Japan. Some might say older is better but at some point, the argument doesn't hold water.

The moving parts reach the limit of increased performance. If today you were to invent the ultimate form some call the 1DX2, 5D, etc or even something a little smaller, there would be no mirror. It would all be solid state. It took years to get the SLR perfected, EVF will be worked out, overheating and battery life too. I think Canon is going EF FF on a 6D level to not aggravate the loyal EF owners out there, show they are serious and not be left behind.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 25, 2016)

If there was a new mount in the works, possibly announced 1 year from now, wouldn't we be seeing lens patents by now or very soon??


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

EF mount all the way. stupid of canon to do otherwise.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

j-nord said:


> If there was a new mount in the works, possibly announced 1 year from now, wouldn't we be seeing lens patents by now or very soon??



the patents would be a long long time ago.. it takes 5+ years for the lens development.

and no, they can use existing formulations


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 25, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size.
> ...



except no one really likes using adapters, and they can potentially harm optical performance.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 25, 2016)

Look at this logically.....

So Canon decides to go down the FF mirrorless path..... They still need ergonomics, and that means keeping the camera body about the same size it is now in order for it to fit hands and have space for controls.... So the EF mount is very likely


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



Reasonably nightmarish scenario:

1) Canon goes with EF-M and an adaptor.
2) You collect a few small EF-M lenses but also use a lot of EF glass via the adaptor.
3) You go out for (say) a portrait shoot with an FF EF-M lens attached to the mirrorless body and a bag full of EF lenses.
4) Because your mirrorless rig had a native EF-M lens on it last, you forget to put the EF adaptor in your bag.
5) S.O.L.

Or the CAPA version of that argument: you can't leave an adaptor at home (and ruin a shoot) _if the adaptor doesn't exist_.

I'm voted for full EF as the practical / cheaper call for Canon. I appreciate the market (seemingly) revolves around being smaller and lighter, but the minute you go long or go fast with a FF lens, the mirrorless size/weight savings seem to evaporate.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 25, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > A 80D, 5D MK IV, 1DX II, and 7D MK II can all be operated in a mirrorless like mode using live view mode, complete with short battery life and slower autofocus. They have a huge advantage in that they can also operate as DSLR's with much better performance, and use EF lenses.
> ...


Number 1 difference..... A mirrorless camera does not have to have a mechanical shutter constantly engaged...... And that is a lot of power! 

Number 2 difference..... A mirrorless camera has an EVF, and that means you can do a lot of things differently than with an optical viewfinder

And yes, I agree with ahsanford, trying to use a hand held camera through liveview stinks! The ergonomics is terrible!


----------



## unfocused (Oct 25, 2016)

Labdoc said:


> ...the mirror is legacy from the film days and vacuum tube electronics...
> ...The moving parts reach the limit of increased performance...If today you were to invent the ultimate form some call the 1DX2, 5D, etc or even something a little smaller, there would be no mirror. It would all be solid state... EVF will be worked out, overheating and battery life too...



I don't think anyone disputes that "sooner or later" EVF may replace the reflex mirror. It's just a matter of when that might occur and what the end result will look like.

The current state of technology right now is that EVF are not as good as the reflex mirror for most users. The reflex mirror is an elegantly simple design that relies on a free energy source (light) to illuminate the viewfinder and show an image at the exact moment of exposure. (Or at least, what passes for the exact moment in terms of human vision and the speed of light). 

So far, electronics have not been able to improve on that simple solution. If they do, then we will see a relatively rapid conversion to the new technology. But, it is likely to be transparent to most users. The SLR form factor has a lot going for it, so I expect that the mirrorless body type will be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. 

Like most users, I don't care about the technology, just so long as it works. But, what people will care about is if it requires the purchase of new lenses or requires compromises in how one uses their lenses (adapters, etc.). For that reason, I expect that when and if EVF replace the reflex mirror, the resulting cameras will still look like and act like DSLRs.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I don't think anyone disputes that "sooner or later" EVF may replace the reflex mirror. It's just a matter of when that might occur and what the end result will look like.



I generally believe it is inevitable, but a hybrid EVF/OVF setup _could_ be the future if Canon wants to temper the blow of yanking mirrors from everyone. In that case, higher end shoppers can keep their mirrors while the revolution (or, if you are a mirrorless hater, the metastasis) of mirrorless could progress.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I'm voted for full EF as the practical / cheaper call for Canon. I appreciate the market (seemingly) revolves around being smaller and lighter, but the minute you go long or go fast with a FF lens, the mirrorless size/weight savings seem to evaporate.



Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass. ONLY when using fat large glass the package will be large. All other times it will be compact and light. 

I shoot 99% of my images with focal lengths available as nice compact native short-flange back lenses on a very compact mirrorless cam. 99% of the time I want to have a package as small and light as possible. The other 1% of the time I use EF glass and then don't mind taking along the small adapter. I do not want a FF MILC with an ugly EF-nozzle sticking out in front nor with an ugly bulky pseudo-prism hump on top. I bet the vast majority of photographers/enthusiasts/amateur (potential MILC buyers) out there has a very similar usage pattern. 

Why should Canon use a design that does not allow to leverage size advantage of mirrorless cameras and that will not allow them to sell millions of new, native "EF-X" lenses over many years to come? I bet, Canon will go exactly the same route Sony has taken. Small cameras, small glass where possible, large glass where needed. No NOZZLE cam.


----------



## Zv (Oct 26, 2016)

I think it's possible we might see two versions though I voted for EF-M mount as I think we'd see that first. My thinking is they won't go all in and replace their DSLR lineup with EF mirrorless until they have a viable working solution with A solid EVF.

I think they're slowly experimenting, first with APS-C to test the water and maybe next step is to try FF in the EF-M mount to maximize use of that mount and finally go all out with everything in the lineup mirrorless. But that's just one possible path, I'll bet they have alternative paths lined up and ready to go depending on their market research and market reactions to mirrorless in general. 

Look at the evolution of the EOS M and we see it go from a compact style body to a traditional DSLR style of ergonomics in the latest version. It could be and indication.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

Zv said:


> I think it's possible we might see two versions though I voted for EF-M mount as I think we'd see that first. My thinking is they won't go all in and replace their DSLR lineup with EF mirrorless until they have a viable working solution with A solid EVF.



Replace their DSLR lineup with mirrorless?!  That is a _much_ further out proposition.

IMHO, there is zero chance Canon's first FF mirrorless is a straight swap for a current FF SLR line. Forget mounts or cannibalization, it will be an inferior product to the corresponding SLR it has similar features to, so to a devoted multi-generational 5D2, 5D3, 5D4 owner, a mirrorless 5D4 will be a takeway rather than an add (with current batteries, current EVF tech, current responsiveness, etc.).

So I see Canon's first FF mirrorless (interchangeable) option being an altogether new brand sold alongside SLRs. 

Over time, of course, that could change. But the idea that a 5DS2 or 5D5 will be mirrorless only is nuts. A _5DS4_ or _5D7_, maybe, but certainly not the next model of each.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass.



Can you share some examples of compact, native f/2.8 zoom lenses for MILC systems?


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass. ONLY when using fat large glass the package will be large. All other times it will be compact and light.
> 
> I shoot 99% of my images with focal lengths available as nice compact native short-flange back lenses on a very compact mirrorless cam. 99% of the time I want to have a package as small and light as possible. The other 1% of the time I use EF glass and then don't mind taking along the small adapter. I do not want a FF MILC with an ugly EF-nozzle sticking out in front nor with an ugly bulky pseudo-prism hump on top. *I bet the vast majority of photographers/enthusiasts/amateur (potential MILC buyers) out there has a very similar usage pattern. *
> 
> Why should Canon use a design that does not allow to leverage size advantage of mirrorless cameras and that will not allow them to sell millions of new, native "EF-X" lenses over many years to come? I bet, Canon will go exactly the same route Sony has taken. Small cameras, small glass where possible, large glass where needed. No NOZZLE cam.



And that is why the M's have been getting larger in size?! M3 is bigger than M1/M2 and M5 is bigger yet.


----------



## ritholtz (Oct 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass.
> ...


There is 16-70 F4 lens for $900 with worst IQ than $100 24mm f2.8 lens. This is the lens Sony showing as kit lens option for A6500. Sony doesn't have f2.8mm common walk around lens. Most of the people recommended me getting 18-105 power zoom lens which is again $500. Every lens is going to be anywhere between 2x to 4x compared to lens available for Canon crop cameras. That is the biggest problem with Sony so far.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass. ONLY when using fat large glass the package will be large. All other times it will be compact and light.



The F number of the lens is the focal length divided by the aperture width..... well, not quite.... throw in a few mm of aperture width for IS and you are there...

This is the same if you are shooting on a 4/3 camera, a Canon crop, a Nikon FF, or an 8x10 camera onto glass plates. If you want (for example) a 50mm F1.4 lens you need that same width of the front piece of glass regardless of what the camera behind it is.

If you want to make that lens smaller in diameter, you are going to have to make it with a higher F number. Mathematics has spoken. There is no argument.

If you want to make the lens shorter, that is a different problem and one that is (relatively) easy to do, but typically at the expense of image quality. You want a shorter lens, design the optics to bend the light sharper..... the problem with that is, bend the light sharper and the chromatic aberration goes wild and the falloff in sharpness from center to edge of the image becomes severe.

The idea of a small fast "M" lens for shorter lengths (under 40 mm) is very practical and could be done, but the image quality will be lacking.... A small fast lens longer than that is an impossibility.


----------



## meywd (Oct 26, 2016)

I voted for EF all the way, as I think its the cheaper option for Canon, but I think Canon may go with the first FF mirrorless as a fixed lens one


----------



## Zv (Oct 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's possible we might see two versions though I voted for EF-M mount as I think we'd see that first. My thinking is *they won't go all in* and replace their DSLR lineup with EF mirrorless until they have a viable working solution with A solid EVF.
> ...



Not quite what I was saying. I meant somewhere in the far future. As for "first FF mirrorless" I voted EF-M mount. The replacement of the DSLR line was one possible scenario in an imaginary future. I think Canon are still figuring out what that future will be.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 26, 2016)

Some seem to not have read or understood correctly what I stated. So one more attempt:

Canon should make FF MILCs asap. They may produce BIG models, no problem. For me however, I would like to get a Canon FF MILC "as compact as possible". Ideal size/form factor would be Sony RX1R II, clean shape with pop-up EVF, but with Canon lens mount up front, no nozzle, no hump. Maximum acceptable FF MILC size to me would be Sony A7 (1st gen, not Mk. II). 

I could go small and light with it 99% of the time, using compact primes and zooms with *relatively modest* f-number and decent IQ. An EF-X 16-35/4 IS smaller than the EF-variant would be perfectly fine with me. Same for EF-X 24-70/4 IS. 

Or primes ... 20/4 for landscape/architecture/indoor, 35/2.0 and 50/1.8 for walkabout, in door, people and a 85/2.4 IS for portraits ... can all be built VERY compact and light. And those who absolutely must have f/1.2 lenses .. fine, buy a new, big, fat expensive "EF-X" lens or continue to use your EF lenses with a compact, simple adapter. And for those occasions where a (super) tele or a TS lens is needed, we will use our EF glass for many years, until we eventually also switch to EF-X glass ... which of course will be big as well, but using DO and other "optical tricks" they might be smaller/lighter than today. 

But we don't have to lug around big, heavy lenses and cameras all the time. Only when needed or desired. That is the size advantage of compact mirrorless camera systems. 


btw. the Canon EF/EF-M adapter is mechanically solid without any flex and has a cleverly designed, detachable tripod foot. And it is not expensive. No problem to do the same with a future EF-X/EF adapter.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 26, 2016)

EF with great ergonomics so that large lenses can be handled and balanced comfortably. It won't be a "deck of cards" shaped monstrosity and not necessarily lightweight.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size.
> ...



Superseded (so͞opərˈsēded)


----------



## unfocused (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Some seem to not have read or understood correctly what I stated. So one more attempt:
> 
> Canon should make FF MILCs asap. They may produce BIG models, no problem. For me however, I would like to get a Canon FF MILC "as compact as possible". Ideal size/form factor would be Sony RX1R II, clean shape with pop-up EVF, but with Canon lens mount up front, no nozzle, no hump. Maximum acceptable FF MILC size to me would be Sony A7 (1st gen, not Mk. II)...



The only misunderstanding (or more accurately – disagreement) on my part is with the word "should."

You are expressing your preference, which is fine. But, I don't believe that there is any universal agreement that that is what Canon "should" do. 

The original premise of this thread was to predict what Canon *would* do, without regard to what our individual desires might be. Like many others (the majority voting so far, although perhaps "many" is too strong a word given the tiny sample here) I don't see Canon producing a fourth mount, nor do I see them somehow Frankenstein-ing their EF-M or EF-S lenses to magically make them work on a full frame sensor. 

I can definitely see them expanding their pancake lenses to make a few more small primes that will work on any full frame cameras, mirrorless or otherwise, and I even see them making a normal range zoom that is targeted to a mirrorless camera (but still using the EF mount). I just don't see them creating yet another mount, specifically for a full frame mirrorless and apparently Craig's sources are telling him the same.

No matter how many times we post about what we would like to see happen, it isn't going to make it happen and it doesn't mean Canon is stupid for not doing what we might wish they would do.


----------



## aero1126 (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm voted for full EF as the practical / cheaper call for Canon. I appreciate the market (seemingly) revolves around being smaller and lighter, but the minute you go long or go fast with a FF lens, the mirrorless size/weight savings seem to evaporate.
> ...



The thing is, there's MANY more reasons why they should keep the EF mount and a larger size rather than make it as small as possible like the a7r II.

Let's look at the pros and cons of Canon making a small size:

Pros:
1. When using SLOW lenses they can be smaller and lighter compared to an EF mount mirrorless.

Cons:
1. When using FAST lenses, which your professional wedding photographers or anyone taking pictures of things that are moving WILL be using, ends up being just has heavy and long if not heavier and longer than an EF mount mirrorless.

2. Because the fast lenses are heavier, if you are are carrying more than one fast lens (I can see quite a few, myself included, doing this) then now the weight of all of your gear is heavier since you're putting extra weight in multiple lenses rather than just one body.

3. Small body with a now heavier fast lens is super uncomfortable to use since the smaller body means there is less to grip on to. I'd say comfort of use is VERY important to those who are shooting long sessions, again, your professional photographers.

4. Less space for controls. a7r ii doesn't even have a focus point selector, not to mention multiple other buttons to quickly access a feature rather than going through menus.

5. Significantly lower battery life. After all, small body means less space for battery. For people doing a lot of shooting, a bigger battery is better. Especially if you are out in the cold.

6. Weather sealing. a7r ii isn't weather sealed, it will be bigger when/if they actually do that.

7. If current customers have to buy all new native glass to get the best IQ, they will be more likely to explore other manufacturers as they'd have to by new lenses anyway.

8. Canon will be further behind in lenses if they created a new mirrorless FF mount compared to the likes of Sony, further increases the chance of people switching.

Now with all of that being said, even a EF mirrorless WILL be SMALLER and LIGHTER than current DSLR's. By going mirrorless, you are still getting rid of the prism (decrease size and weight), getting rid of the mirrors (decrease weight) and getting rid of the dedicated AF assembly (decrease size and weight). 

To put it blunt, Canon would be absolutely stupid to try to make a new mount for the smallest possible size just because SLOW lenses would make for a overall smaller package, especially when you keep in mind that most of the people buying their highest end cameras are professionals who love their fast glass.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

aero1126 said:


> To put it blunt, Canon would be absolutely stupid to try to make a new mount for the smallest possible size just because SLOW lenses would make for a overall smaller package, especially when you keep in mind that most of the people buying their highest end cameras are professionals who love their fast glass.



Good summary, largely agree with you.

But from my very unscientific scouting of interest across the internet, the 'keep it small' camp of FF mirrorless (i.e. "The whole point of mirrorless is to be smaller than a same-sensored SLR") is a very stubborn and nontrivial minority. I'm completely unscientifically going to peg this minority at about 1/3 to 1/2 of prospective FF mirrorless owners. Yes, only slow (and shorter FL) lenses will reward that camp for aggregate size/weight, but perhaps that's the draw -- a simple, small rig as a second body, for travel, for street, for walkaround, etc.

Further, there is a boutique/bougie/outside-of-the-normal-userbase clientele that have money in their pocket and want to wow / one-up the Instagram world. People who take the 'well packed' images *like shown below* are known to buy pricey cameras. These are folks that might swim in the Leica end of the market, but are eager to find a better value, something unique, etc. _This camp does not want a big rig either_. As much as the RX1R and Leica Q (and some time ago, the Nikon Df) were tailor-made for them, I've seen a number of them sporting A7 rigs and slapping some nutty kickstarter lens or old film lens on it.

The keep it small group may be a casualty of the 'all things considered, Canon should go big (appropriately sized) with FF mirrorless' for all the reasons you mentioned -- and leave the street shooters to Fuji and the smallest/bestest/firstest/bleeding-edge business to the Sony crowd.

But Canon (everyone, honestly) really wants that second group: trust-fund millenials who love to travel and have cash to burn. These people are an easy sale and don't run from premium pricing.

So as much I think they _practically_ should go full EF (and that was my vote), I think their marketing folks may foolishly chase the squirrel on this and insist on a skinny mount for FF mirrorless + EF adapter. It would be the wrong call, IMHO.

- A


----------



## aero1126 (Oct 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> aero1126 said:
> 
> 
> > To put it blunt, Canon would be absolutely stupid to try to make a new mount for the smallest possible size just because SLOW lenses would make for a overall smaller package, especially when you keep in mind that most of the people buying their highest end cameras are professionals who love their fast glass.
> ...



Luckily Canon isn't asking these instagram warriors what they want in the camera, and are instead asking the people who make a living by doing a bunch of shooting with their camera (and is more likely to buy and stay in the system). I would also argue that for those with the need to showoff and look cool, bigger cameras with more buttons would give more of an expensive/professional aura as they aren't as common compared to all the little point and shoots out there.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

aero1126 said:


> Luckily Canon isn't asking these instagram warriors what they want in the camera, and are instead asking the people who make a living by doing a bunch of shooting with their camera (and is more likely to buy and stay in the system). I would also argue that for those with the need to showoff and look cool, bigger cameras with more buttons would give more of an expensive/professional aura as they aren't as common compared to all the little point and shoots out there.



They may be pegging the expectations of working pros to help _design_ something, but I highly highly doubt they are going after professional business with the first 1-2 FF mirrorless body releases. I see the first _few_ Canon FF mirrorless body releases geared squarely at enthusiasts in the 6D to 5D price point.

There are pros in those price points as well, don't get me wrong. But consider:


For enthusiasts: [The novelty/excitement of FF mirrorless] > [the drawbacks/risks of going to mirrorless] 


For pros: [The novelty/excitment of FF mirrorless] < [the drawbacks/risks of going to mirrorless]


Just like with Sony, I expect the early Canon adopters to not be many pros -- it will be laggier / slower / less responsive than what pros shoot with today. I think enthusiasts (like some on this thread) will make the plunge first in larger numbers, and as performance improves, more pros will opt in.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Some seem to not have read or understood correctly what I stated. So one more attempt:
> 
> Canon should make FF MILCs asap.



Lol. We understand what you're saying, you're just wrong and unable to accept that fact.


----------



## aero1126 (Oct 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> aero1126 said:
> 
> 
> > Luckily Canon isn't asking these instagram warriors what they want in the camera, and are instead asking the people who make a living by doing a bunch of shooting with their camera (and is more likely to buy and stay in the system). I would also argue that for those with the need to showoff and look cool, bigger cameras with more buttons would give more of an expensive/professional aura as they aren't as common compared to all the little point and shoots out there.
> ...



Again I agree, that's why it makes sense that their first full frame won't be a ILC and they can make it as thin as they want while making progress on the current mirrorless shortcomings. I'm simply saying that when it comes to a mirrorless FF ILC, it's best to stick with the EF mount rather than have to support two different FF mounts, there by dividing resources and slowing the lens release schedules for a given mount.


----------



## scrup (Oct 26, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Labdoc said:
> 
> 
> > ...the mirror is legacy from the film days and vacuum tube electronics...
> ...



I use to be in the camp that EVF will eventually replace OVF, but have since gone back on that stance. No matter how good the EVF could be, it still won't completely replace the OVF for me anyway.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Some seem to not have read or understood correctly what I stated. So one more attempt:
> 
> Canon should make FF MILCs asap. They may produce BIG models, no problem. For me however, I would like to get a Canon FF MILC "as compact as possible". Ideal size/form factor would be Sony RX1R II, clean shape with pop-up EVF, but with Canon lens mount up front, no nozzle, no hump. Maximum acceptable FF MILC size to me would be Sony A7 (1st gen, not Mk. II).
> 
> ...


Much better explained....

I agree with the need for a small lightweight mirrorless camera ( the M series) and think that a FF mirrorless will be more focused on the More advanced user and fast lens crowd and will use the EF mount. Personally, I can't see a new mount for a FF mirrorless as the size savings of a new mount are minimal. You can't make an equivalent lens with less diameter and any efforts to ma ke a new mount lens shorter could just as easily be applied to an EF mount lens, like the "shorty fourty" pancake lens....


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Some seem to not have read or understood correctly what I stated. So one more attempt:
> ...


A matter of opinion....

Personally, I would like to see a FF EF mount Canon mirrorless camera..... There are things you can do with mirrorless that you can't do with mirrored cameras.....like 120FPS burst rates....


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 26, 2016)

Don Haines said:


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


+1, although I'd settle for 30FPS.


----------



## Dick (Oct 26, 2016)

FF should obviously work with the best lenses. Therefore I think that EF mount is a no-brainer. If it's anything else with or without adaptors, it sounds like a very stupid idea. Then again, it's Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

Don Haines said:


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



Of course it's a matter of opinion. Personally, I'd like an EOS M-sized FF MILC and small-as-possible lenses (24-70/4 collapsible, and a 35/2 pancake). So we would both like to see a FF MILC, but we want very different cameras. 

Ultimately, the only opinion that matters is Canon's. If they believed they should make a FF MILC, they'd have launched one already. They haven't.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I like to think that Canon is holding off on a FF mirrorless camera until they have one good enough to compete with the existing line of bodies. They could have put one on sale 5 years ago, but if it isn't as good as a 6D, then there is no market for it....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I like to think that Canon is holding off on a FF mirrorless camera until they have one good enough to compete with the existing line of bodies. They could have put one on sale 5 years ago, but if it isn't as good as a 6D, then there is no market for it....



The M5 is arguably comeptitive with the 80D. I'm sure Canon will be looking hard at which sells better (my guess would be the 80D). The overall market is still 3:1 in favor of dSLRs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2016)

Indicentally, regarding the poll option:

*EF-M. There will be an adaptor for EF to shoot natively, but there will be new FF mirrorless only lenses.
*

There 'will be' an adapter? There already _is_ an adapter.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I like to think that Canon is holding off on a FF mirrorless camera until they have one good enough to compete with the existing line of bodies. They could have put one on sale 5 years ago, but if it isn't as good as a 6D, then there is no market for it....



Disagree. Did Canon hold off EOS M when it was a steaming turd AF/controls/responsiveness-wise compared to a Rebel? No, they did not. In the beginning, the product was aimed at different users and it was an experiment to court those users. It was an undercooked product that -- if you could live with its limitations -- took lovely pictures. That was enough for Canon to commercialize it.

Now cut over to FF -- in fairness, it's a very different ballgame users-wise, but the mirrorless tech still lags the traditional SLR tech. A mirrorless offering simply will not be as responsive or have the battery life as a 6D -- that's that. But Canon will not wait until those bars are cleared. They will offer something they believe will be compelling enough to attract new customers as a first body and satisfy existing users as a second body.

The billion dollar question (and the point of this thread) is where will they put their chips on the table -- *what mount will give them that business?* It gets to the heart of what Canon is trying to offer. Will they go thin for the small camp and court the Leica/A7/Fuji crowd with a nice initial smattering of tiny f/2.8 primes, or will they please the Canon faithful with a seamless, full-blown EF offering? 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indicentally, regarding the poll option:
> 
> *EF-M. There will be an adaptor for EF to shoot natively, but there will be new FF mirrorless only lenses.
> *
> ...



Miss. My fault. Thx.

Corrected.

- A


----------



## hmatthes (Oct 26, 2016)

_The billion dollar question (and the point of this thread) is where will they put their chips on the table -- what mount will give them that business? It gets to the heart of what Canon is trying to offer. Will they go thin for the small camp and court the Leica/A7/Fuji crowd with a nice initial smattering of tiny f/2.8 primes, or will they please the Canon faithful with a seamless, full-blown EF offering? _

Agree totally! I would love a FF M with f2.8 primes (and a few 1.4Ls) plus using the existing adapter for my EF glass.
THIS is my ideal replacement for my 6D (heck, it will be a keeper for a spare body)

Just PLEASE give it a EVF as fine as the Leica SL and maybe a mount for wonderful old Leica M glass on my Canon M!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

hmatthes said:


> _The billion dollar question (and the point of this thread) is where will they put their chips on the table -- what mount will give them that business? It gets to the heart of what Canon is trying to offer. Will they go thin for the small camp and court the Leica/A7/Fuji crowd with a nice initial smattering of tiny f/2.8 primes, or will they please the Canon faithful with a seamless, full-blown EF offering? _
> 
> Agree totally! I would love a FF M with f2.8 primes (and a few 1.4Ls) plus using the existing adapter for my EF glass.
> THIS is my ideal replacement for my 6D (heck, it will be a keeper for a spare body)
> ...



That red bit above is what breaks the cute little puppy. The minute you use one of those, or an f/2.8 zoom, or a lens longer than 85mm, etc. and your length/size savings compared to an SLR go out the window and... you get the poll results you see above.

- A


----------



## bencam (Oct 26, 2016)

EF definitely.

It's very hard to see how Canon would not, instead of spending $$$ on R&D for new full-frame mirrorless-only lenses trickled over the years, just go launch an all-new FF ML body that automatically comes with around 60 native lenses, counting only those currently in production.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 27, 2016)

I've been thinking a bit more about this.

Canon already has a number of nice prime EF lenses that would not add much weight or bulk to a full frame camera: the 40 mm pancake of course, but also the 50 mm 1.8 STM; 24 mm and 28 mm f2.8s; the 35mm f2 and even the 85mm f1.8 are all reasonably compact. I'm not sure a new mount would reduce the size and weight of these lenses much if at all. The IS versions of the 24,28 and 35 are all very sharp and would pair very well with a mirrorless camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I've been thinking a bit more about this.
> 
> Canon already has a number of nice prime EF lenses that would not add much weight or bulk to a full frame camera: the 40 mm pancake of course, but also the 50 mm 1.8 STM; 24 mm and 28 mm f2.8s; the 35mm f2 and even the 85mm f1.8 are all reasonably compact. I'm not sure a new mount would reduce the size and weight of these lenses much if at all. The IS versions of the 24,28 and 35 are all very sharp and would pair very well with a mirrorless camera.



The in-use length for all those lenses is an inch longer than it needs to be on a MILC.


----------



## Josh Denver (Oct 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I've been thinking a bit more about this.
> ...



Yes we know and that's the thread's question: will they take the extra inch and keep using existing lens mount or shave off that inch and create a new line of lenses. 

I say IF they create a FF mirrorless (I don't believd thet will, not anytime soon anyway, unless something inside Canon managment changed radically)

1- It will be a fixed-lens camera frim the G7x-like compact division 

2- If not, it will have an EF-M mount. Why create a new mount when you already have a perfectly good one with a corresponding perfectly made adaptor? 

A new EF-X logically must be something that doesn't already exist, i.e., a 1'' sensor mount with 1'' small lenses as the Nikons, or MF mount with large MF lenses. Both pretty unlikely but the former is less unlikely. They might be thinking of making a truly smaller ILC for travel and action and P&S users. Might 

Now please somebody just make me that damn ef to ef-m speedbooster so I could get my FF mirrless Canon from my 350$ M3 (please nobody start a debate on SBs not being real FF. From what I've seen using the a6000 with SB EF adapter it took pictures exactly the same FOV and DOF, qresolution and look of the lens on the A7II. I'd settle for that!)


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 27, 2016)

No, EF-M mount dimensions are "too compromised" for FF sensor. While it might be possible, it would suffer from the same problem, Sony FE lenses suffer: too many obstacles to design optically very good, COMPACT and AFFORDABLE lenses. Just look at those Sony G-Master clunkers or at that way too long and way too expensive FE 55/1.8! 

Mirrorless short-flange distance "EF-X" [or whatever Canon calls it] mount and lenses will come for sure. Only "when" is open. Of course it will be for FF-sensor image circle. EF-X will - eventually - supersede EF lenses, but it will be a multi-year process. Prior to that, EF-M will replace EF-S lenses. 

No, Canon will *definitely* NOT repeat the Nikon CX mistake by bringing 1" dwarf sensored cams with interchangable lenses. They will likely bring more powershot G models to compete with the long announced yet never delivered Nikon DL cameras ... featuring bolted-on zoom lenses. No lens mount and no interchangeable lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2016)

If you want compact and light, you go with M cameras.....

If you want a large body with good ergonomics and reasonable controls, you go FF and EF mount.....

I can't see them making something in the middle with a whole new mount and set of lenses.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> If you want compact and light, you go with M cameras.....
> 
> If you want a large body with good ergonomics and reasonable controls, you go FF and EF mount.....
> 
> I can't see them making something in the middle with a whole new mount and set of lenses.....



I can easily see them making something in the middle – a compact FF MILC with dedicated lenses. But only if/when there's market demand for it...and that's a long time away (in the real world, apparently it's imminent in the AvTvM Universe). 

I do think Canon's first foray into FF mirrorless will be a fixed lens camera with an L zoom.


----------



## bencam (Oct 27, 2016)

It makes little or no sense for Canon to develop a new FF ML mount and native lenses to go with it. That entails new development/production/stocking/marketing/etc costs with an uncertain pay-off in a down market. It then won't only be trying to catch up with Sony in FF ML lenses but it would also be competing with itself, forcing current and potential future users to choose between EF and that new FF ML mount.

It makes so much more sense for Canon to just use the EF mount. Canon's taking its own sweet time releasing a FF ML but the ace up their sleeves is that if they use EF, on day one of release, they can instantly have the widest collection of "native" lenses for that FF ML body. No need to say "adapted". Their DSLR and ML also won't be competing on divergent lens lines. Canon can then be agnostic on DSLR with OVF vs ML with EVF, happily selling both types as these would use the same EF lenses anyway.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 27, 2016)

It wojuld make most sense for Canon to take the follwing 3 steps
1) expand EOS M system 
* after M5 quickly bring strong updates to M10 and M3 ... both compatible with external DC-EVF2 ... that would please the "as small as possible" and "take it along as a backup crop body" crowd. 
* add a select few EF-M lenses in line with current lineup: optically as good as 22/2.0 and 28/2.8, compact and very affordable. Especially a compact EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM.  And a 50/1.8 IS. That might make the "we need more EF-M lenses" whiners happy. It would certainly make me happy. Smart, Canon! 

2) Announce discontinuation of Rebel DSLRs and EF-S lenses and swithc to mirrorless crop sensor cameras only
* bring one last round of updates, namely an SL-2 and a 760 successor, and announce, "that was it, no more after this, but EF-S lenses will remain fully functional with adapater on EOS M bodies". 

3) Introduce FF MILC system in a smart way
* bring a 3-pack of A7/R/S II competitors. 
** call one EOS X1. Include full-blown 4k video, to keep the "4k video whiners" at bay. Include kick-ass AF-system, and fps, to keep the wannabe-wildlife and sports-shooters in forums happy. Make it big and fat to include a huge heat sink and a big battery in a big handgrip. That makes the "my hands are Trump-sized" crowd happy. Put a bolted-on EF-adapter-nozzle up front to make the "no adapter ever"-whiners happy. And make it very expensive (say 8 grand) ... all those folks should have to cough up some serious dough. 
** call one X3 and make it hi-rez sensor, medium size and with an EF-nozzle up front. That should please the landscape and it's giotta have EF-mount crowd.
** call one X% and make it as small as possible with EF-X mount. Bring a select few good, small and affordable EX-F primes ... 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 IS and compact, collapsible versions of 24-70/4 and 16-35/4 IS zooms. Include EF-X/EF adapter "for free". 

Tell the world that for the time being, DSLRs will continue to be built, but 1 series only.  
And updated EF-lenses also, but L-tele/supertele/Tilt-Shift only. 

See what sells in what quantities ... and adjust strategy accordingly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> It would make most sense for Canon to...ignore my advice.



Fixed that for ya.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > It would make most sense for Canon to...ignore my advice.
> ...



Couldn't be more right


----------



## bencam (Oct 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 3) Introduce FF MILC system in a smart way
> * bring a 3-pack of A7/R/S II competitors.
> ** call one EOS X1. Include full-blown 4k video, to keep the "4k video whiners" at bay. Include kick-ass AF-system, and fps, to keep the wannabe-wildlife and sports-shooters in forums happy. Make it big and fat to include a huge heat sink and a big battery in a big handgrip. That makes the "my hands are Trump-sized" crowd happy. Put a bolted-on EF-adapter-nozzle up front to make the "no adapter ever"-whiners happy. And make it very expensive (say 8 grand) ... all those folks should have to cough up some serious dough.
> ** call one X3 and make it hi-rez sensor, medium size and with an EF-nozzle up front. That should please the landscape and it's giotta have EF-mount crowd.
> ** call one X% and make it as small as possible with EF-X mount. Bring a select few good, small and affordable EX-F primes ... 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 IS and compact, collapsible versions of 24-70/4 and 16-35/4 IS zooms. Include EF-X/EF adapter "for free".


As for 3)

"X1" -- Don’t see the need in the near future for what sounds like a mirrorless 1D X. Much further down the line, if at all; at least after lessons learned from ML versions of the 5D and 6D.

"X3" -- Let’s say this is the 5D ML version. EF mount in an 80D form factor. Don’t follow Sony’s lead in trying to look like a point and shoot (the A7 looks ridiculous now with those G Master glass). After all, this is the workhorse will that will use the big 2.8 zooms (or 24-105 kit lens) and 1.4/1.2 primes, so an 80D-sized footprint would still be a substantial body to balance those lenses while showing a marked reduction in size (as would be expected from mirrorless) from the 5D series. Canon can use that bigger volume to avoid the A7’s pitfalls by using a big battery, avoid overheating issues and pack in extra features not possible with a small body like a full grip, dual card slots, maybe even a fully articulating screen.

"X%" -- Canon can make a 6D ML version in a smaller T6s/760D form factor, also with EF mount. No need for “EF-X” lenses as the EF lenses are here now. The non-L primes are already quite small or at least similar to equivalent Sony FE ones. Go L-level and ML lenses would lose any size advantage anyway. The small-as-possible (and cheap-as-possible) crowd can slap on a 40mm pancake or 50 STM. The 24-70/16-35 F4 zooms are bigger than Sony’s FE equivalents but only slightly so (the 70-200 F4 are already similar). Even Sony doesn’t do collapsible FF ML zooms, it’s only for their APS-C kit lens. 

So I don't really see anything to be gained for Canon to invest in developing a new FF ML mount and the associated many different lenses. Just go EF, it’s here now in a huge way and lying in wait for Canon's future FF ML body.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> See what sells in what quantities ... and adjust strategy accordingly.



Yeah, go through all that market development, strategising and re-tooling of their manufacturing lines simply to 'see what sells in quantities'. 

When you start a post with 'it would make most sense...' then come out with a strategy that would get you fired at any company worth its salt, it is beyond a joke.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 27, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > See what sells in what quantities ... and adjust strategy accordingly.
> ...


We made a bunch of Military radios.... cost of prototype - $30,000,000. Cost of second one - $2000...


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 27, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > See what sells in what quantities ... and adjust strategy accordingly.
> ...



Sony did just that. A/ , A7R, A7S ... same chassis (so much for re-tooling stuff), slightly different innards and firmware. Their conclusion after 1st gen obviously was, that all 3 models are selling well enough to maintain it for Mk. II generation. 

I don't see any reason wh Canon could and should not do the same thing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> *I don't see* any reason wh Canon could and should not do the same thing.



Given the astute business acumen which you typically display :, I find that completely unsurprising. 

Incidentally, it seems more reasonable that for Sony those were three different versions targeted at three different market segments. Not quite the same thing as your suggestion of throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks…


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Incidentally, it seems more reasonable that for Sony those were three different versions targeted at three different market segments. Not quite the same thing as your suggestion of throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks…



if you would take time to read my post, you would find that I have not only sketched out the 3 product varioations but also the relevant target groups for them. And don't ya worry: I hold an MBA degree (Marketing major) from a renowned European Business university ... don't tell me anything about market segmentation / how to define target groups and about product differentiation. Been there, done that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I hold an MBA degree (Marketing major) from a renowned European Business university ... don't tell me anything about market segmentation / how to define target groups and about product differentiation. *Been there, done that. *



Judging by your statements in these forums, not well at all. It's ok, though...I know PhDs who are dumb as posts in their field.


----------



## Josh Denver (Oct 28, 2016)

The removal of the EF mount and going with the short EF-M mount Canon could reduce the size as seen here (SL1, world's smallest DSLR vs M3). 

cdn.cameradebate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/eos-m-and-sl1-with-18-55mm-lens-size-comparison.jpg

Note that the M5 will surprise you in how small it is, pretty much an m3 size with a small EVF. 

The reduction in size in the M5 vs Rebel case has little to no downsizing in features, except for battery size (EVF vs OVF is subjective), it's even the oppisite, it has more features than the considerablly larger Rebel like the twin dials and exposure compensation controls, DPAF, Video IS, 60p, metal shell, etc

These are more like 80D features. So put an 80D + 18-135mm aside an M5 + 18-150mm and see how much reducing the mount flange does to both the camera and lens. The 80D is a bohemous compared to the M5. Look at the 18-150mm EF-M vs 18-135mm EF-S. 18-55mm STM vs 18-55mm EF-S. 28mm 2.8 IS EF-M vs 28mm EF IS. 55-200mm vs 55-250mm, the 22mm,these are all tiny and lightweight lenses compared to the bigger EF-S brothers (although with a tiny smaller max aperture as in 5.6 vs 6.3 and 2.8 vs 3.5 on longest ends) 

With FF can they make the same reduction in size that proportional to the reduction they did with the APS-C one? Or is there a physics thing that doesn't allow it with larger sensors and larger image circled lenses? (especially if they drop max. Aperture to f/4 vs F/2.8 on longer lenses and keep two 1.8/2.8 primes, 

BTW: the new registered MILC is the new Canon EOS M20. A replacement for the EOS M10 at the beginning of 2017, mainly to have the m20 take the m3 place using the t6i/t6s/m3 sensor which is a 24mp APS-C without DPAF but Hybrid CMOS II AF. Will get a few but minute updates such as 1080p 60p, EVF2 Support, the new bluetooth-based connection, and a micropone Input. This is a bit out of topic but just saying don't get your hopes up on it being a FF M. It's the most entry level M under 500 USD.

Warned your hopes. There is no january M5 with the 5D4 30mp chip, EVF, a new full selection of EF-M FF lenses, DPAF, Full 4K, video IS, mic and headphone, i.e., an a7s with canon OS and sensor/colour-science, 

your best bet now is get an a7 + EF adapter and spend sometime tweaking your images and carefully colouring your videos plus spending a few days tinckering with menus. It's not really bad at all to have one A7 beside your Canon DSLR. I use my 5D3 for all stills especially portraits where colours matter most, and when I travel for long battery and robustness, and mostly shoot landscapes and video with the A7R. It's a great combo really. Getting a 5D4 would put the A7 use strictly for video as the DR and 30mp are there. And even the video on the 5D4 might win me over so put the a7 only for stealthiness with a 40mm 2.8 (which it makes IS). 

I mean why be sad, just get the best from all worlds! I have a Panasonic AF100 (Which also takes EF lenses) for hardcore video use like long soeeches, concerts, live streaming via SDI, great in-camera audio, etc. 

So I basically find what field of work I need the camera for, and choose the best no matter who makes it! Best in general photography, 5D is king. For landscapes and small video and stealth, a7rii is king, for serious video, a camcorder like a Panasonic camcorder,


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 28, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Look at the 18-150mm EF-M vs 18-135mm EF-S. 18-55mm STM vs 18-55mm EF-S. 28mm 2.8 IS EF-M vs 28mm EF IS. 55-200mm vs 55-250mm, the 22mm,these are all tiny and lightweight lenses compared to the bigger EF-S brothers (although with a tiny smaller max aperture as in 5.6 vs 6.3 and 2.8 vs 3.5 on longest ends)



I would debate the effectiveness of the EF-M 55-200 compared to the EF-S 55-250STM, but in general the rest of the mentioned lenses are kit lenses with a wide zoom range, which is one of the only things EF-M does well.
Any prime lenses above 35mm will be virtually identical on either mount, at that point the focal length exceeds the flange distance of both cameras.
In the end we're going to have a split audience, there is no benefit to removing the mirror for long lenses, but enough people might find the wide angle implications worthwhile. EF-M should be able to do things that regular EF mount can't, but the market still won't be universal. 
The problem Sony has with designing lenses like that is the angle of light hitting the sensor is extreme compared to using a longer flange distance, on APS-C it isn't quite worth mentioning but on Full Frame it is a problem.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 28, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the 18-150mm EF-M vs 18-135mm EF-S. 18-55mm STM vs 18-55mm EF-S. 28mm 2.8 IS EF-M vs 28mm EF IS. 55-200mm vs 55-250mm, the 22mm,these are all tiny and lightweight lenses compared to the bigger EF-S brothers (although with a tiny smaller max aperture as in 5.6 vs 6.3 and 2.8 vs 3.5 on longest ends)
> ...



No. 22/2.0 is no kit zoom. It is an outstanding prime lens, really tiny and dirt cheap. 28/2.8 is excellent and small too. Other than the 50mm less FL on the long end, EF-M 55-200 is at least as good as EF-S 55-250 [which I have owned before] and considerably shorter, smaller, lighter. 

And if Canon wanted they could bring really compact EF-M 35/2.0 STM, 50/1.8 STM IS and even a very compact 85/2.4 IS STM. Just look at those small Pentax Ltd. short teles 70/2.4 HD or the older 77/1.8 even for full frame image circle ... 

And that compact EF-M 11-22 is considerably smaller, lighter and optically a lot better than EF-S 10-22 (which i have owned before).


----------



## bencam (Oct 28, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> The reduction in size in the M5 vs Rebel case has little to no downsizing in features, except for battery size (EVF vs OVF is subjective)...
> 
> ...Look at the 18-150mm EF-M vs 18-135mm EF-S. 18-55mm STM vs 18-55mm EF-S. 28mm 2.8 IS EF-M vs 28mm EF IS. 55-200mm vs 55-250mm, the 22mm,these are all tiny and lightweight lenses compared to the bigger EF-S brothers



No question, the size advantage of mirrorless is much more pronounced and consistent for APS-C (and also micro four-thirds for that matter) for both the body AND the lenses. That’s why Canon had to come up with the EF-M mount and not just stick with EF-S lenses in their ML crop platform.

But no so for full frame.



Josh Denver said:


> With FF can they make the same reduction in size that proportional to the reduction they did with the APS-C one? Or is there a physics thing that doesn't allow it with larger sensors and larger image circled lenses? (especially if they drop max. Aperture to f/4 vs F/2.8 on longer lenses and keep two 1.8/2.8 primes,



The A7 can disguise itself as a point and shoot with its tiny 35 2.8 but that’s it. Come to think of it, this is probably where the rumored Canon fixed-lens FF ML can come in, like a Sony RX1, with a fixed 35mm f2 and A7-like body.

The size advantage of mirrorless in FF is much more limited when it comes to the lenses, as we’ve seen. The A7’s 24-70 and 16-35 F4 zooms are only slightly smaller. Even Sony’s 50 1.8 and 28 f2 are actually a bit longer than the equivalent 50 STM or 28 1.8. And those new Sony 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes are as big or slightly bigger than their DSLR FF counterparts.

Canon will come up with a full frame mirrorless, right, not in January 2017, but I’d guess more likely closer to the end of next year. And I’d speculate it will come up with an EF mount so Canon don’t have to reinvent the wheel with new lenses in a new FF ML mount because there's no real advantage doing so. The incredible range of EF lenses are here now and would be a huge advantage for Canon if they were considered native instead of adapted on that FF ML. I do think that Canon's FF ML will be smaller than the 5D but also not A7-small. Like I’ve speculated, Canon’s mirrorless 5D would be around 80D size so that they've made it noticeably smaller in comparison but the big zooms and primes still balance well while also being able to use a bigger battery, dual card slots, and other things that Sony’s finding difficult to fit into an A7-sized body.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 28, 2016)

bencam said:


> ...
> The size advantage of mirrorless in FF is much more limited when it comes to the lenses, as we’ve seen. The A7’s 24-70 and 16-35 F4 zooms are only slightly smaller. Even Sony’s 50 1.8 and 28 f2 are actually a bit longer than the equivalent 50 STM or 28 1.8. And those new Sony 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes are as big or slightly bigger than their DSLR FF counterparts.
> 
> Canon will come up with a full frame mirrorless, right, not in January 2017, but I’d guess more likely closer to the end of next year. And I’d speculate it will come up with an EF mount so Canon don’t have to reinvent the wheel with new lenses in a new FF ML mount because there's no real advantage doing so.
> ...



Sony FE lenses are way too big, because of the optical design restrictions resulting from choice of extremely narrow throated E-mount - which was intended for APS-C only. FF came as an afterthought, and because Sony wanted to avoid a fourth mount at all cost ... 

Ever since introduction of EF, Canon always has wisely and intelligently (!) chosen lens mounts with "oversize" diameter relative to respective image circle. EF-S was and is soleley intended for APS-C image circle. And so is Canon EF-M. 

Once Canon brings out its FF MILC system, it will have EF-X moun t. And there will be at least one "very compact" body option. And a small range of moderately fast prime lenses between 24 and 80mm that are very compact too. Plus a smartly designed, collapsible f/4 zooms, lighter and with a "parking position" much smaller than EF 16-35/4 and EF 24-70. It is the only way to sell to people like me, who want fully functional, powerful imaging gear in the smallest possible package. No, it is not just me. Target group of photo enthusiasts is aging babyboomers, backs get weaker and willingness to lug around my 5D3 plus 24-70/2.8 plus 70-200/2.8 for an entire weekend city trip ... is DWINDLING. 

I want 5D IV capability (minus any video crap) in a Sony RX1R-II sized package, but with Canon EF-X lens mount up front and Canon UI. I will use it with a few *newly purchased*, compact EF-X primes mentioned above and will also buy the native 16-35/4 and 24-70/4. And if and when needed, but only then! - I'd take the right EF lens along - with adapter, no problem.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 28, 2016)

I don't think the EF-S to EF-M is a good comparison to what you think you'd see from a FF DSLR to mirrorless equivalent. The EF-S is really just an EF mount and is far larger a mount then is needed. This leads to EF-S lenses that are physically bigger then needed to contain the actual glass in them.

The EF-S 60mm macro is a perfect example. First feel how light it is, look at the front element, then the rear. The lens is mostly air and could be half the diameter. However it would still have a fat base to mount to the incredibly wide throat diameter of the EF-S mount and would look ridiculous. So Canon, just hits a minimum lens width with their EF-S lenses, that is equal to the wide throat diameter that is really engineered/designed for Full Frame EF lenses.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 28, 2016)

i fully expect some Canon "EF-X" mirrorless FF prime lenses similar in size to the Pentax FA Limited 31/1.8, 43/1.9, 77/1.8 






(c) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/116833-fa-limited-lens-series-won-2010-good-design-long-life-design-award-2.html#post1283742

Minus aperture ring, plus USM Nano AF Drive should not make them any larger. Hi-Grade plastics barrel makes 'em lighter. And if a new calculation for hi-rez sensors and short flange distance makes 'em bigger, then I Canon should just make them f/2.8 and keep size and price down. 24/2.8 is certainly also doable in small form factor. . And possibly a 17/4.0 or so. 

Sony FE 35/2.8 is fine as well in terms of size (not price). Sony FE 55/1.8 is way to long & big. FE 28/2.8 is also too long. I do expect Canon to choose a wider diameter EF-X mount (than Sony or than EF-M) for its FF MILC system and will be able to make very compact EF-X lenses that are optically every bit as good on FF-sensor as the fantastic EF-M 22/2.0 is on crop. We just have to demand it often enough and loud enough on all relevant forums, so they get the message. ;D


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 28, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size.
> ...



You never define what an "EF-X" lens mount is, for example, specifying its throat diameter, flange distance and communications protocol. Please do so.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 28, 2016)

Bob Howland said:


> You never define what an "EF-X" lens mount is, for example, specifying its throat diameter, flange distance and communications protocol. Please do so.



ok, here goes .. my amateur *guess*:

'EF-X" is what I would call it. It signals full compatibility with EF lens lineup and the *-X* signifies possibilities that far e*X*ceed the past and that it is "the future of photography" ... or something along these lines will be stated in Canon marketing materials. No idea what they will really call it. 

image circle: 36x24mm FF sensor -> 43.3 mm diameter 

flange distance: ca. 22mm [4 mm more than EF-M and Sony E/FE, 3mm more than Leica L-Mount] - makes lens design somewhat easier and will still allow for reasonably compact cameras] 

throat diameter: ca. 48mm [Sony FE is 46mm, Canon EF-M is about 45mm]

lens mount / communication protocol: some additional contacts/firmware features for future/new native "EF-X" lenses. Fully functional and backwards compatible with EF lens mount Protocol [within the limits of the repective lens, its AF drive, IS, etc.]. 

Frontal view of mount and sensor will be similar to Leica SL ... not like Sony A7 where sensor corners are almost hidden. 





Camera size will probably also be similar for [eventually] upcoming Canon MILC flagship "X1". For all those 1D/X/II shooters who love things Texas size. 



btw: Sony E mount for FF lenses: Sigma CEO also says narrow diameter makes lens design more diffcult .. http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sigma-interview-mirrorless-is-growing-and-we-will-make-more-lenses-for-it/


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 28, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Sony FE 35/2.8 is fine as well in terms of size (not price). Sony FE 55/1.8 is way to long & big. FE 28/2.8 is also too long.



Too long, too expensive... and you forgot a biggie, too slow. f/2.8 on a prime lens? And only f/1.8 on a ~50mm lens that isn't a complete budget lens like the entry level "nifty fifty" from either Canon or Nikon. Just not competitive in my opinion.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 28, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> Too long, too expensive... and you forgot a biggie, too slow. f/2.8 on a prime lens? And only f/1.8 on a ~50mm lens that isn't a complete budget lens like the entry level "nifty fifty" from either Canon or Nikon. Just not competitive in my opinion.



Sure, but you can't let the tiny 50mm FF options boss your expectations here. That FL seems to break all the rules of physics in terms of FF + f/2 or faster + small in a way that you just don't see at any other FL.

See a 24-35-50-85 comparison as an example with all lenses being intended for the FF image circle and the lens opening up to f/1.4. I recognize the 50 f/1.4 USM is a bit of a goat / 2nd class citizen for some, but it's not the only example of this odd tiny 50mm lens phenomenon -- Canon makes many tiny + fast double gauss 50mm lenses that it cannot reproduce at other FLs at that aperture.

So I think looking at _35mm_-ish primes (see second pic) is a more fair / reasonable benchmark to consider with FF mirrorless. This is one area that -- like with most other FLs -- chasing aperture disproportionately punishes you. Looking at that shot, the small camp should abandon chasing f/1.4 and buy a bag of f/2 IS primes.

- A


----------



## dak723 (Oct 29, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> So why should Canon NOT introduce a native mirrorless/short flange-distance FF lens line-up along with a new lineup of mirrorless FF cameras?



The more I look into the short flange issue, the more I am convinced that mirrorless is not ready for FF unless they use the longer flange distance of the DSLR. As I mentioned earlier, when I first bought a Sony A7 and then A7 II, I thought the problem was the kit lens. Both versions were as poor a lens as I had ever bought. Now, after reading numerous articles and viewing some lens reviews, it seems clear (at least to me) that with current sensor tech, the short flange distance creates big problems with sharpness, CA, and vignetting. CA and vignetting can be improved dramatically either by in-camera or post processing, but the lack of sharpness away from the image center is concerning. It was the reason I returned both Sony A7's and would be very hesitant to consider a short flange mirrorless camera until the sensors are redesigned to create a better angle of light hitting the sensor's edges. And now I know why my Canon lenses with adapter had much better results on the Sony - it was the added flange distance - not the lenses themselves. 

From Imaging Resource's review of the Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Zeiss Vario-Tessar: "At 24mm, the lens displays good sharpness right in the center of the frame, even wide open, but outwards and especially in the deep corners it's noticeably soft. Surprisingly, even stopping down doesn't improve the corner softness at 24mm, and by ƒ/16-ƒ/22, diffraction comes into play and reduces sharpness all around even more."


And this is the higher end lens, not the kit lens that I bought, which was probably worse! Looking at other reviews it seems like the short flange distance has been a problem that has not yet been solved when it comes to FF.

While I might be interested in a FF mirrorless offering, it seems clear to me that any FF mirrorless needs to keep the same flange distance as a DSLR. If you want smaller and lighter, then mirrorless works reasonably well at APS-C or Micro Four/Thirds size, but for FF, so far at least, the DSLR flange distance is going to give you far better IQ, in my opinion.


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > Too long, too expensive... and you forgot a biggie, too slow. f/2.8 on a prime lens? And only f/1.8 on a ~50mm lens that isn't a complete budget lens like the entry level "nifty fifty" from either Canon or Nikon. Just not competitive in my opinion.
> ...



That was exactly my point. The only lens you listed that was fast was Sony's "50mm" and I was just pointing out at the focal length you can get really fast or match the f/1.8 and have a tiny lens in the Canon camp.

Either way, my point was the Sony FE equivalent prime lenses are easily a stop off on max aperture at the same FL while coming in at the same, or even larger, size as the Canon equivalents. It doesn't appear Sony did themselves any favors by pushing both the throat diameter and flange distance as far (read small) as they did.


----------



## aero1126 (Oct 29, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > You never define what an "EF-X" lens mount is, for example, specifying its throat diameter, flange distance and communications protocol. Please do so.
> ...



I honestly think you might be the most illogical person I've come across in a while. Lets look at the SL you used in your own post:






I'm sorry, but Canon is not going to make a new mount of the future, and then design it so that all of their fast and expensive lenses that professional use most will be bigger, heavier, and more unwieldy, so that their cheaper and slow lenses can be more compact. Again, it's better to have the weight in the body because that is your pivot point when you hold it, extra weight and length in the lense is going to create a larger moment about the pivot point. That's basic physics. Something like that would be even more annoying now that you don't give as much grip space by trying to turn your camera into a point and shoot.

That makes absolutely no sense, and the fact that you think it does makes me question if you actually have an MBA.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 29, 2016)

aero1126 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



Does that include all the people, including Neuro, who think the M-mount is going FF? Face it, most of the people who post on this site are marketing guru wannabees and nobody here seems to have very much real expertise in optical design.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 29, 2016)

I don't know s**t about marketing but I do know math and physics......

What the entire discussion boils down to is three things.....

1) you can have narrow diameter lenses, or you can have fast lenses, but you can not have both.

2) the sharper you bend light, the harder it is to deal with chromatic aberration and vignetting and the poorer the image quality, so you can have high image quality, or you can have short lenses, but you can not have both.

3) the acceptable trade off between the two factors above is a matter of opinion, and as such, has no definitive answer, so the arguing can continue forever without resolution.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 29, 2016)

"Most illogical person alive" ... Thanks for the compliment. Comes right after "sexiest man alive". 8)

However, you may have misread my previous postings. 

I would like to get an FF MILC in as small as possible package [preferably Sony RX1R-II form factor and size] with a set of 3 or 4 as-small-as-possible, moderate aperture primes and 2 decent, compact f/4 zooms (16-35, 24-70). For everything else - f/1.4 lenses, teles, super-teles, Tilt-Shift - I would happily use big, large EF glass with a small adapter. Like 99% of other photo amateurs, I do not use big glass very often. 

I am convinced, moderate aperture mirrorless FF primes can be built very compact, optically very good (but not Otus/stellar) and very affordable. I am looking at 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8 IS, 85/2.4 IS. Provided, the maker choses a flange distance and mount diameter that makes FF lens design easier than the stupid choice Sony made by using E-Mount not only for crop as originally intended, but also for FF. 

I expect Canon - before they bring my desired ultra-compact "X-3" FF MILC - to bring a MILC flagship first. 1-series mirrorless killer beast called X-1, as behemoth in size as the Leica SL-1. It will do 4k video internally, 8k externally and shoot 99 fps RAWs for 9999 captures in a row ... and cost north of 10k. After all, we are talking Canon. 

Later on, they will bring an X-5 model [comparable to today's 5D series] and a sweet small X-3 [comparable to 6D series] for me. 

That's my prediction. Yes, I am pulling it out of my ass, but 1. my ass is rarely wrong and 2. at least as smart as many self-proclaimed experts' asses. ;D


----------



## pokerz (Oct 30, 2016)

Canon can do better than Sony & Leica, please bring some F1.2 compact primes and some F2.8.
An improved electronic 5 Axis IS is a welcome feature .


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 30, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I don't know s**t about marketing but I do know math and physics......
> 
> What the entire discussion boils down to is three things.....
> 
> ...



pretty much it!

also what's the path of least resistance?

for short registration distance full frame, canon has ALOT of sensor work to do - and it has to be specific for mirrorless, it's rather unnecessary for DSLR's.

They can't just shove a 5D Mark IV sensor in there. they have to re-work it drastically.

For a limited run, that will increase costs, probably more than what they'd save going mirrorless.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 30, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know s**t about marketing but I do know math and physics......
> ...




Yes, the short flange distance is a real issue. People should read your post and the linked post more carefully. They continually ask for things that are not possible presently. Here's another article that convinces me that keeping the present EF mount is really the only PROFESSIONAL alternative. While every gear-head has been praising Sony and wondering why Canon can't be more like Sony, maybe they just don't get it. Maybe Canon hasn't been waiting to get into mirrorless at the Pro level because they are conservative and slow - maybe it is because they don't want to put out a camera that gives you crappy IQ away from the image center and really limits the types of lenses that you can use.

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


----------



## Luds34 (Oct 31, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Like 99% of other photo amateurs, I do not use big glass very often.



Wow I didn't know I was such a rarity, you know, an amateur who regular shoots big glass. 

Oh-oh, wait a minute... Does this make me part of the one percent then? Will there be some sort of movement and protest against people like me? Yikes, I better consider switching to slow, normal zoom or something.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Like 99% of other photo amateurs, I do not use big glass very often.
> ...


My observation is that the serious amateurs have better cameras and lenses than most of the pros do.....


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 31, 2016)

I agree - the pros have to make sure the gear pays for itself, and let's face it most clients don't know what an excellent image looks like: all they want is something that looks good.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Like 99% of other photo amateurs, I do not use big glass very often.
> ...



Not sure I'm with AvTvM on this, but it depends on what he/she means.

If by big glass, they mean $10k+ superwhites, then sure. Few amateurs other than very serious birders/wildlife folks own those.

But if by 'big glass' they mean your run-of-the-mill 'reasonably-sized pickle jars', like an f/1.4 prime or an f/2.8 zoom, I see enthusiasts with those all the time. (Think about it -- why go to the trouble of buying a FF rig if you are just going to put dainty f/2.8 primes and modest f/4 zooms on it?)

- A


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I hold an MBA degree (Marketing major) from a renowned European Business university ... don't tell me anything about market segmentation / how to define target groups and about product differentiation. *Been there, done that. *
> ...



Most of the Taxi Drivers I've met in my city have PhD's.


----------



## TeT (Oct 31, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> My observation is that the serious amateurs have better cameras and lenses than most of the pros do.....



That somewhat makes sense.

I do not think the 1% argument is unreal though; I would also suggest that bird & sports enthusiasts make up the largest portion of that 1% big glass owner amateur. I also imagine that many many of the members of this forum are in that 1%.

Lots of rebels with 18 55's or 50 1.8's out there getting regular hard use.. Especially when you can get a used T3i or better for $300 or less at a pawn shop all day long...


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2016)

TeT said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > My observation is that the serious amateurs have better cameras and lenses than most of the pros do.....
> ...


Big time!

The vast majority of Canon DSLRs out there are Rebels and the vast majority of lenses out there are kit zooms. We do not represent the masses.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 31, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Like 99% of other photo amateurs, I do not use big glass very often.
> ...



i cannot prove it, but am still convinced, pnly a very tiny minority of non-pro shooters use big glass regularly. i am aware though, that on this forum birders seem to be extremely overrepresented, much more so than plane spotters, who are the other (small) group of amateurs regularly using "big (long/tele) glass". 

all other amateurs may *very occasionally* use a tele fl beyond 300mm at the zoo, on a wildlife safari trip or for some outdoor sports event (even i have done so), but again it is a tiny fraction of users and and even smaller fraction of images captuted.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 31, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Like 99% of other photo amateurs, I do not use big glass very often.



Well, based on camera to lens ratios released by both Canon and Nikon, I'd say 95% or more amateurs never use any lens except the one that came with their camera. Could be why we will see a fixed lens version first.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 31, 2016)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Like 99% of other photo amateurs, I do not use big glass very often.
> ...



that one, single "kit lens" happens to be a zoom lens, not a bolted-on 35mm prime ... as on Sony RX1/R/II and to be feated on a futre, wventual xannon Ff compact cam. main reason i won't ever consider such a camera.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 31, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


I think you are right.

I would be willing to bet that even among "pro shooters", there are very few using big/long glass. After all, many/most? pros are the wedding photographers and studio photographers.... and have very little need for a 600F4....

I think that the users of big/long glass are a small proportion of all shooters, and that small group comes mostly from affluent amateur photographers.... the birding/wildlife/plane spotters... I do not know a single pro who uses them for work, but the birding community has them in spades!


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 1, 2016)

exactly. i am happy for birders/spotters/zoo/wildlifers that they have big fat lenses and i knderstand why they don't mind or want big fat cameras. they have lots of choice, which is fine.

all i DEMAND is a similarly good choice of small AND powerful camera systems (mirrorless, APS-C and FF sensor) and native lenses in most frequently used fl range (24-200mm / equivalent). i am wiling to trade some aperture (no f/1.2 or 1.8 but f/2.0 or f/2.8 and f/4 zooms) against compact size, decent iq and affordable price of lenses. EF-M glass fits that bill perfectly for me. EOS-M cameras until M5 unfortunately not. M5 now is more bulky than necessary and desirable. mirrorless FF system is nowhere in sight from Canon or Nikon. Sony has some fairly decent FF cameras, but no compact, good and affordable lenses (because of E-mount limitations for FF inage circle). 

that's where my impatien e with canon and the incessant canon defense league action in this forum originates.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 1, 2016)

What do you see as the viewpoint of the 'Canon defense league' and can you give examples? And by examples I don't mean people saying 'I would not find that useful'.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Ahhh yes, if he meant "great big whites" then I'd agree. Of course that would be a complete deviation of the discussion.

See, the discussion was about how Sony was better because it was smaller and gave one a more compact system. So I was referring to "big glass" meaning f/1.4 primes, f/2.8 zooms. To me that is the one real big advantage of FF over APS-C is the ability to get that subject isolation, narrow DOF that just isn't achieved on any of the crops. So if one's argument in favor of a Sony A7xxxx is the small/compact size, shooting say a 35mm f/2.8 prime, then I feel you have made the wrong choice. At that point pick up a Fuji camera and grab the 23mm f/2 lens and you'll have essentially the same light gathering, the same DOF, and it is in a much, much smaller package. Or grab the 23mm f/1.4 and you still have a smaller package while achieving greater light gathering and more subject isolation and frankly beautiful rendering, bokeh, etc (those parts subjective of course).

Not to beat a dead horse, but again it is more and more looking like the mount Sony is using is just too compromised and is leading to some real challenges in delivering a lens lineup that the full frame market/people are use to seeing. The Sony FF mirrorless size saving would appear to be a myth.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 1, 2016)

the difference is: a compact FF MILC kills 2 birds with 1 stone: compact sized and highly economical gear as long as you keep to moderate aperture promes and zooms and all FF sensor goodness for those times, when you really need it. i am more than haüpy with the ubkect isolation i get with "moderate apertures" on FF.

i would never buy a number of fairly expensive f/1.2 and f/1.4 (Fuji) *crop-only* lenses that yield only more or less the effects of a very affordable and compact FF 35/2.0 or 50/1.8 or 85/2.4 lens. 

also, the size afvantage of a fuji x-pro 2 with an f/1.4 lens over a Sony A7 with lenses like 35/2.8 is rather negligable. actually even a m43 camera like Oly M5/II is pretty much the same size as a Sony A7 (1st gen). it is nowhere near proportional to half- or quarter-sized sensor area.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 1, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> the difference is: a compact FF MILC kills 2 birds with 1 stone: compact sized and highly economical gear as long as you keep to moderate aperture promes and zooms and all FF sensor goodness for those times, when you really need it. i am more than haüpy with the ubkect isolation i get with "moderate apertures" on FF.



Highly economical??? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. 

Listen, if you like the Sony's because of their features, ergonomics, performance, menus, the way the camera looks even, whatever, that's great. But leaving out subjective reasons, and going with the abstract argument that it is full frame and small just doesn't hold water. That is all my point was. You are losing the one, main/true advantage of full frame with the current Sony lens lineup, and the size (saving) argument doesn't hold any water either. Basically getting the worse of both worlds, slow lenses, and large (relative) size.


----------



## H. Jones (Nov 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I think that the users of big/long glass are a small proportion of all shooters, and that small group comes mostly from affluent amateur photographers.... the birding/wildlife/plane spotters... I do not know a single pro who uses them for work, but the birding community has them in spades!



Actually, I'd honestly say that pros make up most of the market for long glass. The Associated Press alone has hundreds, if not thousands, of the 400mm f/2.8, 200-400 f/4 1.4x, and 600 f/4 just in the US and that's just one photo agency. They buy them as soon as they come out as well, and replace them as soon as they break. Now if you think about Getty, Sports Illustrated, the New York Times, and everything else out there, there's a hell of a lot of these lenses sold to newspapers. Sports photographers would probably also outnumber birders in general, and when you get into that, there's thousands on thousands of college, high-school, and professional sports photographers.

The newspaper I mainly work with specifically has the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 and 200-400 F/4, and that's a smaller-sized paper.

I'd say Canon makes most of their sales of 1DX and big white lenses off of these sports/news agencies that buy them in bulk. Getty Images brought about 35 big whites to the Olympic games, for example, and that's definitely a tiny part of their whole agency.


----------

