# Canon FF mirrorless Poll



## dak723 (Feb 12, 2017)

A poll for potential FF mirrorless buyers. After 25 pages of discussion regarding the potential new FF mirrorless and what mount it should have, I thought a poll might be interesting. Assume an EF adapter will be available if Canon chooses a brand new mount. Assume new FF mount will be slightly larger than the current M APS-C mount, but considerably smaller than EF mount.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 12, 2017)

I removed my comments as the op felt they were too rude, and I do not like to insult members.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon stated that Their M mount would not work for FF.



Do you recall where they stated that? Thanks!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Canon stated that Their M mount would not work for FF.
> ...



It was right after the "M" came out, a interview with Chuck Westfall as I recall. Its been so long that those old interviews have been lost. I'll look, but not much hope. I saved a url, but the linked to article is gone, I should have saved the text.

I don't believe the issue is the mount diameter, but rather the flange back distance and the extreme angle that light rays strike towards the edge of the sensor. DPAF apparently does not work well at all, and measures must be taken to try and get more light to the outer photosites.

The recent patent shows that Canon has been working on the issue, the lack of a FF short flange back mirrorless shows that they have not found a solution, or at best, its in the pipeline.

The other issue is the market diversity between Asia and America/Europe. Asians have accepted small mirrorless cameras and they sell well there. In the USA, buyers see a larger DSLR as more desirable and equate small bodies with cheap point and shoot cameras. It may be as simple as hand sizes and comfort in holding a camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't believe the issue is the mount diameter, but rather the flange back distance and the extreme angle that light rays strike towards the edge of the sensor. DPAF apparently does not work well at all, and measures must be taken to try and get more light to the outer photosites.



DPAF aside, I don't think the short flange focal distance (FFD) is an issue for optical performance. Leica's L-mount has a 19mm FFD, their FF 24-90mm lens has a rear element quite close to the back. I think the lens does just fine, optically.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe the issue is the mount diameter, but rather the flange back distance and the extreme angle that light rays strike towards the edge of the sensor. DPAF apparently does not work well at all, and measures must be taken to try and get more light to the outer photosites.
> ...



I think the issue as it exists today is with dual pixels. Using offset microlenses to counteract the incident light rays does not play well with DPAF.

However, at the time of the old review, Canon apparently did not believe that the M mount would work for FF but no reason was specified that I recall. Certainly, others have made similar mount sizes and flange back distances work, so were they planning on DPAF back then in 2012? Its very possible.


----------



## slclick (Feb 12, 2017)

When it all comes down to Canon, we love our glass over the transient bodies every day of the week. Thus, I expect to see option 2 with a longer blue bar.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

slclick said:


> When it all comes down to Canon, we love our glass over the transient bodies every day of the week. Thus, I expect to see option 2 with a longer blue bar.



But we glass lovers are _current_ customers. I'm sure lots of FD owners would have voted to keep FD. Of course, in this case there's not really a compelling reason for a new mount. But backing up a step, from Canon's perspective it appears there's not yet a compelling reason for a FF MILC.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 12, 2017)

From minority pov - would be nice if canon comes out range with fixed 35f2 ff, similar to x100f style


----------



## slclick (Feb 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > When it all comes down to Canon, we love our glass over the transient bodies every day of the week. Thus, I expect to see option 2 with a longer blue bar.
> ...



Yes but the pollster was asking US.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2017)

slclick said:


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



Good point.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 12, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



As I recall, Westfall's phrasing was that the M mount would never be used for FF, but no reason was given. I'm absolutely certain that Canon did a feasibility study of using the M mount for FF during development. Anything else would be engineering malpractice.

I don't like the choices in this poll either. I want certain characteristics and capabilities, such as lighter weight, higher FPS and low cost. FF mirrorless with an EF mount just seems like the best way to get them.

Nikon's F mount for SLRs, at 44mm, is smaller diameter than either the M mount or Sony's E mount but the F mount flange distance is 46.5mm, longer than current EF mount.


----------



## pokerz (Feb 13, 2017)

New Mount, new stm lens please.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 13, 2017)

I personally prefer low latency, fast reacting EVF focusing over live view mode. with longer lenses anyway and for stability reasons. 
If only Contrast detection / DPAF AF speed was as good as in Phase Detection AF mode... AF accuracy in contrast detection / DPAF mode is obviously higher with less OOF shots out of the bunch..
It's hard to compose with rear LCD screen in bright light as well. battery life never concerned me much, to be honest. Canon batteries are cheap enough and small enough to carry a few spares in my pockets as I shoot. takes about 15 seconds to replace. pop one out pop one in. keep shooting. I quickly learnt how to catch the best moment to "reload" 




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ... I can already buy a Canon mirrorless ff that uses EF lenses, live view is another term for mirrorless mode...


----------



## unfocused (Feb 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...backing up a step, from Canon's perspective it appears there's not yet a compelling reason for a FF MILC.



Agreed. Worse yet...



Bob Howland said:


> ...I don't like the choices in this poll either. I want certain characteristics and capabilities...



Not picking on Bob, but every time there is a discussion or survey on full frame mirrorless on this forum, I see a dozens of different and contradictory "demands" that people insist are absolutely mandatory for Canon to meet before they will consider a full frame mirrorless. 

Given that interchangeable lens cameras are a niche market... mirrorless is a niche market...and full frame is a niche market, I agree with Neuro...Can't see Canon jumping into this market anytime soon.


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 13, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Weird (Awkward) questions. I could not find any that clearly applied.



Agreed. I have no plans to buy a Canon FF camera anytime in the foreseeable future. I like the DSLR and at FF sensor sizes I think it's been shown over and over that there is really isn't any size advantage, especially if you are shooting fast glass. Generally speaking, I feel the mirrorless advantage is a smaller kit at the right sensor sizes.

So therefore I have bought APS-C Canon mirrorless though, taking a shot with a couple M's and I waited patiently to see them develop as the M felt like only investing in "half" of a new system with the adapter for existing glass. Well, eventually I jumped ship in that regard and did the full investment in a 2nd system as I felt the M just never got competitive (at least in my timeline). 

In short I did not answer the poll as none of the options seems applicable to me.


----------



## Zv (Feb 13, 2017)

Since I have no real intention of buying FF mirroless anytime soon I chose the first option. I don't really care what mount it should or could have though I think logically it should be EF. Even if Canon released an EF mount FF today I'd be content with my DSLR. 

Maybe, in the distant future if all cameras in their lineup became mirrorless due to advanced technology I'd be on board. Right now FF mirrorless just seems like a bit of a handicap. Where I feel it has benefit, to me, is size and weight reduction and for this the EOS M does a great job. Takes a slight hit in IQ but makes up for it with a highly useful compact design. I've got some shots that wouldn't have been possible with anything larger. You can put it in some really small and tight spaces!


----------



## Aussie shooter (Feb 13, 2017)

There was not the perfect option for me but the closest was the first. Only if there are no more DSLR's. If I could I would expand on that. I would say I might consider it if and when EVF's are as pleasing as OVF's and I can't see that happening in the wildlife arena. Not for a long while yet anyway.


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 13, 2017)

I have close to 10 lens (extenders included), so backward compatibility is an important consideration for me, *but* I'm not going to buy a Canon FF mirrorless *just because* it is compatible with my lenses.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 17, 2017)

I would buy a mirrorless camera when 
Battery life is as good or better than that of a dslr 
Ergonomics and controls are similar to that of a dslr 
Viewfinder lag is similar or better than that of an OVF ;D

Mount be damned, just as long as I can still use my current lenses with or without an adaptor, with no compromise to their functioning.

In other words, I think the choice of mount is one of the least important considerations if they want to sell me* one. 

*(me means me, it does not mean millions of users. In fact it doesn't even mean two users. It just means me, myself, since I can only express my own views relative to myself. Anti-Neuro disclaimer over)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> Viewfinder lag is similar or *better than that of an OVF* ;D



I hear Sony is working on a precognitive viewfinder, it'll probably be in the a7RIII.


----------



## slclick (Feb 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > Viewfinder lag is similar or *better than that of an OVF* ;D
> ...



If I have a chance at time travel, taking photos isn't going to be high on my priority


----------



## YellowJersey (Feb 18, 2017)

I'd certainly be interested, provided I could still use my EF lenses or at least via adapter like the M mount with no penalty like loss of autofocus performance of odd image quality quirks like using UWAs on the Sony E mount via adapter. 

So long as it had good functionality and battery life, I'd certainly consider it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 19, 2017)

A time-travelling mirrorless isn't that hard in theory. Just allow the camera to retain to retain 2secs of images in its memory. At the press of a button, it generates 120 images (at 60fps). I'm sure it has even been done before. Of course you'd still have to be pointing your camera in the right direction, have things in focus etc.


----------



## martti (Feb 19, 2017)

There have been rumors about Nikon FF mirrorless for many years now. We see no such thing. What would be the reason for Canon to launch a FF mirrorless? To compete with Sony? What Canon needs is a better sensor and some fine tuning in their current FF DSLRs. Yet another form factor with its own lineup of lenses does not seem like a good idea economically. 
Canon is driven by the bottom line and they know they are on a diminishing market where all camera makers are facing losses. They'd need a new approach to social media oriented mass products. There might still be some money to be made as everybody is vlogging and YouTubing. Now look at the GoPro flock, it is enormous! Look at the shaky, vertical pixelated stuff people post...now there I see a market. 
Canon thinks "camera" they should think "audience".


----------



## dlee13 (Feb 25, 2017)

I voted ONLY if Canon uses ANY of its existing mounts. Theoretically, if it is a new mount they could make an adapter like their current one. Or if it uses the EF mount, then many people including myself will be over the moon with happiness. 

After using the M5 for the past two months or so, I REALLY want a FF Mirrorless from Canon. Although I do like optical viewfinders, I find I appreciate an EVF for it's usefulness in low light and personally wouldn't miss an OVF. Also I'm someone who never shoots anything close to action and never use video. DPAF has worked great for me so far and has made me feel like my 6D is really lacking in the AF department which I never felt before. Feature wise if I could put a FF sensor in my M5 I would be more than happy with it.


----------



## slclick (Feb 25, 2017)

I was really close to biting the M5 bullet yesterday after getting a 'better than CPW' deal from Gordon for a body and Euro style EF adapter but after sleeping on it I decided I was caving in on a couple areas. 

1. That screen. I want a true flippy not just a tilty.
2. Creaky grip/plastic body issues. When you get above the $800 mark I expect something a bit more solid, Hell even an SL1 is much more robust than an M5. 

All the other specs and features are great (especially a true Canon adapter for EF as the 3rd party versions all have various play) but those are two I just can't give into and accept. So, I'll wait. Blurgh.


----------



## dlee13 (Feb 25, 2017)

slclick said:


> I was really close to biting the M5 bullet yesterday after getting a 'better than CPW' deal from Gordon for a body and Euro style EF adapter but after sleeping on it I decided I was caving in on a couple areas.
> 
> 1. That screen. I want a true flippy not just a tilty.
> 2. Creaky grip/plastic body issues. When you get above the $800 mark I expect something a bit more solid, Hell even an SL1 is much more robust than an M5.
> ...



I'm not sure if it was a bad batch in certain markets but I haven't had any issues with a squeaky grip on mine.

Yeah I do wish it was tilty flipy but it hasn't bothered me too much, still better than a fixed screen. The detail on it is amazing too.


----------



## dpc (Feb 25, 2017)

I was on the cusp of buying the m3 a little over a year ago. They didn't have any in stock but did have a used Fujifilm X-T10 with the 18-55 kit lens at a great price. I bought that. I haven't regretted it. It's a great camera and the four lenses I have for it are excellent. I'm intrigued by the m5 and m6 but won't buy them. They'd be redundant. As far as a FF mirrorless is concerned, I'd be interested but wouldn't buy one. I've got all the camera gear I need and, truthfully, more than I need.


----------



## Crosswind (Feb 25, 2017)

slclick said:


> I was really close to biting the M5 bullet yesterday after getting a 'better than CPW' deal from Gordon for a body and Euro style EF adapter but after sleeping on it I decided I was caving in on a couple areas.
> 
> 1. That screen. I want a true flippy not just a tilty.
> 2. Creaky grip/plastic body issues. When you get above the $800 mark I expect something a bit more solid, Hell even an SL1 is much more robust than an M5.
> ...



Well, speaking of the plastic body, it's not as bad as you might read it on the forum. 

I'd really really suggest getting the M5 into your hands and play around a little bit. If you can live with a tilting screen, it will be a great camera for you. And something I want to add; the tilting screen on the M5 feels much more solid than the one of the EOS M3 (which I've had for a day to try it out).

For you I guess, it is really more a question about IF you can work with a _tilting screen_ only.


----------



## Crosswind (Feb 25, 2017)

dpc said:


> I was on the cusp of buying the m3 a little over a year ago. They didn't have any in stock but did have a used Fujifilm X-T10 with the 18-55 kit lens at a great price. I bought that. I haven't regretted it. It's a great camera and the four lenses I have for it are excellent. I'm intrigued by the m5 and m6 but won't buy them. They'd be redundant. As far as a FF mirrorless is concerned, I'd be interested but wouldn't buy one. I've got all the camera gear I need and, truthfully, more than I need.



Yeah if that Fuji works for you, why buy something else. You're right. Just buy the tool that works best for you and call it a day. With the M5, I'm in the same spot as you are. I'm not in need of anything "better" or different, it just works, and boy it works really well. I guess it will be my tool of choice for the next several years, same as your Fuji is the tool of choice for you. I'm glad that you've found your "love".


----------



## FTb-n (Feb 25, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> ... I like the DSLR and at FF sensor sizes I think it's been shown over and over that there is really isn't any size advantage, especially if you are shooting fast glass. Generally speaking, I feel the mirrorless advantage is a smaller kit at the right sensor sizes.


I beg to differ. I'm one who considers the differences between FF and crop to be advantages for the FF shooter. Cleaner images at higher ISO offers more options in aperture and shutter speed choices. Deeper color depth enriches the image. In many cases, the FF sensor yeilds sharper images given the same glass. And, you have greater control of depth of field since fast glass will offer thinner DOF on FF than on crop.

It's a fair point that the smaller size of mirrorless bodies is its biggest appeal. To fully realize this benefit, one would then need to consider the size advantages of smaller EF-M (or even EF-S) lenses. The total package will mean a sacrafice in image quality and creative control for the FF shooter. But, it also offers a much bigger improvement in these areas over point-n-shoot alternatives for one seeking a "travel-light" option when bringing a FF kit is overkill or inconvenient. 

I purchased an SL1 for this reason. I sometimes do want a smaller system for "grab shots", but the crop sensor is the smallest that I care to use and shutter lag of non-DSLR's annoy me.

Still, if the shutter lag issue can be improved, I would consider a FF mirrorless. It has the potential of offering a relatively light system for hiking without sacraficing image quality for scenery -- and the potential to capture an image worthy of rather large wall decoration.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 25, 2017)

An oddly structured poll -- it seems to blend appeal of a specific form of the product yet greatly simplify inevitable truth that most of us (perhaps not the wildlifers or sports folks) in the next 10-15 years will be forced to mirrorless instead of SLR.

If it's inevitable that mirrorless will eventually replace what we shoot today, then what we choose in the poll -- the 'I would buy' statements -- becomes a blend of desire and necessity. (Does the polar bear head south _enticed by better chances at food_, or is it headed south _because the ice caps are melting?_)

In other words, some of us will gleefully opt in to FF mirrorless -- possibly swayed by the mount decision, whether it can be made very small, whether we can use native lenses without adaptors, etc. -- while others will be forced into FF mirrorless because the next rev of the (say) 5D line won't have a mirror. These are two dramatically different buying groups -- one that will most certainly own one in the first 1-2 generations of FF mirrorless being offered, and the other may fight this market for over a decade.

- A


----------



## dpc (Feb 25, 2017)

Crosswind said:


> dpc said:
> 
> 
> > I was on the cusp of buying the m3 a little over a year ago. They didn't have any in stock but did have a used Fujifilm X-T10 with the 18-55 kit lens at a great price. I bought that. I haven't regretted it. It's a great camera and the four lenses I have for it are excellent. I'm intrigued by the m5 and m6 but won't buy them. They'd be redundant. As far as a FF mirrorless is concerned, I'd be interested but wouldn't buy one. I've got all the camera gear I need and, truthfully, more than I need.
> ...




Well, I have two Fuji cameras and three Canon cameras. There's only so much gear a person needs and, apart from maybe upgrading from my 5D Mark ll, I figure enough is enough.


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 25, 2017)

Personally I love the ability to pick up my camera, frame/focus the shot and decide if there's something there or not, all without having to wake the camera up... just like I did in film days.

Get a mirrorless to do that with no lag and I'm sold :


----------



## Talys (Feb 25, 2017)

After thinking about it, this is actually pretty easy. As soon as the live view and EVF are superior to OVF, I'll ditch OVF. It is possible: if the density of the pixels exceeds my ability to discern pixels, the light sensitivity exceeds my eyes, and the lag is not discernable to my brain, I'd probably go mirrorless.

Looking at the present, the criteria basically has to be that especially in low light situations I need to be able to manually focus and compose as comfortably and effectively as I can with a top notch OVF, and it can't blow through batteries to power the body.

Looking down the future, mirrorless/no OVF would be awesome if the sensor could provide enhanced images, and non-visible spectrum; for example, infrared. It would be very cool to be able to get 20MP+ images and video of wildlife in the dark, for example. As a use case scenario, I would be prepared to light my back yard with infrared floods (which animals wouldn't see), and then use a 300mm lens to shoot fast pictures or video in near-darkness to film baby raccoons playing or owls chasing mice.

Also, if you think down the road where there's an order of magnitude more powerful processors and batteries, EVF has the potential to give a screen that is much bigger than OVF. So, if "sky's the limit", a EVF could behave more like a AR/VR helmet, and show you *every*, highlighting a box around the image your taking.

The problem is that for me TODAY, EVF/Screen is a fun gizmo that is a handicap for photography in almost every meaningful way; certainly, the two most important metrics -- what I see, and how long batteries last. When that changes and EVF/Screen can give me advantages other than good/interchangeable lens on a bigger point-and-shoot body, I'm there.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 25, 2017)

Talys said:


> After thinking about it, this is actually pretty easy...



Yep. But the 'EVF is better / worse than an OVF' can be sliced a thousand ways depending on what you shoot and what you prioritize. IMHO, it's more than just 'how laggy / big / high-res is it' before EVFs will take off. Consider:

1) If you principally shoot indoor events/concerts, EVFs' ability to amplify light and focus peak at -4, -5 EV conditions (when AF tends to whiff) is better than an OVF _right now_.

2) If you shoot sports/wildlife, it's going to be a very long time before the EVF outclasses an OVF setup.

3) If you often need to switch from AF to MF lenses on the same body, an EVF / peaking setup will do more than an OVF setup as peaking just a button press away with an EVF. The alternative of being able to use focusing screens in (some) SLRs is far more invasive/dedicated setup than the simplicity of a mirrorless button push.

Those are just three examples. There are dozens more where the EVF might show its upsides over an OVF _despite_ battery life, _despite_ lag, etc.

Standard mirrorless disclosure: I shoot an SLR and only shoot an SLR. For all my talk, I'm no mirrorless fanboy so much as I respect mirrorless' inevitability (much as one might watch global warming slowly march forward).

- A


----------



## scrup (Mar 20, 2017)

Looks like most would want a K-01 type camera. Look how well that camera did. 

Just keep the mirror if you going to keep it EF mount.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 20, 2017)

I can't see the point in having anything except EF-M mount.

EF mount means you're stuck with EF lenses. 

EF-M mount means you can get compact EF-M lenses, both crop and full-frame (in the future) and be able to use not just EF lenses, but Nikon lenses, old FD lenses, and pretty much any other lens you'd ever care to use with suitable adaptors.

Why cripple a mirrorless camera by enforcing a 30 year old mount on it?

However... I do think a future EF-M FF mirrorless camera should come bundled with an EF-EF-M adaptor.


----------



## slclick (Mar 20, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I can't see the point in having anything except EF-M mount.
> 
> EF mount means you're stuck with EF lenses.
> 
> ...



That 30 year old mount connects the finest lineup of auto focusing lenses in existence. I don't see a problem.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 20, 2017)

I still see this as too hard to call. There are clear pros and cons to both sides of this argument, and not just for us but also for Canon. 

To me it's all a question of Canon letting this market define itself or if they are brave enough to define it: 


If they wait, it may have to be a thin mount because common-sense notwithstanding, thin will be the entrenched notion of the market. (And it would likely be a fine product.)


If they are brave, they could come out sooner rather than later and sell the world on the seamlessness of a 2nd body that'd identical to their 5D in handling/size/controls, that mirrorless is more than just about size, that an EVF removes certain constraints and unlocks certain opportunities, etc.

And don't mistake my tone below as being one way or the other. I've gone around and around on this and I have a hard time landing on an answer. Both mounts offer opportunities and limitations.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2017)

martti said:


> There have been rumors about Nikon FF mirrorless for many years now. We see no such thing. What would be the reason for Canon to launch a FF mirrorless? To compete with Sony? What Canon needs is a better sensor and some fine tuning in their current FF DSLRs. Yet another form factor with its own lineup of lenses does not seem like a good idea economically.
> Canon is driven by the bottom line and they know they are on a diminishing market where all camera makers are facing losses. They'd need a new approach to social media oriented mass products. There might still be some money to be made as everybody is vlogging and YouTubing. Now look at the GoPro flock, it is enormous! Look at the shaky, vertical pixelated stuff people post...now there I see a market.
> Canon thinks "camera" they should think "audience".



You are thinking small potatos, Canon is thinking big - Very BIG!

Canon has announced their new approach to the drop in camera sales, and its not into a market where competition is so stiff that there are almost no profits. 

They spent billions to buy Axis, the big surveillance camera manufacturer which sells very expensive systems to the government, military, and big companies who can afford big bucks for security. We are talking billions of dollars.

"Canon Inc (7751.T) made a 23.6 billion-Swedish-crown ($2.83 billion) offer for network video surveillance leader Axis AB (AXIS.ST) on Tuesday -- the biggest purchase ever for the Japanese firm trying to expand beyond a shrinking camera market." The deal will make Canon a top player in the video surveillance market, which was worth an estimated $15 billion at the end of last year, according to researcher IHS. Within that market, there is a $3.86 billion segment for network-connected security cameras which is led by Axis with a 17.5 percent share as of 2013.

Secondly, they are buying and expanding even more into the Medical Imaging field, once again, high end, expensive products that are very profitable. Hospitals with huge budgets for new products trust Canon because of their support. They pay the price for quality and reliability. 
"Under Phase V of its Excellent Global Corporation Plan, a five-year initiative launched in 2016, Canon aims to embrace the challenge of new growth through a grand strategic transformation. With regard to reinforcing and expanding new businesses in particular, which represents one of the important strategies to be carried out during this phase, Canon intends to cultivate its health care business within the safety and security sector as a next-generation pillar of growth.
Toshiba Medical is one of the leading global companies in the medical equipment industry. Within the field of medical X-ray computed tomography (CT) systems in particular, Toshiba Medical is the overwhelming market share leader in Japan and has been steadily increasing its global market share. Additionally, Toshiba Medical is the only company in the industry with a broad product portfolio that spans diagnostic X-ray systems, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems, diagnostic ultrasound systems and diagnostic nuclear medicine systems. The company also offers cutting-edge medical imaging solutions and in-vitro diagnostics aimed at individualized care."

Third, industrial applications like machine vision where, once again, Canon can leverage their reputation to convince buyers to spend big bucks on Canon equipment.

Canon feels that these areas are growth markets, and so far they have been right. 

Canon is also creeping into the sensor market, and offering sensors for sale. They do not seem to be diving in big time, so their intentions are not known.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 21, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I can't see the point in having anything except EF-M mount.



The point might be image quality. The shorter the flange distance, the more difficult it seems to be to have lenses that don't have major issues with corner and edge sharpness, CA and vignetting. Even with the smaller APS-C size sensor, the EF-M mount has vignetting issues that are off-the-scale bad, based on lens testing.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 21, 2017)

dak723 said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see the point in having anything except EF-M mount.
> ...



This is because the shorter the mount, the greater the angle that light will hit the sensor....


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> This is because the shorter the mount, the greater the angle that light will hit the sensor....



Not totally correct.

This is ENTIRELY dependent on lens design.

An EF lens attached to an adaptor projects light onto the FF Mirrorless sensor in exactly the same way as it would do on a standard DSLR EF mount camera.

IF your new EF-M lens was to have the elements as far back as could physically fit then yes, there could be a problem (although a problem that Sony seem to have solved with FE lenses.)

But... there is also a middle ground. A new FF EF-M lens could fit somewhere in the middle, ie have some gap between the rear elements and the mount, but still be closer to the sensor than an EF lens. 

Then it becomes an issue of working out the best combination of size/weight and optical performance that you can get for these lenses. For many optical formulae there is likely to be a size/weight benefit to using EF glass while retaining excellent optical quality.

Using the EF-M mount gives you the flexibility to do this. Sticking to the EF mount might require new EF Mirrorless lenses that stick further into the body than EF-S does, but I think that's a less elegant solution than using EF-M mount.


----------



## weixing (Mar 21, 2017)

Hi,
I choose "ONLY if Canon uses its existing EF FF mount and flange distance" basically because:
1) My EF lens will work,
2) I want a larger capacity battery, and
3) I want a camera that's I can hold firmly... I don't have large hand nor I'm strong, but when using the M5, I always worry that I might break the grip when using large lens as I tend to hold very tight. Also, holding a small camera for too long is not very comfortable.

Anyway, IMHO, mirrorless need to improve the battery life (increase battery capacity and reduce power usage) before it can totally replace DSLR. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 22, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > This is because the shorter the mount, the greater the angle that light will hit the sensor....
> ...



Adding "empty" space at the rear of the lens negates the size advantage of the smaller flange distance. Others have reported that this is what Sony was forced to do after their early lenses for the A7 series had very poor results. It is debatable whether these larger lenses would be worth it in order to keep the smaller flange distance which would allow using other brand lenses with adapters. Using these other lenses would seem to be the only real advantage to the EF-M mount, in my opinion.


----------

