# Industry News: The First Rumored Specifications of Nikon's Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 4, 2018)

```
<a href="https://nikonrumors.com/">Nikon Rumors</a> has posted the first rumored specifications of Nikon’s full frame mirrorless cameras.</p>
<ul>
<li>Two mirrorless cameras: one with 24-25MP and one with 45MP (48MP is also a possibility). I assume both cameras are full frame (I did not get a specific confirmation on that).</li>
<li>Similar body size to the Sony a7 camera but with better ergonomics and a better grip.</li>
<li>5-axis in-body stabilization</li>
<li>9fps</li>
<li>New mirrorless mount. We already knew that,  but the number I was given this time is 55mm. The Z-mount dimensions <a href="https://nikonrumors.com/2018/01/18/a-quick-update-on-the-rumored-nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-z-mount.aspx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">I reported a few months ago</a> were 49mm for the actual opening and 65.4mm for the entire mount diameter.</li>
<li>The new mirrorless mount will allow for f/0.95 lenses – <a href="https://nikonrumors.com/2018/06/02/nikon-has-a-new-noct-trademark-for-cameras-and-lenses.aspx/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">remember the NOCT trademark and f/0.9 lens patents</a>?</li>
<li>Memory cards: XQD and CF Express – now this is a surprise for me, but it is what I have heard (<a href="https://photorumors.com/2018/04/08/new-from-prograde-digital-cfexpress-1tb-and-sdxc-uhs-ii-v90-memory-cards/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ProGrade is coming with a CF Express card</a>).</li>
<li>EVF resolution: 3.6MP</li>
<li>Initially, three lenses will be announced: 24-70mm, 35mm and 50mm (I think the 35 and 50mm will be f/1.4). There is also talk about a 24mm, but it may come later.</li>
<li><strong>Pricing:</strong>
<ul>
<li>The 45MP model will be around $4,000/€4,000 in a kit with the 24-70mm lens.</li>
<li>The 25MP model will be under $3,000/€3,000 (also with a lens).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The official announcement is rumored for the end of July (on or around July 23rd) and shipping shortly after (August 23rd). This is the part I am not sure about because previous tips suggested a Photokina announcement. Maybe we will see the development announcement at the end of July and the official announcement before Photokina. I will try to get a confirmation on the exact announcement date.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><a href="https://nikonrumors.com/">Read more at Nikon Rumors</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Etienne (Jul 4, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> <a href="https://nikonrumors.com/">Nikon Rumors</a> has posted the first rumored specifications of Nikon’s full frame mirrorless cameras.</p>
> <ul>
> <li>Two mirrorless cameras: one with 24-25MP and one with 45MP (48MP is also a possibility). I assume both cameras are full frame (I did not get a specific confirmation on that).</li>
> <li>Similar body size to the Sony a7 camera but with better ergonomics and a better grip.</li>
> ...



Interesting, but no on-sensor phase-detect AF?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jul 4, 2018)

I wonder if it has eyeAF.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 4, 2018)

God I hope Canon stands out from the pack and offers a mirrorless body with a native EF mount.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 4, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> <li>Memory cards: XQD and CF Express – now this is a surprise for me, but it is what I have heard (<a href="https://photorumors.com/2018/04/08/new-from-prograde-digital-cfexpress-1tb-and-sdxc-uhs-ii-v90-memory-cards/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ProGrade is coming with a CF Express card</a>).</li>


And still Canon is stuck on CF for their "pro" cameras and UHS-I SD slots(singular) for everything else. 
That rumours might be someone's wishlist but it does seem realistic enough as a viable camera product. Also like someone else mention I would really like to see EF mount for Canon's FF MILC as it would mean less attention diverted between keeping 2 separate systems alive.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jul 4, 2018)

With a new mount I wonder how many people will actually go for it? There is not overwhelming incentive for Nikon users to stick with the brand and why wouldn't people choose the already proven Sony format?


----------



## deleteme (Jul 4, 2018)

As this is a list of rumored specs there probably many things not mentioned such as PDAF.

As for a new lens mount, Canon proved it could be done when they introduced the EF mount displacing their very extensive FD lens line. The rumored intro of several new Canon lenses may hint at a new mount for the upcoming FF mirrorless Canons. 
I would also note that the EOS-M mount is a new mount. So it seems that Canon is not really afraid of new mounts.

Hanging on to a legacy mount despite the drawbacks is not a way to own the future.


----------



## MaxDiesel (Jul 4, 2018)

Interesting, but no on-sensor phase-detect AF?
[/quote]

There are patients from Nikon showing a Quad Pixel autofocus which in theory could rival Canons much loved Duel Pixel tech.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 4, 2018)

MaxDiesel said:


> There are patients from Nikon showing a Quad Pixel autofocus which in theory could rival Canons much loved Duel Pixel tech.



How are Nikon patients caused? Do they drop the 200-500mm on their toes?


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 4, 2018)

AlanF said:


> MaxDiesel said:
> 
> 
> > There are patients from Nikon showing a Quad Pixel autofocus which in theory could rival Canons much loved Duel Pixel tech.
> ...


 ;D


----------



## traveller (Jul 4, 2018)

Sounds a bit “wish-list” to me, especially the IBIS: wouldn’t that be like saying that the F-mount is second rate? Dangerous message to be sending with Sony having the lead in terms of native full-frame mirrorless lens availability. 

I also don’t quite get the “48MP is also a possibility”. Surely with an existing 45.7MP sensor (as used in the D850) or the off-the-shelf Sony 42MP sensor both available, it wouldn’t make financial sense to design and commission yet another sensor. Unless Nikon do have an on-imaging-sensor phase detect af system that requires a dedicated design (like Canon Dual Pixel does). In which case I would question why they weren’t able to get this ready in time for the D850 to launch with it also.


----------



## TAF (Jul 4, 2018)

Normalnorm said:


> As this is a list of rumored specs there probably many things not mentioned such as PDAF.
> 
> As for a new lens mount, Canon proved it could be done when they introduced the EF mount displacing their very extensive FD lens line. The rumored intro of several new Canon lenses may hint at a new mount for the upcoming FF mirrorless Canons.
> I would also note that the EOS-M mount is a new mount. So it seems that Canon is not really afraid of new mounts.
> ...




The switch from the FD mount to the EF mount was necessary to provide for autofocus. There was simply no practical way to make the FD mount support where Canon intended to go.

There is no compelling technical reason to go to a different mount for a FF mirrorless. The EF still provides everything Canon requires; the only sacrifice is that the camera is a bit thicker than some people would like. I would suggest that that is not sufficient cause to invest a vast amount of money into the development of a new mount and new lenses.

I expect that their first FF mirrorless (FF-ML?) will be EF mount, simply to get the product out there and find out if the market is what they expect.


----------



## Adelino (Jul 4, 2018)

TAF said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > As this is a list of rumored specs there probably many things not mentioned such as PDAF.
> ...


 I 100% agree that s shallower body is not very important and also there is nothing to stop Canon from offering a mirrorless EF mount and then later ALSO offering a new mirrorless FF mount EF-X as some have called it. That option gives best of all worlds!


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 4, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> With a new mount I wonder how many people will actually go for it? There is not overwhelming incentive for Nikon users to stick with the brand and why wouldn't people choose the already proven Sony format?



The same will apply to Canon. Honestly, if Canon releases a FF mirrorless with a new mount, any reasonable Canon user, myself included, should consider the competition, Sony and Nikon, before investing in a new system and a new set of lenses. 

The interesting question is what Nikon and Canon will do to get their loyal customers investing in their new system. Compatibility with current cameras (flashes and lenses) will be important. But how many and which new lenses will they release, and at what prices?


----------



## Brown (Jul 4, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> God I hope Canon stands out from the pack and offers a mirrorless body with a native EF mount.



Then what's the point of it being mirrorless?


----------



## TAF (Jul 4, 2018)

Brown said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > God I hope Canon stands out from the pack and offers a mirrorless body with a native EF mount.
> ...



All the advantages of mirrorless (fast frame per second rate; live view; no vibration; no noise; a bit lighter without the heavy prism and mirror box; the potential for advanced display info; all hopefully without the need for 'chimping'), without the added expense of new lenses.


----------



## Brown (Jul 4, 2018)

TAF said:


> Brown said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...



Can't most of that be achieved with mirror lockup and an electronic shutter?
I fail to see the issue to using what amounts to an extension tube for legacy support as in the case of the EOS-M series.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 4, 2018)

Brown said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > Brown said:
> ...



I agree. The switch to mirrorless is long-term, and ultimately mirrors will disappear altogether, like film (there are still some people clinging to film). So the switch to mirrorless will not place priority on the legacy lens mount. They will certainly make a very good adapter, but it will be a new mount and a new set of lenses.


----------



## TAF (Jul 4, 2018)

Brown said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > Brown said:
> ...



1. Most, but not all (and not the best parts). Note the 'no chimping' advantage of mirrorless, which obviously cannot be achieved with a regular mirrored camera with the mirror locked up, as well as a weight savings. Hence making mirrorless (with an EVF) more desirable.

2. The extension tube (as seen in the M series) is a) a potential failure point, b) something to be misplaced, c) something that can adversely affect the quality of the image unless the tube is extremely well made (and hence expensive - the plane of the two mounts must be exactly parallel, which is not that easy to achieve), d) a potential admission by Canon that they aren't really ready for a new mount system, which has psychological implications for sales. Just look at all the EOS-M lenses they have made...

Since the only reason for a new mount would be to make the camera thinner, at the expense of all of the above objections, it would seem a bad idea to go there.

We shall (hopefully) soon see.


----------



## roxics (Jul 4, 2018)

Brown said:


> Can't most of that be achieved with mirror lockup and an electronic shutter?
> I fail to see the issue to using what amounts to an extension tube for legacy support as in the case of the EOS-M series.



Yeah except for the EVF, unless you have a hybrid OVF/EVF of some kind. But I assume that just raises the cost unnecessarily. 

Here is my Nikon FE on top of my Panasonic GH4 (which is smaller than the GH5)







Flange focal distance:
Nikon F = 46.50 mm
Micro43 = 19.25 mm
For reference:
Canon EF = 44.00 mm

Yet look at the actual thickness of each camera. The GH4 is actually thicker and the Nikon has a mirror box in it. 
It's really the electronic components inside that make more of a difference in size than the flange focal distance.

So I say, keep the same lens mount and instant compatibility with all the existing lenses and just work on making the electronics smaller. This obsession people have with shorter flange focal distances is not necessary.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 4, 2018)

TAF said:


> Brown said:
> 
> 
> > TAF said:
> ...



I'm sure there will be FF mirrorless cameras from Canon in the future with both EF mount and a different mount (EF-M or something else). 

I don't really understand the problem of adaptors assuming they're made well enough.

People are:

"I want native EF mount because all my lenses are EF mount"

and

"I don't want an adaptor because what if I leave it at home? Lose it?"

Well... If all your lenses are EF mount, KEEP THE ADAPTOR ATTACHED TO YOUR BODY AT ALL TIMES!. Duh...


And we can be certain that any adaptor for EF lenses is going to be a lot more sophisticated than the EF-EF-M adaptor currently being sold. I'd expect weather sealing and a very much more secure locking mechanism to the body at a minimum.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 4, 2018)

Nice set of specs. The better it is the better the Canon mirrorless full frame will be.
Hopefully Nikon will hit it out of the park to push Canon to the limit.


----------



## tmc784 (Jul 4, 2018)

I have no reason to spend more money to switch to M-camera+lenes, I am happy to stay with my DSLR system as I owned.


----------



## Brown (Jul 5, 2018)

TAF said:


> Brown said:
> 
> 
> > TAF said:
> ...



I regularly stack four EF25s with an adapted Minolta bellow for macro and I haven't noticed a degradation in image quality from mount misalignment.

I think it's been mostly acknowledged that the EOS-M line was a marketing tool used to judge the potential sales of a complete mirrorless system.

It's not the thickness of the camera, but the possibility of traditional non-retrofocal wide angles that makes a short flange distance so appealing.
The quality of which could be improved even further by the introduction of curved sensors.


----------



## Brown (Jul 5, 2018)

roxics said:


> Brown said:
> 
> 
> > Can't most of that be achieved with mirror lockup and an electronic shutter?
> ...



The rear LCD seems to be the biggest offender to the thickness of modern camera designs and while everyone wants a thin camera, they're not willing to accept a DSLR without a colour LCD.

I'm not familiar with Panasonic's offerings, but it looks like the screen of your GH4 is a vari-angle LCD which distorts its dimensions even further.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> With a new mount I wonder how many people will actually go for it? There is not overwhelming incentive for Nikon users to stick with the brand and why wouldn't people choose the already proven Sony format?



Because it's not the horse they rode in on.

Maintaining AF performance with the Nikkor glass they own is not a small thing. Conversely, having to buy new lenses to replace the performance of the Nikkor ones they no longer can use at the same level (3rd party adapting is not the same) is not a small investment.

Having controls / interface that is consistent with their FX (or DX) SLR experience is also not a small thing.

As for "proven", Nikon's been at this game for a wee bit longer than Sony. Why on earth would pulling a mirror out flush all of Nikon's considerable ability to deliver a strong product go down the drain?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

TAF said:


> There is no compelling technical reason to go to a different mount for a FF mirrorless.



*...to you.* We are not the market. I'm guessing a large enough portion of the market wants a smaller camera to warrant a thin-mount FF design.



TAF said:


> The EF still provides everything Canon requires; the only sacrifice is that the camera is a bit thicker than some people would like. I would suggest that that is not sufficient cause to invest a vast amount of money into the development of a new mount and new lenses.



As we've seen time and time again here (and clearly from the market Sony has created), there is a nontrivial percentage of people who value mirrorless' ability to do the same/similar job in a smaller footprint -- even if that dream is not terribly realizable with larger/faster lenses.

I don't think thinner is necessarily better, but Canon, Nikon, etc. will have a *much *harder time selling an identically sized mirrorless rig as being functionally better than a same-spec'd SLR than they will showing a product that is (say) 2/3 as big doing the same job. Like it or not, the 'mirrorless is all about being smaller' camp (which I personally disagree with) have a far easier sales pitch to make to the photography community, and I think because of that, that's what manufacturers will lead with.

I agree full EF for Canon would be worlds more practical. I don't think that will be the first FF mirrorless offering Canon (or Nikon) makes.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

Adelino said:


> I 100% agree that s shallower body is not very important and also there is nothing to stop Canon from offering a mirrorless EF mount and then later ALSO offering a new mirrorless FF mount EF-X as some have called it. That option gives best of all worlds!



Agree that both mounts may be possible for Canon, but again, surely the thinner one would come out first because the elevator 3-second sales pitch is so much simpler:

Sales pitch #1 (for a thin mount): _"Check this out! It takes the same pictures your [insert your FF SLR here] takes, but it's 2/3 the size, 2/3 the weight! Please give us $3000."_

Sales pitch #2 (for a full EF mount): _ "We took your SLR, pulled out the mirror, and piped LiveView into the VF. Please give us $3000."_

There's obviously more to it than that, but I contend that the simplicity of the sales pitch #1 is:

(a) obvious, 

(b) easier to split into messaging points for different levels of the market (beginners: the camera is less intimidating to carry and use, enthusiasts: do more with less size and weight, pros: hard feature sell of completely silent, higher throughput that isn't mirrorbox gated, focusing manual lenses, amplifying light in dark rooms, etc.)

(c) so far, what the market is expecting.

Again: I think both thin and full EF will happen, but thin somewhat sells itself while simply pulling a mirror out of an EF SLR is a harder sell for (candidly) people like us who want to seamlessly use what we have in a new usage context.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> The same will apply to Canon. Honestly, if Canon releases a FF mirrorless with a new mount, any reasonable Canon user, myself included, should consider the competition, Sony and Nikon, before investing in a new system and a new set of lenses.



Wait, you'd hate perfectly adapting your existing Canon glass more than you'd hate buying an entirely new system made with a completely different ergonomic and control setup? 

In other words, if Canon mirrorless isn't utterly, completely seamless with your Canon FF SLR, you'll just jump off a cliff and incur a massive expense and an even less seamless experience with new controls, new ergonomics, new chargers, new batteries, new speedlites, etc. in a competitive ecosystem that *also *has this mirrorless to SLR disconnect?

Your post only makes sense to me (unless I'm missing something, please forgive me -- I want to understand) if Nikon offers an FX mount FF mirrorless system that would allow a truly seamless SLR / mirrorless experience... which it seems they are not poised to do.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

Brown said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > God I hope Canon stands out from the pack and offers a mirrorless body with a native EF mount.
> ...



Camp A is staring at Camp B... _and the two camps continue to ask each other why they bother existing at all._ :

One group see mirrorless as primarily being about being smaller than an SLR.

Another group sees mirrorless as a new (and in some instances, better) way to capture images -- and size has nothing to with it, so they'd prefer to keep the mount they have.

*Neither group is right or wrong.* They have different needs, desires, etc. We should stop trying to invalidate each other's perpectives here and realize these two different opinions that would likely be best served with two different products. One gets thin mount FF mirrorless, and the other gets EF mount mirrorless. Easy peasy.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I agree. The switch to mirrorless is long-term, and ultimately mirrors will disappear altogether, like film (there are still some people clinging to film). So the switch to mirrorless will not place priority on the legacy lens mount. They will certainly make a very good adapter, but it will be a new mount and a new set of lenses.



While we're here, there are two polls going on this right now. Input appreciated! 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35293.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=35292.0

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

TAF said:


> Since the only reason for a new mount would be to make the camera thinner, at the expense of all of the above objections, it would seem a bad idea to go there.
> 
> We shall (hopefully) soon see.



I've litigated a bunch of this in this forum for some time. At this stage -- at least from the CR Forum community, at least -- I contend there are two very different camps on this and neither will budge. 

Also, seeing as (a) EF is continential, immense, etc. and (b) the size upsides of mirrorless are minimized for all but perhaps 10-20% of all EF lenses, it makes sense to conclude that EF will in fact not go away after a thin mount mirrorless arrives. If that is true, offering both mounts in mirrorless and only offering a handful of thin mount lenses that make the size savings pop would make sense, IMHO.

- A


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Brown said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...



ashanford sums it perfectly. Different shooters have different needs. The hope is that Canon caters to both groups  

From a business standpoint, it makes sense to pursue both paths until the market decides which is superior (and it's quite possible they can live in harmony; see very bottom). I suspect Canon will introduce a prosumer FF mirrorless with a new mount & lens lineup, following-up with a Pro level mirrorless in EF mount. As somebody who makes 100% of my income from using my camera, I'll explain why the latter is preferable to me:


Size just isn't an issue, and smaller isn't necessarily better. I don't know many professional shooters who want to spend a 10-12 hour wedding holding anything with less grip than a DSLR body. Some do, I don't.
Adapting EF glass makes for unbalanced cameras and more failure points for weather sealing
Body weight difference is negligible. A7III is 650g, 5DIV 800g
Lens weight difference is negligible. Sony 24-70 2.8 G Master is bigger & heavier (886g) than Canon 24-70 2.8 II (805g)
Obvious one but a biggy....because I have EF glass already
Shorter flange difference does not equal technological advance (a la FD to EF mount). Perhaps this new mount will have something else...but flange difference alone is not an "upgrade"

I can't see the majority of CPS members....shooting day in and day out with EF glass in very harsh & demanding conditions...content to use an adapter for the 5-10 years it'll likely take for Canon to offer a comparable lens lineup in a new mount. Since the future is 100% mirrorless, I think Canon might try and use the mount to differentiate between their consumer, prosumer, and professional products:

*EF cameras & Lenses* - focused on pro features and needs, where ultimate durability/ergonomics/battery life outweigh portability. The mirrorless 1D & 5D. We'll stop seeing non-L EF glass made.
*New FF mirrorless (EF-X?) cameras & lenses* - best marriage of features, versatility, and portability. Mirrorless 6D sized comparable to the A7 line. The current non-L EF glass will be replaced by lenses in this new mount. Allows small UWA designs and for people to go crazy with adapters. 
*EF-M* - Compactness and portability reigns supreme. All APS-C. Stays on current path. EF-S is killed to build up EF-M.

This approach will bring Canon into the future and avoid alienating its current users. All the while opening the cashflow that is a whole new range of lenses.


----------



## Aaron D (Jul 5, 2018)

I can't resist getting sucked into this…

To the "Give me EF or give me death!" crowd:

Why is Canon going to make a bigger than necessary, useless-internal-void-for-a-non-existent-mirror body just so you don't have to buy some new lenses? If you like your old EF lenses, keep buying EF bodies!

Why in the world does a shorter flange distance MAKE THE GRIP TOO SMALL?! How are the two even related? Canon is pretty clever I think. Is a comfortable hand grip on a new-design-from-scratch camera body really such an impossible leap? Sony makes what looks to be a pretty good grip on their A9 (admittedly have never held on in-hand)…why lose sleep over Canon not doing at least as good a job on theirs?

btw, that Nikon is a good looking camera! Sure looks don't matter, but why not a good looking camera?


----------



## Jaysheldon (Jul 5, 2018)

Why not
--keep the EF mount for full frame mirrorless cameras
--keep the EF-M mount for those who want a lighter camera/lens package, including those light F6.3 and f5.6 lenses. (in other words, if you want a 70-200 f4 you have to go full frame. You want light, it means light lenses -- and Canon can market the hell out of lightness. You want big lenses, go with a bigger camera). This mount replaces the EF-S cameras/lenses. (In other words, better to piss off EF-S lens owners than EF lens owners)

The flaw in this, I admit, is it means Canon has to maintain a two-lens line.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> From a business standpoint, it makes sense to pursue both paths until the market decides which is superior (and it's quite possible they can live in harmony; see very bottom). I suspect Canon will introduce a prosumer FF mirrorless with a new mount & lens lineup, following-up with a Pro level mirrorless in EF mount.



Spot on.

Canon has been waiting for some time for the market to sort out what it wants. Sony is the only non-Leica show in town, and they've hitched their wagons to a thin mount ecosystem -- a logical move given their relatively small market share and lack of a EF-sized portfolio. 

But for all of Sony's success at putting product out and starting a conversation with the A7 line, no one else has offered FF mirrorless from a major manufacturer to sort out market preference. Further, Sony hasn't exactly stolen a ton of pros from Canon or Nikon with their thin mount system.

So Canon has waited. I'm guessing they are a bit bummed Nikon hasn't taken a brave move towards either an FX or thinner mount FF mirrorless before them as it may have helped Canon line up the crosshairs better on the market. 

- A


----------



## dak723 (Jul 5, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> I can't resist getting sucked into this…
> 
> To the "Give me EF or give me death!" crowd:
> 
> ...



The two are related because they both determine how small the body will be. If you want to go small with the flange distance, then you will need to go small with the grip or you gain very little. And if you go small with the grip, you lose a lot of the ergonomics -especially when using longer lenses. So the two are interconnected - if you want to go small, you have to go small with both.

And that useless void where the mirror used to be still gives you a greater flange distance which gives you less of an angle for light hitting the outer portions of the sensor - thus better image quality for most lenses.


----------



## TAF (Jul 5, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> I can't resist getting sucked into this…
> 
> To the "Give me EF or give me death!" crowd:
> 
> Why is Canon going to make a bigger than necessary, useless-internal-void-for-a-non-existent-mirror body just so you don't have to buy some new lenses? If you like your old EF lenses, keep buying EF bodies!



Engineering trade space. That extra space will be the heat sink that will be necessary in the early models so they don't overheat (later models will use less power as the electronics get even better...that is the way of things electronic). Thus I fully expect the first FF-ML will be EF mount - to ensure reliability.

The case for a second line with a thin mount seems sound, so it is certainly possible if not even probably that they will then go there.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Why is Canon going to make a bigger than necessary, useless-internal-void-for-a-non-existent-mirror body just so you don't have to buy some new lenses? If you like your old EF lenses, keep buying EF bodies!



Some folks want to use their EF lenses in a mirrorless context, hate adaptors, etc. They value what mirrorless offers _beyond _size reduction, so they wonder why new lenses are needed at all.



Aaron D said:


> Why in the world does a shorter flange distance MAKE THE GRIP TOO SMALL?! How are the two even related? Canon is pretty clever I think. Is a comfortable hand grip on a new-design-from-scratch camera body really such an impossible leap?



1000% agree. Grip and flange distance are completely independent. Go chunky on the grip, b/c people will bolt f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes on it regardless of the flange distance.



Aaron D said:


> Sony makes what looks to be a pretty good grip on their A9 (admittedly have never held on in-hand)…



Oh: hell no. The A7 I,II,II bodies / A9 body have an unmitigated disaster of a grip if you want to put a proper fast FF lens on it. The grip is too small to wield heavy lenses (not massive superwhites, I mean f/2.8 zooms, f/1.4 primes) and, critically, it's too close to the mount! Compare and contrast below. Simply put, it was designed to create that compact footprint with a slower prime. That they continue to grandfather that disaster of a grip through 3 generations now implies that they aren't serious about courting pros yet.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jul 5, 2018)

excellent! If true, first Nikons i am really interested in. sounds like Nikon listened to me and my much hated wish-list!

* slim new Z mount, f/.95 capable - yes!
* small body - yes!
* IBIS - yes!
* 24-70/4.0 zoom - yes! 
* pricing as expected 

only mistake i can see is 1 XQD slot instead of 2x CFExpress (personally i'd prefer 2x MicroSD UHS III).

and if true: Canon is late! 

PS: forget "native EF mount" on Canon FF MILCs.


----------



## littleB (Jul 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> excellent! If true, first Nikons i am really interested in. sounds like Nikon listened to me and my much hated wish-list!


It is your wish list that saved the Nikon. If it were not your list, Nikon would be *******.


----------



## Uneternal (Jul 5, 2018)

Each time if there is a mirrorless news, there's this argument about EF or not EF mount going back and forth.
WTH people, this news isn't even about Canon.
The only relevant thing I see for Canon owners here is, that 2 mirrorless cameras are in development. Which might give a clue why Canon also has 2 cameras in development: We might see a mid level full frame and a high end one next year. 
Every other pro and contra EF just gets you nowhere. Lets just wait and see if Canon finds a solution to make everybody happy. Be it with an adapter or extruding element.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 5, 2018)

It seems to me that the situation is almost like a slow bicycle race.
Canon could have by now brought out a full frame mirrorless.
I think they are not sure whether to implement a new mount or not.
Maybe they are waiting for Nikon to choose and are waiting to see the reaction.
I’d say Canon have two options ready already and are stuck on the choice.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 5, 2018)

Brown said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > God I hope Canon stands out from the pack and offers a mirrorless body with a native EF mount.
> ...


There is a lot of points. I can easily name at least five. The first is: without having high-precision moving mechanical parts, it should be cheaper to manufacture.


----------



## MartinF. (Jul 5, 2018)

I do hope that Canon stay with native EF mount for "full size" PRO and Prosumer cameras as the the current XD (one digit) series even when going mirrorless. A large telezoom or heavy 24-70 requires some ergonomics on the camerabody.
However - a smaller Mirrorless fullframe with a new mount targeting both pro and semipros that want a smaller body and smaller lenses for photojournalism, outdoor portraits, streets etc, i brilliant - but i guess that a smaller body is not what sportsphotographers want.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 5, 2018)

littleB said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > excellent! If true, first Nikons i am really interested in. sounds like Nikon listened to me and my much hated wish-list!
> ...



you bet! 

If Canon really were to go with a stupid EF-nozzle on their FF mirrorless cameras, I'll have to switch to Nikon, which will truly save their a** and start the final CAN-AGGEDON! No, I am never alone in my purchasing decisions but usually find *millions of people* around the world buying exactly the same things.   ;D


----------



## fullstop (Jul 5, 2018)

Jaysheldon said:


> Why not
> --keep the EF mount for full frame mirrorless cameras
> --keep the EF-M mount for those who want a lighter camera/lens package, including those light F6.3 and f5.6 lenses. (in other words, if you want a 70-200 f4 you have to go full frame. You want light, it means light lenses -- and Canon can market the hell out of lightness. You want big lenses, go with a bigger camera). This mount replaces the EF-S cameras/lenses. (In other words, better to piss off EF-S lens owners than EF lens owners)
> The flaw in this, I admit, is it means Canon has to maintain a two-lens line.



No flaw. Canon is already transitioning from EF-S to EF-M - for APS-.C sensors only, of course. And they will go from EF to "EF-X" for full frame sensored cameras. 

So from 2 mounts in the DSLR era: EF / EF-S to 2 mounts in the mirrorless age: "EF-X", EF-M
No flaw, perfectly fine.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> So from 2 mounts in the DSLR era: EF / EF-S to 2 mounts in the mirrorless age: "EF-X", EF-M
> No flaw, perfectly fine.



I still think that EF-M will be used for full-frame to simplify the future lens lineups.

Imagine in the future you have a EF-X 70-300 lens - won't they want to sell this to APS-C shooters as well as FF shooters? There's no need for two different lenses.

I guess it's possible that you could have an EF-X mount that is wider than EF-M, but can take an adaptor to connect EF-M lenses. 

That way all lenses that can work effectively with the EF-M mount would still use EF-M (and therefore be useable on APS-C and FF cameras), eg the 70-300, but any specialist lenses, such as the EF-X 50mm f/1.0  would require the wider mount and wouldn't therefore work with he EF-M.

That'd mean you need to take two adaptors with you, the EF-X->EF-M and the EF-X to EF 

So, I still think that there's very little chance of a new 'EF-X' mount. The choices are either EF-M, or EF - simply from the point of view of Canon's logistics and marketing of future lens products.

Of course I may be wrong, hopefully we won't have long to wait to see..


----------



## Kit. (Jul 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon is already transitioning from EF-S to EF-M - for APS-.C sensors only, of course.


What makes you think so?

The last two crop lenses Canon introduced were EF-S, not EF-M.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I guess it's possible that you could have an EF-X mount that is wider than EF-M, but can take an adaptor to connect EF-M lenses.



Given that a new mount for FF mirrorless (if that happens for Canon) will also be quite thin / have a small flange distance, an adaptor from 'EF-X' to 'EF-M' will likely be thickness-problematic, i.e. only a few mm thick. I don't see that happening, so if Canon does go thin with FF mirrorless, EF-M glass likely won't work with it.

And I don't think that's a crime given that no premium, fast, fast-focusing glass for EF-M exists like Canon tried 10 years ago with EF-S. In other words, if the various EF-M lenses you own are only $299, $399 STM glass, are you really heartbroken it won't work with your $3000 new FF mirrorless body?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> littleB said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



Because the FF f/0.95 'Noct' lenses will be ultra-light pancakes, I'm told. :

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

Kit. said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is already transitioning from EF-S to EF-M - for APS-.C sensors only, of course.
> ...



+1. Crop SLRs keep the lights on at Canon. Most everything EF-M has offered has eventually had an EF-S 'clone' made for it:

EF-M 22 pancake --> EF-S 24mm pancake
EF-M 28 illuminated macro --> EF-S 35 illuminated macro
EF-M 11-22 IS --> EF-S 10-18 IS

They haven't transitioned anything yet. They _did_ stop designing new higher end EF-S lenses ($799+ USM glass), but that's probably because they didn't sell well and/or gave users a reason to stay in crop rather than step up to FF. 

- A


----------



## snoke (Jul 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Some folks want to use their EF lenses in a mirrorless context, hate adaptors, etc. They value what mirrorless offers _beyond _size reduction, so they wonder why new lenses are needed at all.



Canon make more money.
This #1 priority.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2018)

snoke said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks want to use their EF lenses in a mirrorless context, hate adaptors, etc. They value what mirrorless offers _beyond _size reduction, so they wonder why new lenses are needed at all.
> ...



It's not remotely that simple, Snoke. Were this the case, Canon would have 11 mounts right now. 

New mounts and new lenses take a lot of R&D time and money to design to concept, DFM, optimize, etc. They may drive new focusing tech and communications protocols to the lens that take time to dial-in as well.

They also add bloat/complexity/confusion to a system, sow concerns of other product lines going away, etc. which can alienate current users.

That said, I think a small FF mirrorless platform would be profitable enough to wade into those realities if they don't overdo it with the new mount's lens portfolio. Keep it small (literally and scope-wise), see how the system is received, and then take the next steps. 

- A


----------



## Generalized Specialist (Jul 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> No flaw. Canon is already transitioning from EF-S to EF-M - for APS-.C sensors only, of course. And they will go from EF to "EF-X" for full frame sensored cameras.



Yes, all 7 of them in the six years since EF-M came out. And three of the 7 are kit lenses. Setting the world on fire Canon is!

For comparision, Sony has 18 E mount lenses unless I can't count correctly with all my fingers and toes and I can only image how many Fuji has which is many more.

If that's the pace of transitioning at Canon it clearly explains why the vast majority of their releases the last couple of years has been so sleep inducing.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 5, 2018)

me and many purchasers prefer Canon EF-M lens lineup with a very useful zooms and peimes, all dirt cheap and optically decent to excellent lover Sony E-mount and Fuji X-mount, which are also crop only, but either priced and sized like Canon FF glass (fuji X) or optically mostly inferior but mirr expensive than EF-M lenses (Sony E-mount). Market share to prove this.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 6, 2018)

the mirror will go. it was only there because prior to digital imaging sensors and electronic viewfinders it was the inly way to get "through the lens" viewfinding, focussing and metering. that was the only reason to exist for moving mirrors and all related disadvantages from slap to size to alignment issues. 

once the mirror is removed, there is no reason to keep making cameras any larger than necessary just to preserve a legacy lens mount, when legacy lenses can be used with a simple little adaptor. 

Proof was delivered by Pentax - the hard way - with their DSLR- sized "native K-mount" K-01 mirrorless camera. Epic fail! it should be/become a very nice collector's item. 







i always chuckle when i see how some people believe in the mirage of a "native EF mount Canon mirrorless camera".


----------



## -1 (Jul 6, 2018)

Seriously: This reeks pimped Sony a7... Remember Hassy Lunatic???


----------



## michi (Jul 6, 2018)

If the Canon equivalent will cost the same, and with a new lens mount, it will be out of my league. I am willing to spend a lot of money for something like a 5DIV and some L lenses every five years or so, but to start with a new mount, no thanks.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2018)

michi said:


> If the Canon equivalent will cost the same, and with a new lens mount, it will be out of my league. I am willing to spend a lot of money for something like a 5DIV and some L lenses every five years or so, but to start with a new mount, no thanks.



Is it really new if it works _perfectly_ with your EF glass? I hear you that a new mount means a new investment, but that investment is likely to be a (guessing) $200 one-time pickup in the form of an adaptor. That's not awful if you have what appears to be a ~ $5K budget to roll out every five years.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 6, 2018)

Brown said:


> I think it's been mostly acknowledged that the EOS-M line was a marketing tool used to judge the potential sales of a complete mirrorless system.


who are these people?


Brown said:


> It's not the thickness of the camera, but the possibility of traditional non-retrofocal wide angles that makes a short flange distance so appealing.


it's the only advantage of making a registration distance smaller, versus a multitude of serious business reasons why it's a bad idea.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon is already transitioning from EF-S to EF-M - for APS-.C sensors only, of course. And they will go from EF to "EF-X" for full frame sensored cameras.



no they are not. they are quite happy selling both EF-S and EF-M mount cameras.
Canon is expanding their product lines, not removing them.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is already transitioning from EF-S to EF-M - for APS-.C sensors only, of course. And they will go from EF to "EF-X" for full frame sensored cameras.
> ...



Number of EF-M lenses: 7

New lenses for EF-S since EF-M launched: 7

Yep. Canon is totally transitioning away, AvFullTvStopM. 

Looks more to me like Canon has standardized and right-sized it's crop offerings. They are done offering pricy Ring USM lenses for crop, and now each line has 4-5 zooms, a macro and a pancake. Nice and tidy lens portfolios, IHMO. I'd like to see pricier/quicker/nicer glass, but Canon also wants us buying the pricier EF.

- A


----------



## TAF (Jul 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> the mirror will go. it was only there because prior to digital imaging sensors and electronic viewfinders it was the inly way to get "through the lens" viewfinding, focussing and metering. that was the only reason to exist for moving mirrors and all related disadvantages from slap to size to alignment issues.
> 
> once the mirror is removed, there is no reason to keep making cameras any larger than necessary just to preserve a legacy lens mount, when legacy lenses can be used with a simple little adaptor.




"Necessary" being the operative word.

If you assume the target user base for your first FF-ML is the 5D type folks, the expectation is they will want to be using the glass most common to that body type. Which I believe translates into the kit lens (24-105 f4), the 70-200 f4, and the 17-40 f4. So those actual lenses dictate the user experience that first adopters will have, since it is unlikely they will release equivalent 'new mount' lenses at the same time - and even if they did, the cost would hurt sales tremendously.

So if it is a new mount, it will need to come with a really good adapter, so your first adopters can enjoy the new experience with their existing base of lens.

Now, in order to achieve the same level of ergonomics (which is likely critical to pleasing your first adopters) you have with a 5D class camera, your size will likely be no smaller than the M5, which is right at the border of too small for many folks in the western world. Hang a 70-200 on it, and it really is marginal. With an adapter stuck in the middle, even more so.

At the same time, you have to dedicate sufficient volume to heat sinks, electronics, and batteries.

All of which suggests that your first real foray into FF-ML is going to be the same size or larger than the M5, at which point it makes little sense to go for a new mount when a product using the existing one will please the majority of potential first adopters.

The SL-1 apparently doesn't outsell similarly priced T7i et al, which it should have if size mattered all that much.

At least that is my take on product development.


----------



## zim (Jul 7, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Brown said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's been mostly acknowledged that the EOS-M line was a marketing tool used to judge the potential sales of a complete mirrorless system.
> ...



Absolutely, if my mortgage relied on photography I wouldn't give a rats arse about how 'thick' my camera was.
This tech obsessed fan boy stuff is tiresome but it's only going to get worse


----------



## RickWagoner (Jul 12, 2018)

One main advantage of mirrorless is the weight and size, but this does not work out in the real world on full frame mirrorless as the weight and size of lens itself is determined mostly by focal length, aperture and then a little by build quality. Of course you can (and some companies do) go a smaller body but then you have a weird unbalance with a fast zoom pro quality full frame lens. 

There are many ways any camera company can build a mirrorless to naively work with their full frame slr lens. They can position the sensor right on the back of the lcd to make up he flange distance needed, they can easily build in an extension ring that twists out from the body to make up the flange distance, they can use optics between the lens and the body to make up the flange distance but this is harder said than done and you are adding in another element to the mix. there are ways of tilting the sensor to make up for the flange distance also.

The reason why it has not been done yet is because the cost of the R&D alone is probably more than the entire mirrorless market in EU and USA has right now. There just is not enough people wanting mirrorless outside of Asia to justify the cost...least not right now. Look at the SLR market in USA and EU now, the entry level stuff is gaining HUGE and is beyond the cash cow for all SLR makers. Why put all the R&D into a mirrorless body that natively takes SLR lenses, sell those bodies at a tiny profit and to a tiny tiny share of people when you can sell 50,000 entry level bodies with much greater profit per unit in minutes with no extra R&D Cost? Canon and Nikon don't even test their mirrorless prototypes outside of japan yet every SLR the two companies release have seen months or years of testing in the USA & EU before being announced. 

A much more realistic option is to do a EVF that flips down when an SLRs mirror flips up. Both companies have done this years ago in the labs but the quality and lag of the evf back then where not even close to what was needed. Eventually every SLR will be a hybrid EVF/OVF as electronic view finder tech improves. Every SLR will be a dedicated photograph machine but with a flick of the switch will be also a dedicated video camera, both will have the full benefits of each kind has now.. Question is will the world go to a mirrorless system before then? 

Canon and Nikon want to test the mirrorless market and the growth in the USA and EU with a full frame or two before they decide what direction the companies will go.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 12, 2018)

RickWagoner said:


> One main advantage of mirrorless is the weight and size, but this does not work out in the real world on full frame mirrorless as the weight and size of lens itself is determined mostly by focal length, aperture and then a little by build quality. Of course you can (and some companies do) go a smaller body but then you have a weird unbalance with a fast zoom pro quality full frame lens.



Only a minority of people use fast zooms , long teles or other big lenses most of the time or all the time. 

Most frequently used foal length range 24-85mm can profit massively from shorter Flange Focal Distance on mirrorless cameras. A mirrorless FF setup of camera + 16-35/4 plus 24-70/4 plus 24/2.0 plus 35/1.8 plus 50/1.8 plus 85/2.0 can be made *sgfnificantly more compact and lighter* than a DSLR setup. Need for faster lenses is much lower today, now that any decent camera delivers excellent IQ even at ISO 6400 and on FF subject isolation at f/2.8 is more than sufficient for many subjects/styles. I want such a setup, and many others want it too. And for birders, wildlifers, sports photogs there will be chunkier mirrorless cameras to go well with bigger lenses. No problem. There will be multiple models and sizes available. Just like with DSLRs. 

So no need to constantly try and obfuscate or "explain away" the very real size and weight advantages mirrorless systems allow for and will bring for the vast majority of use cases and customers. 

On top of that come all other advantages of mirrorless cameras. WYSIWIG EVF, 100% silent, 100% vibration-free, 100% free of moving mech parts, 100% lubricant-free - as soon as we finally get global shutter sensors - all the way to significantly lower cost thanks to much simpler calibration and QC routines and fully automated production - which will *hopefully* also lead to lower prices for us, the paying customers. Provided, we keep asking for it and pushing Canon and competitors, rather than "showing pre-emptive, endless understanding for their oligopolist profit maximizing at our expense" - as seen so often in this forum.


----------

