# Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 26, 2016)

```
<p>We’re told that Canon is readying a fixed lens full frame camera. It sounds like a camera to compete with the Leica Q and Sony RX1R II. We’re told the camera will have a 35mm f/2L IS lens. Such a camera would likely cost at least $3000USD. Remember, CP+ is coming at the end of February and that is sometimes a show Canon makes a splash at.</p>
<p>This is the first time we’ve heard of such a camera coming, so treat the information accordingly.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## jebrady03 (Jan 26, 2016)

If it comes to fruition, I'd imagine they'd go with a different optical formula than the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. It's a fantastic lens, and small (which is appropriate) but I would think they'd want even better performance if they're going to play in that price range.


----------



## Pitbullo (Jan 26, 2016)

So, a full frame point and shoot, almost. ;D
Hopefully, they will go all in, all mad and techy, not just matching Sony and Leica.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> If it comes to fruition, I'd imagine they'd go with a different optical formula than the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. It's a fantastic lens, and small (which is appropriate) but I would think they'd want even better performance if they're going to play in that price range.



I think you missed a letter. The rumor mentions a 35mm f/2*L* IS lens.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 26, 2016)

If there's a market for such a camera, fine for Canon. 
I am not part of this market. 
As long as this is not limiting the resources for DSLR, MILC and lens development I don't bother.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 26, 2016)

that makes alot more sense than the mirrorless theories about full frame.


----------



## ablearcher (Jan 26, 2016)

I'd rather see a FF body which can take advantage of Canon's lens arsenal. Probably the main reason I'm waiting for a camera from Canon (and the reason I was considering the M line at all).


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 26, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> that makes alot more sense than the mirrorless theories about full frame.



We'll have to agree to disagree about that.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2016)

There are three ways you build up the expertise to go FF mirrorless:

1) Start with a smaller sensor and experiment on EVF, AF systems, handling, etc. Iterate and improve. Once you have a slick, compelling product, you eventually get brave enough to step up to FF.

2) Defer the billion dollar mount decision and offer a fixed lens FF rig. Do the same -- experiment, learn, iterate, improve.

3) Pull the mirror out of an EF rig and let them use EF lenses out of the gate*. It may not be the final product you want to use (will be far thicker than needed for the 'please please please keep it smaller than my SLR' mirrorless faction), but this rig would have zero risk of dropping the ball on grip, controls, ergonomics, etc.

* yes, of course, 'The I don't need it to be smaller' faction wants this rig as the go-forward FF mirrorless system as it will seamlessly use existing lenses without adaptors.
*
All that said*, I would have thought #3 would have been the play before #2 ever happened. But, if this story is true, Canon seems to be taking a page out of Sony's book, as they of course did the same thing.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2016)

I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.

I keep looking at Fuji X100S/T's but just can't get myself to give up that APS stop of iso/dof.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Jan 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > If it comes to fruition, I'd imagine they'd go with a different optical formula than the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. It's a fantastic lens, and small (which is appropriate) but I would think they'd want even better performance if they're going to play in that price range.
> ...



...and a decimal point :


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.
> 
> I keep looking at Fuji X100S/T's but just can't get myself to give up that APS stop of iso/dof.




Ever the cheerleader... :


----------



## symmar22 (Jan 26, 2016)

I wonder what sensor they will use. Personally I would have preferred a 40mm f2 or f1.8, that's IMO a bit more universal than the 35 we always see. Something like the Leica/Minolta CLE or the Zuiko 40mm f2.


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.
> 
> I keep looking at Fuji X100S/T's but just can't get myself to give up that APS stop of iso/dof.



Exact same thing here. I was totally thinking about the X100s, but I really am not a fan of spending over a grand on a camera unless it's full frame or has the features of the 7D mark II.

35mm primes are like the backbone of photojournalism, so I really couldn't complain about having a sharp full frame camera with a good, image stabilized lens. You could do almost anything with that, it'd be an incredible travel camera, and I'm sure the resolution would be good enough to crop into for at least 70mm or 100mm if you really needed it.

I just hope the control scheme is good! I need my aperture and shutter wheels.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Jan 26, 2016)

Finally something that sounds really interesting!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.
> 
> I keep looking at Fuji X100S/T's but just can't get myself to give up that APS stop of iso/dof.



The difference is that one stop of ISO/DOF costs you another $2k...

In the SLR world, there is much less of a gap from APS-C to FF for price (if you FF lenses already). Sony and Leica may not sell many fixed lens FF rigs like the Q and RX1R II, but those that do sell remain at a high asking price due to very little competition.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2016)

Also, does anyone give a damn that this is made by Canon if you can't put your EF lenses on it?

I suppose the menu/controls/ergonomics will be more consistent, but other than that, do you care?

- A


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 26, 2016)

Make it interchangeable with dual pixel capability and I'll be interested.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.
> ...



And what, pray tell, is wrong with my interest in such a possible camera? Heck I even stated it would have to have a slew of specs to suit my personal needs to actually buy one, if it ever became available. But having a Canon version always makes the actual use much simpler for me, which is why I like my M as much as I do, things like flashes, remotes, etc are all much easier to deal with if they run the same ecosystem.

Sorry, I'll stop pointing out the various reasons such a camera would make sense for me and get back to the usual line here. What crap, Canon have really lost the plot on this one, Sony is eating their lunch and did the same thing years ago, why are Canon always playing catch up with their crippled specs and zero innovation? It better have at least 16 stops of DR or else I am jumping ship, I warn you Canon! It better have OVF. It better have EVF. It better have CFast and a tilt screen or else they are *******. I need two card slots. I need true audio in and a headphone socket and if Canon cripple the video I am jumping ship. I need 4k. I need 5k. I need internal RAW 4k recording. I need high quality LOG and CODECs.

That make you feel better?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Nothing at all. A high quality fixed lens rig makes a ton of sense -- for us as shooters, for Canon as a guinea pig to advance it's mirrorless aspirations, etc.
_
Whether it's APS-C or FF_ is indeed the kick-in-the-butt question. With a fixed lens, I don't really care if it's Sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc. so one would think a Fuji X rig, Nikon Coolpix A, Sigma Quattro, Sony RX1R II and Leica Q would all be in contention.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 26, 2016)

Bob Howland said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > that makes alot more sense than the mirrorless theories about full frame.
> ...



the EF mount resources are as busy as usual with canon's existing DSLR's and EF mount lenses.

the powershot group though is doing far far less business and far less cameras, there's resources to be used there.

the powershot P&S sales are slumping harder than DSLR's.

from the camera geek perspective you probably disagree, from the canon perspective this makes alot more sense, especially if they can undercut sony.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jan 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > If it comes to fruition, I'd imagine they'd go with a different optical formula than the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. It's a fantastic lens, and small (which is appropriate) but I would think they'd want even better performance if they're going to play in that price range.
> ...



You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! OOPS!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.
> ...



So what?

The stop between f4 and f2.8 cost me over $3,000 when I got my 300 f2.8 IS, and currently costs new buyers over $4,500.

At my camera club I am a 'mentoring coordinator', newer photographers regularly ask me why some pictures look 'better' than theirs when they were shot at the same event. Invariably they have a crop or m4/3 camera and the image they are comparing to was shot with a ff, the only difference is that stop or so, they don't know what the technical difference is but they can see it, and want it.

Not for one second suggesting that crop cameras can't take a good picture, of course they can, or that I can tell the difference between a crop camera image and a ff one most of the time, we should all know by now it is easy to make them literally identical. But sometimes (and often enough in my case) that difference is worth the money. 

If you can't control the light then dof control is the next most powerful characteristic that enables you to make the image you see in your mind. Below is an example of what I am talking about, 35 f2 IS @ f2 with a ff camera, you can't do that dof control even with the 35 f1.4 at 1.4 on a crop camera.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 26, 2016)

Well, guess I'm glad it's only a CR1. I can't see how Canon wouldn't fare better with an MILC as its first foray into FF Mirrorless than fixed lens. I can't imagine the market for the Leica or RXRII is all that bigat $3000. I suppose it's not an easy thing to make an MILC compact enough yet still serve to work with existing EF glass, but I'm sure they can find a way.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also, does anyone give a damn that this is made by Canon if you can't put your EF lenses on it?
> 
> I suppose the menu/controls/ergonomics will be more consistent, but other than that, do you care?
> 
> - A



Bingo. I see that this rivals some of the ML cameras on the market.. but it can't touch the sonys just based on the fixed lens. Meh, if this really turns up, not terribly disappointed (I want to see sensor tech!!), but definitely not on my list to get. I'm sure canon can work up an adapter for EF lenses like the metabones for the sonys.


----------



## gsealy (Jan 26, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.
> ...



I have a Fuji X100T and it is simply a great camera. It cost me $1300 and I bought it the first month it came out. I purchased the camera for doing street photography and it serves that purpose really well. It has a 23mm f2 lens, but it's sweet spot is 3.2mm to 11mm. Some people shoot f2 all the time, and it does a great job of focusing, so that is not an issue. But I found that the lens is sharpest around 4.0 so I keep it there most of the time. The bottom line is that the camera can get those fleeting street shots very well and without drawing a lot of attention. 

That all said, I can't see spending $3K on a camera with a fixed lens even if it is FF. I thought the X100T was a little pricey even at $1300. But I am happy with the purchase. Wow, I would spend $3K on something else, like a nice Zeiss lens.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 26, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also, does anyone give a damn that this is made by Canon if you can't put your EF lenses on it?
> ...



so without knowing specs,etc .. you know that sony's 35mm lens would be better than canon's?


----------



## guidoz (Jan 26, 2016)

35mm is my favourite focal lens, and I've been often tempted to get the fuji x100t 
If canon can make something similar (or better) with the plus of a FF sensor, then they can get my money. I could use it as an "always with me" little camera, or as a "second body" (I have a 5D mark III and, among other lenses, a 35mm.. I could just sell my 35mm and get this one)

That said, I seriously doubt Canon will really make it as good as the fuji... (although it technically could)


----------



## shutterlag (Jan 26, 2016)

This would be a very odd decision on Canon's part IMO. Just about every photog that wants a camera like this, and that has the cash, already owns an RX1RII.


----------



## quod (Jan 26, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.
> ...


I have the X100S. As I am drafting this, Lens Authority is currently selling two used copies of the X100S for $630/each, which is far from $1K+. For what it is worth, it will shoot clean up to 3200 ISO (6400 is usable), with a base ISO of 200. I think the IQ is equivalent to my 5D3, with more DR latitude. In Iceland, I did aurora photography with the Fuji and my 5D3. The Fuji shots were nearly identical in IQ to my 5D3 shots using the Zeiss 25mm f/2 ZE at f/2.8 (which, btw, is an amazing lens). Another plus for the Fuji are converter lenses that will convert the 35mm to 28mm and 50mm. You can get near mint converter lenses on ebay for $200-250/each. Another plus is that the Fuji has a leaf shutter lens.


----------



## SwampYankee (Jan 26, 2016)

Ah....just a year too late Canon. I bought a Fuji X100S a little over a year ago. It was so good I bought a Fuji XT-1 and a bunch of fast primes. Sold all of my Canon stuff because Canons mirrorless offering were not compelling. Canon lost a 35 year customer because they were years behind. too late now


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 26, 2016)

Canon seems to be a step behind in mirrorless world. Rumors have been flying around about Fuji and Sony might introduce medium format.

For $3000 fixed cam I expect:
1. snappy AF
2. decent tracking
3. built-in EVF(pop-up is good choice )
4. swivel screen

I enjoy carry my a7r II FF + FE35f2.8 very much. AF tracking is just amazing for mirrorless. 

A7r II + FE35f2.8. AF tracking - subject approachs the cam. I have about 10-15shots, no problem with AF tracking: https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/Share-with-Public/n-2pr3NV/i-7pJ75qZ/A


A7r II + FE35f2.8 shot with swivel screen, ground level:
https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/Share-with-Public/n-2pr3NV/i-DBdhGSX/A
https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/Share-with-Public/n-2pr3NV/i-h7LmKrh/A
https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/Share-with-Public/n-2pr3NV/i-Qfrpknf/A

Canon needs to work really hard in mirrorless to bring me back.


----------



## zim (Jan 26, 2016)

CR1 but that image posted by CR guy on the January 23, 2016 and used again here turns out to be fairly accurate, hiding in plain sight, not for the first time ?


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Jan 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also, does anyone give a damn that this is made by Canon if you can't put your EF lenses on it?
> 
> I suppose the menu/controls/ergonomics will be more consistent, but other than that, do you care?
> 
> - A



You obviously haven't seen the new sensor from Canon...


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 26, 2016)

*Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1*



SwampYankee said:


> Ah....just a year too late Canon. I bought a Fuji X100S a little over a year ago. It was so good I bought a Fuji XT-1 and a bunch of fast primes. Sold all of my Canon stuff because Canons mirrorless offering were not compelling. Canon lost a 35 year customer because they were years behind. too late now



There has been some praises for the Fuji x100s/t in this thread. I had the x100s for 18 months. I loved the rangefinder style and shooting experience. It was incredibly fun to use, even though the focus should be faster for street shooting. The sensor was very good as well, and not to far behind the 6D in terms of noise performance. 

The lens however, which I expected a lot from after praises in various reviews, was very disappointing to me. The EF-M 22 f/2 on my EOS-M was much, much!!! sharper and clearer than the X100S. After comparing them, I sold the X100S. That said, the pictures from the Fuji looks sharp enough on an iPad, untill zooming in. 

I would consider a Fuji, such as the X100 again, if the optics could compete with those of the EOS-M system.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jan 26, 2016)

Apparently out of brain power. Come on, bring on something truly innovative. :


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 26, 2016)

Never seen the point of a fixed lens full frame camera the lens regardless of how good it is will be its limiting factor I can think of much better ways of spending $ 3,000. Now if its a mirrorless camera however Im interested.


----------



## eml58 (Jan 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.
> 
> I keep looking at Fuji X100S/T's but just can't get myself to give up that APS stop of iso/dof.



I recently purchased the Sony RX1R II, very happy with it as well.

I've had 2 M cameras & been disappointed with both, off the Bat I've been quite impressed with the RX1R II, it's an expensive little beast though & with Sony's track record there will likely be a Version III in a month or two, so far though, I like it.


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Jan 26, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> Never seen the point of a fixed lens full frame camera the lens regardless of how good it is will be its limiting factor I can think of much better ways of spending $ 3,000. Now if its a mirrorless camera however Im interested.



High quality high ISO shots from something that fits in your jacket pocket. That's why I bought the RX1.

There could be cost advantages in manufacturing a body that is used with a fixed lens and then with a slight modification, can take M-series lenses.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 26, 2016)

*Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1*



Larsskv said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > Ah....just a year too late Canon. I bought a Fuji X100S a little over a year ago. It was so good I bought a Fuji XT-1 and a bunch of fast primes. Sold all of my Canon stuff because Canons mirrorless offering were not compelling. Canon lost a 35 year customer because they were years behind. too late now
> ...



I considered An X100S and then T for a quite a while. Especially since the internet just raved about that camera, the leaf shutter, built in ND filter, etc. I love the 35mm focal length so it seemed like a match made in heaven. But like many others in this thread I haven't been able to justify spending that kind of money on a fixed lens camera.

However, I do find it interesting how unhappy you were with the lens. Did you have a bad copy or do you believe the fixed lens is really that weak? The new XF lenses from Fuji are generally held in very high regard optically. My limited experience/exposure with them has left me quite impressed.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 26, 2016)

I wonder if this is a way for Canon to test the waters with a pro style mirrorless type body without actually having to decide or commit to the mirrorless mount?


----------



## gmrza (Jan 26, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> If there's a market for such a camera, fine for Canon.
> I am not part of this market.
> As long as this is not limiting the resources for DSLR, MILC and lens development I don't bother.



This kind of camera looks like a move on the part of Canon to test product features or technology on a limited basis - i.e. a camera that will appeal to a market niche. This would allow them to get a feature into the market on a limited basis without having to commit to large scale production or the risks of having issues with very large numbers of customers if there are problems.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 26, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> Never seen the point of a fixed lens full frame camera the lens regardless of how good it is will be its limiting factor I can think of much better ways of spending $ 3,000. Now if its a mirrorless camera however Im interested.



+1, plus this thing is supposed to have a fixed focal length lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 26, 2016)

The very last thing I would need or ask Canon for. A Sony RX1 competitor ... 5 years too late. Stupid non-changeanle 35mm lens bolted in front of some subpar Canon sensor. Priced sky-high.

That's why I believe this rumor. I hope Canon brings tvis camera to market and sells exactly as many copies as Sony sells R1X/R1,2s and Leica sells Q's. 

Why oh why cant the suckers not just bring a decent EOS M body fully competitive with Sony A6000 (6100) and a Ff MIL system fully competitive with Sony A7 II series? Why only fat old mirrorslappers and multiple-crippled mirrorless
cameras?


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 26, 2016)

The only part you can argue that's "stupid" is making their first dive into this pool being a $3000 device. $3000 that has an interchangable EF mount natively would be another story.



AvTvM said:


> The very last thing I would need or ask Canon for. A Sony RX1 competitor ... 5 years too late. Stupid non-changeanle 35mm lens bolted in front of some subpar Canon sensor. Priced sky-high.
> 
> That's why I believe this rumor. I hope Canon brings tvis camera to market and sells exactly as many copies as Sony sells R1X/R1,2s and Leica sells Q's.
> 
> ...


----------



## pwp (Jan 26, 2016)

This is a number of years behind the play. Make it a MILC. Canon just alienated a huge chunk of potential buyers making this a fixed lens camera. Sigh...

-pw


----------



## Nininini (Jan 26, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> If there's a market for such a camera, fine for Canon.
> I am not part of this market.



I don't think there is a market for it. Fuji and Canon can't command anywhere near the same prices as Leica, even though they try it every couple of years.

Fuji especially has been trying for years to take part of Leica's market, with little success, the premium market is far out of their reach. Instead of attracting people with large disposable income looking for quality, like Leica, Fuji has attracted hipsters.


----------



## tr573 (Jan 26, 2016)

*Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1*



Luds34 said:


> However, I do find it interesting how unhappy you were with the lens. Did you have a bad copy or do you believe the fixed lens is really that weak? The new XF lenses from Fuji are generally held in very high regard optically. My limited experience/exposure with them has left me quite impressed.



The lens is good wide open , but not amazing, and only at a decent distance. Anything closer in than a few feet, and the lens has a lot of hazy SA , so you get that dreamy low contrast look from it.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Below is an example of what I am talking about, 35 f2 IS @ f2 with a ff camera, you can't do that dof control on a crop camera.



Nothing in your picture is in focus or sharp. Your subject isn't in focus either.

Blame your technique instead of crop cameras.


----------



## HighLowISO (Jan 26, 2016)

Make it $1,500 US and they have something pretty interesting especially with a great sensor. If it had a 50Mp sensor they could have a couple crop modes and it would be like 3 lenses in one and still have decent resolution. If they were going to do that though they probably would have a lens wider than 35 to start with. $1,500 and I'd be very interested in what it can do. If if they use Blue-Goo I just don't think the market is that big at $3,000.... but maybe Fujifilm has shown the market is bigger than I might think even at the high price, but Sony seems to indicate that the fixed lens market is more price sensitive.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 26, 2016)

*Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1*



tr573 said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > However, I do find it interesting how unhappy you were with the lens. Did you have a bad copy or do you believe the fixed lens is really that weak? The new XF lenses from Fuji are generally held in very high regard optically. My limited experience/exposure with them has left me quite impressed.
> ...



I don't think I had a good copy, but I tried to find comparable images online. I remember it was hard finding pictures of it wide open (every picture that was demonstrating sharpness didn't have corners in focus, or was shot at f/8) but those I found had similarities to my camera. I had to stop down to f/11 to get corner to corner sharpness. 

A lot of negative things can be said about the EOS-M, but the lenses for it, and especially to 22 f/2 are great. Considering their price, I believe they are the best buys in the mirror less market.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 26, 2016)

Target customer:
A) Brand led - Customer is extremely loyal to the brand.
e.g. Canon makes that XC10 camera, yeah just add that to my order as well

B) Price led - Lowest price wins for this customer
e.g. No way $3000 is too much. I'm not willing to pay more than $,$$$ for a point and shoot

C) Value led - This customer takes a calculated approach to purchasing 
e.g. Hmmm... Compared to the Leica this offers pretty good performance, also it has more resolution and a slightly better lens than the Sony, also the new sensor performs better than the 5DsR and it's in a more discrete package, also it's full frame unlike the Fuji cameras, also it's backed by Canon's after-sales service. Seems like this could work for me.

Group A is a small niche.
Group B is a huge proportion of the market but will not provide a quick return on investment
Group C is a tough crowd to please as there are many different needs in the market and a huge range of products with different strengths and weaknesses


----------



## aclectasis (Jan 26, 2016)

AHAHAHAHAHAH

Canon's last fixed-length camera went so well...


----------



## Nininini (Jan 26, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Target customer:
> A) Brand led - Customer is extremely loyal to the brand.
> e.g. Canon makes that XC10 camera, yeah just add that to my order as well
> 
> ...



Many Japanese brands are trying what people call the luxury strategy, there is a famous book about it.

Time
Heritage
Country of origin
Craftsmanship
Man-made
Small series


I read this a couple of days ago in some article. And most of those elements are present.

It's not just a normal article of course, it's native advertising. It's a commercial without the readers realizing it. 














And this is of course eaten up by consumers.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 26, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Why only fat old mirrorslappers and multiple-crippled mirrorless
> cameras?



Because those are the things that sell the most?


----------



## applecider (Jan 26, 2016)

If they sold this refurb, with a useable iso to 6400, 28 or less MP, I'd pay $500 for it max. With a 50 MP 6400 iso sensor $750. 50MP iso 3200 sensor maybe $600.

Seems like a weird way to avoid giving us what we really want...a full frame mirror less with interchangeable lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2016)

Nininini said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Below is an example of what I am talking about, 35 f2 IS @ f2 with a ff camera, you can't do that dof control on a crop camera.
> ...



Idiot, click on it so it displays at actual resolution, 750px wide, not in line and you will see that the subject is sharp. If you want I can post a 100% crop of the guys mustache, you can count the individual hairs. 

The point was the volcano is famous but it is the juxtaposition of it overshadowing a long time resident, yet creating a balance by letting it blur, you cannot get that level of subject isolation with that perspective with a crop camera because they don't make a 22mm f1.25 lens.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jan 27, 2016)

didn't Sony come out with the RX1, testing the waters before the A7....maybe this is Canon's chance to do the same just before coming out with something even better


----------



## tcmatthews (Jan 27, 2016)

While I can almost understand it I just cannot see spending all that money? I would much rather see a full frame EOS-M with a series of high quality compact lenses 24L,35f2 L, 50L and 85L. The problem is some day the camera will die. If it is a high quality fixed lens camera you cannot buy a new camera to put the lens on. It is more of a luxury device and I am just to practical.

What can I say not the camera for me unless they somehow make it for $600. Which is about my limit for such things. 

I still hate the fact the Sony FE compact 35mm is only f2.8 it should be f2. I do not care how good it is it needs to be at least f2 before I will buy one.


----------



## SwampYankee (Jan 27, 2016)

*Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1*



Larsskv said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > Ah....just a year too late Canon. I bought a Fuji X100S a little over a year ago. It was so good I bought a Fuji XT-1 and a bunch of fast primes. Sold all of my Canon stuff because Canons mirrorless offering were not compelling. Canon lost a 35 year customer because they were years behind. too late now
> ...


Heh.. I had a 5DIII and the prints from the Fuji XT-1 and a prime were indistinguishable from the Canon at 13x19.....The X100S is pretty close. great prints up to 13x19 on a Canon Pixima pro 1. must have a had a bad copy or something (although I have never heard of a bad X100S).


----------



## olympus593 (Jan 27, 2016)

I hope this is not true.

Canon seems lost. Not on the lead of mirrorless like Fuji and Sony, and losing ground everyday for Nikon. The D500 has impressive features, and makes the 7D2 look old and outdated.

A fixed lens mirrorless looks like another stupid move. Sony and Fuji clearly used this formula as they were new players on the market, a way to attract customers to its products without compromising their loyalty to any other brand, and as others already said, to mature the technology.

Canon has no need to attract customers. Canon needs to avoid losing even more customers!! They have the best and broadest lenses lineup, but the cameras are way too behind. People are thirsty for good Canon bodies, two friends, owners of 5D3, bought the 5Ds/R without any real need, as a last hope to avoid moving to Sony.

Canon must learn with the others' moves and revolutionize itself to avoid being left in the dust of mirrorless AND SLR.


----------



## dolina (Jan 27, 2016)

If they want to stand out make it a medium format fixed lens compact camera.

On BH there are 2 full frame cameras and 20 APS-C cameras with fixed lenses being sold.

Sony would be the logical company to offer this sort of camera as they make the only CMOS medium format sensor sporting 50MP and 100MP.


----------



## gsealy (Jan 27, 2016)

*Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1*



SwampYankee said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > SwampYankee said:
> ...


As I mentioned in another post, I shoot my X100T at f4.0 aperture priority mode. It is plenty sharp there. No doubt it is less sharp at f2 or at the opposite extreme around f11. The other really nice feature is that it has auto ISO with a very good algorithm. If you want to pixel peep then bring out the 5DIII or 5DsR big boys with an L or Zeiss prime lens and shoot on tripod with mirror lockup, remote trigger, and no filter. Then you get as sharp as there is sharp to be had. But the X100T is not about that kind of shooting. It is about optimizing quality among being light, lens, small, and quick. It is a great street camera for that reason and a lot of pros use it.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 27, 2016)

olympus593 said:


> losing ground everyday for Nikon.



[Citation needed]


----------



## Solar Eagle (Jan 27, 2016)

olympus593 said:


> Canon seems lost
> 
> another stupid move
> 
> ...



It appears your leadership and market insight are what Canon _really_ needs. I do hope they offer you a spot at the top so they can learn from you.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2016)

I really don't understand the backlash to a fixed lens rig like this. It's a stepping stone, nothing more. They still will offer an interchangeable lens FF mirrorless system someday.

And even if you are waiting for that interchangeable FF mirrorless setup from Canon, you have to concede that Canon still has a ton to do that is _not_ mount-related -- they need to improve AF speed, think about handling/ergonomics, battery life, and, most of all, develop a world class EVF with all sorts of functionality onboard (histo, peaking, customizations, etc.).

This rig would be a low-risk, one-off product that will serve as batting practice for Canon to develop the pieces of a winning new system. *I *won't buy it (certainly not at $3k), but even if it tanks commercially, Canon will benefit from having done it. 

- A


----------



## quod (Jan 27, 2016)

*Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1*



SwampYankee said:


> must have a had a bad copy or something (although I have never heard of a bad X100S).


I just looked at a bunch of shots taken with mine at f/2 and they look pretty good in the extreme corners. There may be bad copies of the X100S, but mine is pretty good.


----------



## TeT (Jan 27, 2016)

How small?


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 27, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



thing is sony can use a canon 35mm. Canon can only use whatever is stuck on that to be camera body. Sony's sensors are superior, without a doubt and I almost doubt canon at this point to come up with something equal or better.. Just look at nikon's results their latest cameras. Ergonomics, menu system, handling, and maybe AF can go to Canon. AF, only because we have yet to see on this upcoming ML option and I think Canon's AF seen in their dslrs are superior. The M system's AF is abysmal when compared. Anyways, over all, sony beats this thing hands down before it even comes out. At least that's my opinion. 

I want to see a FF ML with interchangeable lenses and maybe a EF converter if it doesn't work with EF mount lenses natively. Otherwise, isn't it just a fancy FF P&S? I know most people with canon lenses won't be interested in such a camera.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> I want to see a FF ML with interchangeable lenses and maybe a EF converter if it doesn't work with EF mount lenses natively. Otherwise, isn't it just a fancy FF P&S? I know most people with canon lenses won't be interested in such a camera.



So if I take an SLR and epoxy a wider prime lens on to it permanently it suddenly becomes a point and shoot? 

These $3k+ rigs are effectively FF SLRs minus a mirror and the ability to change lenses. Admittedly, those are two *really* big things, but these are not point and shoots at all. There will be the ability to set aperture and/or shutter speed, shoot in manual mode, manually focus, bracket, exposure comp, etc.

I see these rigs as a budget digital Leicas with autofocus, so yes, there's a luxury niche to these, but they also have settings and features those versant with an FF SLR would put to use.

- A

(P.S. I agree with you and want an interchangeable lens FF mirrorless system, but I see _any_ Canon efforts in FF mirrorless -- even a fixed lens offering -- as progress towards the system we all want to see.)


----------



## Pookie (Jan 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Heaven help the people you mentor...

Canon 7D + 35L @ f1.6 ... but you're right I didn't have to go to 1.4 :


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 27, 2016)

Pookie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...




Idiot, how is a 35mm @ f1.6 on a crop camera equivalent to a 35mm @ f2 on a ff camera? You'd need a 23mm @ f1.25 on a crop camera to take a shot with the same fov and dof as mine, your image has a much narrow fov and is a ff equivalent of a 56mm @ f2.24 which is easily achieved on a ff camera by using a 50mm lens at f2.5 and cropping very slightly. 

I was not saying my shot was exceptional, what I was saying was that sometimes there is no crop equivalent. But if you can link me to an EF-s 23mm f1.25 then I'll happily concede that one image, I'd then just move to a 400mm f2.8 image, an 85 f1.2 image, a 35mm f1.4 image, a 50mm f1.2 image etc etc.


----------



## Pookie (Jan 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...





Wow Polly... you did say this couldn't be done. Or was that an error with the forum posting here. You're the only one here with the idiotic statements that this can't be done. I do love your back tracking and er, erh, erh, um... pixel pitch, no compression, sensor error, sensor error... technical excuses. I'm choking back the tears 

If you put your ear to the monitor you'll hear me laughing at you. At you... not with you. Oh, BTW, I never said your image was exceptional. I'm actually waiting to see your exceptional portraiture that you say anyone can do let alone you. So far your examples prove my point regarding your "expertise". I'm so waiting to see more of your excuses...


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't understand the backlash to a fixed lens rig like this. It's a stepping stone, nothing more. They still will offer an interchangeable lens FF mirrorless system someday.
> ...



That's the thing. 

This _isn't_ diversification. This _isn't_ a land grab for luxe/pricey premium dollars. This _isn't_ a move to steal Nikonians over to Canon's side of the ledger. This _isn't_ caving to market pressures.

This is just batting practice for Canon to develop the supporting tech / features needed to offer an ILC FF mirrorless offering. Why else would Canon do this?

- A


----------



## Local Hero (Jan 27, 2016)

I bet Sony loses money on RX1 cameras.
I think they make them as halo cameras to add prestige to the Sony camera brand and to get publicity.

I've lost track of the number of internet reviews where I've read that the RX1 is the best point and shoot camera money can buy.

Kind of like the Bugatti Veyron of the camera world.
Money lost on each unit sold, but sure does generate a lot of publicity.
Publicity that money alone can't buy.

Canon doesn't really need a camera like this.
They have 1 Series cameras for this.
Although they have lost quite a lot of ground to Nikon in this respect, because they kept releasing cameras with crappy sensors.
Now on TV at sports and the like, you see a heap of Nikons, where once upon a time you would only see Canon.

I'd seriously consider a Canon like this, but it would have to be really good.
I'm not sure Canon has it in them to produce a really good camera in this style.
Would love to be proved wrong though.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > I want to see a FF ML with interchangeable lenses and maybe a EF converter if it doesn't work with EF mount lenses natively. Otherwise, isn't it just a fancy FF P&S? I know most people with canon lenses won't be interested in such a camera.
> ...



Yes, thank you for pointing that out on the manual settings. But yeah, you get what I mean. Honestly, I hope this rumor isn't true. There are so many lenses that can't be used! :-\


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 27, 2016)

*Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1*



quod said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > must have a had a bad copy or something (although I have never heard of a bad X100S).
> ...



I guess my copy of the X100S wasn't the best, but I believe that part of my experience is explained by my Canon lenses, which have spoiled me in terms of quality expectations, even the non L lenses. I realize that I sound by a fanboy, but keep om mind, I really did like that Fuji for the shooting experience and the sensor. I would have kept it if it could compare with the M and 22f2. 

I might give the Fuji X-Pro2 a try some day.


----------



## moreorless (Jan 27, 2016)

I would not be supprized if Sony makes more money on RX1 cameras than they do on A7 cameras besides maybe the A7r mk2, all of those cheaper A7 bodies were I'd guess either sold with limited margins or at a loss to try and build a market.

My guess is that Sony's original intension with the RX1 was to go after the high end ultra compact market but that the degree of hype led to their deciding to take the same tech and put it into a mirrorless systems camera ASAP. That first generation of A7 bodies for me looked VERY cobbled together relative to the RX1 and the lens lineup with very limited for quite awhile plus reusing the NEX APSC mount seems like its creating significant problems.

Size wise I think theres a clear advantage to going fixed lens, the RX1 is significantly smaller than any A7 body/lens combination and is both a stop faster and includes greater macro ability than the FE 35mm lens.


----------



## Light_Pilgrim (Jan 27, 2016)

I seriously DO NOT UNDERSTAND these extremely expensive fixed length cameras. I understand Leica with their rangefinder approach, I do understand DSLRs and I do understand Mirrorless even though I know it is a technology at it's infancy still. But a 35 mm F/2 mirrorless thing for 3K? 1-2 years from now it will not we worth more than 500 USD used. You are limited to 35 mm. It is not dramatically smaller than a DSLR too. Just do not get it - who is the target audience and what kind of images people produce with this thing? Say if I have plenty of money, I can get it as my secondary camera and take it with me when I go for my morning walk in the park. But it is not the camera that I will rely on when I do something seriously.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 27, 2016)

Interesting move by Canon.
I think they are a big late into this market.
It's probably quite limited in terms of who would purchase.
It's a luxury purchase.
They are smart usually in their marketing so maybe they have seen it's a high-margin sector.
My own experience is with a Fuji X100s.
35mm is a nice focal length but I find it limited. Even with its adapters (which are a bit of a gimmick (28mm is not wide enough - 24mm would be better) it's a pretty inflexible camera.
It forces you to use your feet which is good but a zoom is far more adaptable and flexible.
The Fuji X100s looks beautiful and I'm sure Canon would make a nice looking lens too.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (Jan 27, 2016)

I’ve had a Fuji x100s for three years now. This little camera has changed my way of taking photographs in a way I never thought possible before I got it. It’s non-obtrusive, people react in a far more tolerant way compared to my 5DII. Picture quality is surprisingly similar, even architecture shots with the TS-E 24 II often aren’t superior.

If Canon made something similar encompassing assets only Canon can provide, I would instantly take a closer look. And, btw, as long as people label this sort of camera p&s they simply do not understand the benefits of a fixed focal lens and a camera you are familiar with and that is always with you.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 27, 2016)

Pookie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...




Off topic I know but that bokeh on the skyline produced by that combination is quite hideous, and perhaps a good example of why putting a 35 mil on a crop isn't as pleasing as a planar design 50/55 mil on FF.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jan 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Also, *does anyone give a damn that this is made by Canon* if you can't put your EF lenses on it?
> 
> I suppose the menu/controls/ergonomics will be more consistent, but other than that, do you care?
> 
> - A


Maybe you underestimate the power of the new and already legendary 1DX2ish 15-Stops-DR Full Frame Sensor. ;D


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Now rant about Adobe CC, and I will feel better.

35mm f2 fixed? Oy vey.


A golf cart on the expressway.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



easily the power shot is looking for more higher tiered products to add to the G series powershot line. the P&S line has been dumping.

canon doesn't need the "experience" in creating a full frame MILC. Ludicrous proposition.

PS .. not everyone even wants a FF MILC. you may, I do not, nor do alot of people. the size difference between that kit and a DSLR kit is still around the same.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 27, 2016)

Light_Pilgrim said:


> I seriously DO NOT UNDERSTAND these extremely expensive fixed length cameras


so what?

then it's not for you.

some like them, some do not. there's not a camera in the world that pleases everyone.

PS .. CR is suggesting 3K .. the rumor is not.

dont' get your panties in a knot over it.


----------



## eninja (Jan 27, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...




note: assume apsc is 1 stop wider depth of field

I appreciate what pbd is saying. in my case, i have a 6D and I love bokeh, I can not justify having a crop sensor. fuji has 1.4 lens, but if i insist using 6D, canon has 2.8 lens which is cheaper, and better IQ. cost wise and iq wise, FF is better, regarding bokeh.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 27, 2016)

I remember the Canon AF35ML Super Sure Shot. The reason I remember it is because I was a Nikon shooter at the time (early '80s) and got to put a roll of film through one - can't remember why. However I do remember that the quality of the lens was stunning ! Much better than Nikon slr-s at the time.

Incidentally it had a rather sophisticated 40mm f/1.9 fixed lens, and I was incredulous as to why it was better than my gear at the time !

However given how times and lenses have moved on a fixed lens FF offering wouldn't excite me now.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 27, 2016)

*Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1*



Larsskv said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



Thanks for the feedback (both of you). Good to know, again I never took an X100 series too seriously as I would always come back to wanting an ILC. But when you got people like Zack Arias saying he wants to be buried with his X100T you're thinking this must be one awesome camera front to back, optics included. Of course I'm not too surprised, it is a small lens and of a simple design. I think the XF 18mm f/2 is similar (I've owned it for a short time now), might be a bit soft, corners don't ever really get super sharp even stopped down. However the rendering I find pleasing, and the bokeh is really solid.

I will say my experience with the XF series 23mm f/1.4, the 35mm (both f/1.4 and the new f/2), and the 56mm f/1.2 have left me quite impressed! Those lenses have the ability to take some incredible shots.

Love the EF-M 22mm pancake. I've taken tons of great shots with that little lens. Talk about a lens that really gets sharp just stopping down a bit. Canon hit a home run with that lens, especially given the price.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 27, 2016)

eninja said:


> I appreciate what pbd is saying. in my case, i have a 6D and I love bokeh, I can not justify having a crop sensor. fuji has 1.4 lens, but if i insist using 6D, canon has 2.8 lens which is cheaper, and better IQ. cost wise and iq wise, FF is better, regarding bokeh.



It's true: if ultra shallow dof is your goal crop can actually work out more expensive than FF.


----------



## erjlphoto (Jan 27, 2016)

Hope it has a viewfinder or else it will be useless, imo.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> This is just batting practice for Canon to develop the supporting tech / features needed to offer an ILC FF mirrorless offering. Why else would Canon do this?
> 
> - A



+1

I agree. It's like I said earlier, I think it's a shot for them to feel the waters of a mirrorless like body without resolving all the internal politics/decisions on what mount to use, how to deal with zillions of EF lenses out there, etc.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 27, 2016)

Yeah but $3000? (If that's accurate) Why not make something that could yield more market penetration if this is "batting practice"?



Luds34 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > This is just batting practice for Canon to develop the supporting tech / features needed to offer an ILC FF mirrorless offering. Why else would Canon do this?
> ...


----------



## scyrene (Jan 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't understand the backlash to a fixed lens rig like this. It's a stepping stone, nothing more. They still will offer an interchangeable lens FF mirrorless system someday.
> ...



Most of the time we hear people bemoaning the fact that Canon doesn't produce products that other companies do - an A7s equivalent, a D810 equivalent (until the 5Ds came out), even a 645z equivalent. They can't win!


----------



## scyrene (Jan 27, 2016)

Light_Pilgrim said:


> I seriously DO NOT UNDERSTAND these extremely expensive fixed length cameras. I understand Leica with their rangefinder approach, I do understand DSLRs and I do understand Mirrorless even though I know it is a technology at it's infancy still. But a 35 mm F/2 mirrorless thing for 3K? 1-2 years from now it will not we worth more than 500 USD used. You are limited to 35 mm. It is not dramatically smaller than a DSLR too. Just do not get it - who is the target audience and what kind of images people produce with this thing? Say if I have plenty of money, I can get it as my secondary camera and take it with me when I go for my morning walk in the park. But it is not the camera that I will rely on when I do something seriously.



You may not understand it, and tbh neither do I really, but clearly someone thinks they're good. I doubt companies would produce these things (for a prolonged period, with several iterations) without good cause.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 27, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah but $3000? (If that's accurate) Why not make something that could yield more market penetration if this is "batting practice"?



Because Canon is pretty darn conservative? Because something with more market penetration would be an ILC and I don't think they even know for sure yet which way they want to go or exactly or what that camera would look like.

Either way, just getting something like this out (whether low or high sales numbers) would allow them to get real world feedback on a "mirrorless type" camera body. They can then tweak it, use that experience to help them shape their real launch into the MILC market.

Anyway, that is just my working theory. But I do agree, at $3k? Heck even $1500? This is a niche product and would probably not sell in very high volumes.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > I want to see a FF ML with interchangeable lenses and maybe a EF converter if it doesn't work with EF mount lenses natively. Otherwise, isn't it just a fancy FF P&S? I know most people with canon lenses won't be interested in such a camera.
> ...



This is getting rather philosophical. I think you both have valid positions. Can a camera without the ability to change lenses, without a mirror be an SLR? Does any definition of point-and-shoot exclude the possibility to manually set things like exposure etc? I don't think so... a high-end camera with lots of manual controls, but a fixed lens, especially with a fixed focal length (or small zoom range) is surely a point-and-shoot. On the other hand, if you glued a lens on your SLR, it would still be an SLR (just a partially broken one).

The question is, what do you want to call this category? It hardly matters, but if we have point-and-shoot (and accept your implication that they must be low-end products), superzooms, bridge cameras, rangefinders, SLRs and so on, where does this type of thing fit? "Effectively FF SLRs" doesn't really cut it, as they lack any of the diagnostic criteria (chief among which is a mirror allowing you to see through the lens you'll shoot through).

Edit: I see someone used the word 'compact'. So, 'high-end compact'? Is that less controversial?


----------



## moreorless (Jan 27, 2016)

Light_Pilgrim said:


> I seriously DO NOT UNDERSTAND these extremely expensive fixed length cameras. I understand Leica with their rangefinder approach, I do understand DSLRs and I do understand Mirrorless even though I know it is a technology at it's infancy still. But a 35 mm F/2 mirrorless thing for 3K? 1-2 years from now it will not we worth more than 500 USD used. You are limited to 35 mm. It is not dramatically smaller than a DSLR too. Just do not get it - who is the target audience and what kind of images people produce with this thing? Say if I have plenty of money, I can get it as my secondary camera and take it with me when I go for my morning walk in the park. But it is not the camera that I will rely on when I do something seriously.



Surely the same could be said for almost any camera purchase? if anything the RX1 seems to have held its value somewhat better than most cameras.

Size wise your never going to be as pocketablel as a very small compact but by going fixed lens you can get pretty small, the RX1 for example has roughly the same depth as an A7 camera + 35mm F/2.8 lens dispite being a stop faster and having better macro ability. No lens mount and the ability to include a very large rear element are I would say key issues.

Its limiting of course but sensor wise we actually seem to be moving to the point where the fixed lens is less of a disadvantage as sensors aren't advancing as quickly as previously and resolution is reaching the potential of lenses. Canon for example could include the new 50 MP sensor giving a lot of resolution for potential cropped images.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 27, 2016)

Obviously you can't put EF-M glass on a FF Mirrorless. Also seems obvious that Canon wants to keep the FF mirrorless as compact as possible, and therefore can't create a big enough flange distance to support the existing EF glass line. So they're in a pickle. Seems the only reasonable theory as to why this camera is rumored as it is. I personally would prefer a SL1 body type (or even a T6) as MILC. That's still a really small camera (SL1). Now it may not be quite as THIN as other MILCs, but it's still doable.



Luds34 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but $3000? (If that's accurate) Why not make something that could yield more market penetration if this is "batting practice"?
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2016)

Light_Pilgrim said:


> I seriously DO NOT UNDERSTAND these extremely expensive fixed length cameras. I understand Leica with their rangefinder approach, I do understand DSLRs and I do understand Mirrorless even though I know it is a technology at it's infancy still. *But a 35 mm F/2 mirrorless thing for 3K? 1-2 years from now it will not we worth more than 500 USD used*. You are limited to 35 mm. It is not dramatically smaller than a DSLR too. Just do not get it - who is the target audience and what kind of images people produce with this thing? Say if I have plenty of money, I can get it as my secondary camera and take it with me when I go for my morning walk in the park. But it is not the camera that I will rely on when I do something seriously.



I can't speak for used copies, but the original Sony RX1 is 3+ years old and still sells for roughly $2k (not including rando eBay sales offers or web storefronts without any reviews).

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 27, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > This is just batting practice for Canon to develop the supporting tech / features needed to offer an ILC FF mirrorless offering. Why else would Canon do this?
> ...



how so?

canon has created how many P&S "mirrorless" cameras before in their history?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> canon doesn't need the "experience" in creating a full frame MILC. Ludicrous proposition.



I'm sorry, I didn't know that Canon had already perfected the autofocus and viewfinder with the EOS-M. :

Anyone who believes that Canon is ready -- right now -- to make an FF mirrorless system as polished and thought-through as a 5D3 is in dreamland.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 27, 2016)

Pookie said:


> Wow Polly... you did say this couldn't be done. Or was that an error with the forum posting here. You're the only one here with the idiotic statements that this can't be done. I do love your back tracking and er, erh, erh, um... pixel pitch, no compression, sensor error, sensor error... technical excuses. I'm choking back the tears
> 
> If you put your ear to the monitor you'll hear me laughing at you. At you... not with you. Oh, BTW, I never said your image was exceptional. I'm actually waiting to see your exceptional portraiture that you say anyone can do let alone you. So far your examples prove my point regarding your "expertise". I'm so waiting to see more of your excuses...



Hmm, clearly you don't understand the concept of equivalence, read this then came back and make an actual point.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

But let me double down on my point which clearly most people here understand, my shot was taken with a FF camera a 35mm lens @ f2, to do that with a Canon crop camera I would need a 23mm f1.25 lens, which isn't made, so it can't be done. Now if you had shown me an image you shot with a 24mm f1.4 @ 1.4 on your 7D I'd have given you some respect for at least getting the concept of equivalence, even though my lens cost $350 and yours cost four times as much, along with being considerably bigger and heavier and you still don't have the level of dof isolation that was core to my original comment, _"dof control is the next most powerful characteristic that enables you to make the image you see in your mind. Below is an example of what I am talking about, 35 f2 IS @ f2 with a ff camera, you can't do that dof control even with the 35 f1.4 at 1.4 on a crop camera"_, but you didn't.

I don't care if you laugh at me, indeed the idea that you are fills me with the happiness of you wallowing in your own ignorance, which is fine by me, be ignorant. As for calling me Polly, I don't get it, I realise you mean it as an insult and you are calling me a parrot, but I don't understand what I am parroting or the relevance.

As for my images, I only post relevant images that I have to hand, and have posted hundreds of them. I don't use CR for my personal gratification or ego boosting, nobody knows if I have a holiday house in Hawaii, made a fortune on pharmaceutical start ups and trading, or Apple shares, shoot for Google, Apple et al, have two studios, blah blah blah. There are several very wealthy participants here and not one of them drops that stuff in to the conversations like you do, they are also better photographers because they see the light and their subjects, but I'm sure I'm wasting my time, you are probably just reading this and thinking 'he's just jealous', I'm not, I'd rather be poor and like me than wealthy and like you. I drive a $1,500 GMC Jimmy, I shoot with 1Ds MkIII's which would struggle to make a $1,000 in the condition they are in, sometimes I am wrong (and have admitted I made mistakes here when I am) but I have a good education and long term background in photography.

I do find it strange that somebody who claims to run two studios and isn't shy about showing off seems to only have rather weak SmugMug and Flickr websites, what is even more curious is that you have posted most of the images on those sites here too, why is that Walter?


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> But let me double down on my point which clearly most people here understand...



Yes. Don't get headaches over trolls : He does have some hot models though...


----------



## Botts (Jan 27, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.
> ...



It's all going to come down to handling.

I've shot a lot with the X100T and RX1R. I'd grab the X100T every time if it were FF. The viewfinder alone almost makes up for the lack of FF and though kludgy, even Fuji's menu system is better than Sony's.

If Canon really wants to compete here, they have to NAIL ergonomics and usability. It also has to be razor sharp, but for a camera like this, it is bought out of love, not necessity.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> canon has created how many P&S "mirrorless" cameras before in their history?



I hear you, but are you saying that a PowerShot + FF sensor + interchangeable lens mount would be a compelling product? That it would be as lag-free as a Fuji X or Sony A7 rig? Will the focus-peaking, AF speed, VF customizability, etc. be as strong as the competition?

Canon having various 'pieces on the board', like...


Mirrorless experience from the Powershot line
A modular EVF from EOS-M
DPAF from SLRs
A legendary track record with the EF mount
Ergonomic flight hours logged with the EOS-M
Decent batteries

_...does not mean they can Frankenstein together a great FF mirrorless right out of the gate_. They've never reached for (say) a 5D-level of performance/tuneability/robustness in a mirrorless rig, so it's unlikely to think that their first offering would get to those heights. 

It stands to reason that Canon needs to build either a _very_ high-end EOS-M system that would break new ground (integral EVF, 7D2-ish AF performance, faster/USM lenses) or possibly this fixed lens FF mirrorless rumor as a sacrificial lamb to try, fail, learn, fail, and improve. To _NOT_ do one of those two things and just offer an FF mirrorless platform that is underwhelming or not well thought through could be disaster for Canon. 

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > canon has created how many P&S "mirrorless" cameras before in their history?
> ...



probably not, then again, i wouldn't expect all that from this product either assuming it comes out of the gate.

btw, focus-peaking is already in powershots. VF customization is already in the powershot firmware.. next?

the RUMOUR didn't suggest a 3K price either, CR did.

you're thinking and now stating as if it's fact that this is a precursor to something.

why? when the 6D and 5D Mark III canons are outselling every single full frame A7 no matter how much Sony dumps the price.

canon isn't going to invest crap into this small niche.

which is why we got the EOS-M in it's current form - hobbled together from Rebel parts.

this makes more sense as a step up from the G1X Mark II then it does signaling some massive change in canon strategy.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 27, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah but $3000? (If that's accurate) Why not make something that could yield more market penetration if this is "batting practice"?



"We’re told the camera will have a 35mm f/2L IS lens. Such a camera would likely cost at least $3000USD. "

that's CR's theory on the price.

certainly not accurate.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah but $3000? (If that's accurate) Why not make something that could yield more market penetration if this is "batting practice"?
> ...



Pricey for sure, but in the fixed lens FF with AF market space... you have, what, three offerings?

Leica Q = $4,250
RX1R II = $3,300
RX1 (3+ years old) = $2k

So $3k is not terribly off-target for the market, but it will depends heavily on the sensor and the quality of that lens. 

If it's a 5D3 sensor with a nice-but-not-stellar 35 f/2 lens in there, then yes, it's overpriced. But if Canon 'pulls an RX1R II' and jams the 5DS R sensor in there and creates a new L lens for it, people will complain less about the price.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



and canon could introduce something with a 6D sensor, and a lens similar to the 35/2 IS and sell it for well south of 3K.

again, it was a theory, and since when has Leica or even really sony ever been a canon benchmark?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 27, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But let me double down on my point which clearly most people here understand...
> ...



Just a pity they look rather uncomfortable


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 27, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



You're not serious are you? Trolling?

A "point and shoot" from Canon is a powershot camera. Any idiot can work one. You point it and fire off the shot and the camera (hopefully) figures everything out and gives you a nice little snapshot.

Taking an advanced full frame camera and attaching a fixed lens has next to nothing in common with your average $200 P&S camera.

Look at a Fuji X100 series vs a Fuji X-pro series camera may highlight the point for you. Nearly identical cameras in many ways. The one big difference is one has a fixed lens and the other can interchange lenses.

Soooo... back to my original point, Canon could be "testing the waters" of what their pro-style mirrorless camera could be without committing to the lens mount and lens lineup.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > canon has created how many P&S "mirrorless" cameras before in their history?
> ...



+1 I've been saying this for about 5 pages. It's not the camera I personally want, but I see tremendous FF ILC mirrorless value in Canon taking a loss on a 'learning model' that isn't the FF ILC system itself.

_Then_ there's the billion dollar mount question, which the market (and even this forum) has not agreed on:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28223.0

It always bears repeating -- the mirrorless market is fragmented. The system you build for the 'keep it small / the only upside of mirrorless is size' camp is entirely different from the 'I want this system to replace my SLR and do everything that it can do (and more)' camp.

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 27, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> that's CR's theory on the price.
> 
> certainly not accurate.



That's why I said "IF"


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 27, 2016)

It's fun to shoot for pleasure or sharpening skills, bringing along one lens. Yes, the 35mm is a favorite "if-I-could-only-have-one-focal-length" type of lens. Going out with one lens does push craft, creativity, ingenuity...But when it's time for serious photography, whether that be at a pro level or traveling or as a beloved hobby, why add this to a good kit or depend on it as ones only camera?

To be stuck with a body/lens combo that can't zoom, can't swap focal lengths, I just don't see the point. A FF mirrorless that has a choice of lenses does make sense for those who need something smaller than a dSLR, either for convenience or tendonitis. But not this.

While one might imagine having such a camera for fun, or for a cool factor, seriously, who would you recommend a $3k p&s to? Family member learning? A pro?


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 27, 2016)

Canon may start picking up speed...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28923.0


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 27, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



really? what's different. the camera has to AF reliably and quickly. you have manual controls, you have a nice EVF, you have a good optical system.

not much different that say the equivalent G5x series camera - just with a different lens / sensor.

A point and shoot has the exact same GUTS as canon's DSLR's minus the mirror box, OVF, iTR metering and PDAF sensor.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2016)

Crosswind said:


> edit; ...and I cannot see any camera announced to have more than 50 megapixels, as that would kind of "attack" Canon's own high res beast 5DS(r).



It's only a rumor, of course, but if you slammed that 50 MP sensor in there and it had a fixed lens, I don't see it stealing any business from the 5DS R. This has been done twice, and relatively recently -- ask Sony how many more original 24MP A7 rigs they sold compared to the RX1, or how many A7R II rigs they will sell compared to the RX1R II. I'd imagine the interchangeable lens option dwarfs the fixed lens version for sales.

But if this rumor was true and Canon had any doubt about this, they could nerf the framerate, limit the AF functionality, max shutter speed, etc. on the mirrorless rig to not look attractive compared to the 5DS R. 

But I really don't see a fixed lens mirrorless rig stealing top end SLR sales.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jan 27, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Crosswind said:
> 
> 
> > edit; ...and I cannot see any camera announced to have more than 50 megapixels, as that would kind of "attack" Canon's own high res beast 5DS(r).
> ...


Economies of scale... Put the 50MP sensor into more products which are clearly differentiated from the 5Ds/R and you reduce the unit costs of the sensor and don't excessively cannibalize 5Ds-R. Also, since competitors are not yet matching 50MP, it retains a certain novelty factor.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 27, 2016)

I don't have much faith that this rumor is true, and wouldn't be interested in the camera either way. But I am curious as to why the general consensus around here seems to be that it will be mirrorless. While Canon has clearly demonstrated the ability to have blazingly fast and accurate phase detect AF as well as blistering frame rates, they have yet to demonstrate the ability to do this in a mirrorless system. Perhaps DPAF is more advanced than I thought?


----------



## jonathan7007 (Jan 27, 2016)

One more "vote" or non-scientific data point for the forum. In late 2014 I bought the Fuji x100T after waiting for the third iteration. A friend (another pro and both of us regular Leica users in the past) had the x100S and we discussed the pros and cons a fair amount. I have since bought a mid-level Fuji interchangeable lens body plus two lenses to wait for the rumored - and now announced - XPro-2. I preordered right away, although I considered the Sony RX1v2 for its amazing sensor...

but.

The way I gather pictures with these Fujis depends on more than the pixel count. There's something that is hard to "read" in the specs. It's more like what shooting with an [email protected] was like. Just one body, always with you. Your face more visible, interacting with people as well as gathering captures. 

I am bringing them on shoots more and more, even the vacation rentals, interiors. Non-people stuff. Am I forcing that? Maybe. Definitely whay goes to a gathering, some kinds of events. When the XPro-2 and a couple new lenses get in the kits by March that will be my kit for some gigs. Nissin got a great little flash ("i40") out for these systems.

Canon lost some $$. Is my small-dollar foray into this different system "on their radar"? I did consider $3000 for the Sony, because this kind of shooting is very important to me. Also, think of it as $3000 for a good lens with a very strong sensor at the back of it included. I paid $1600 for XPro-2 body, no lens. I guess my pro work is to support this, nowadays. It's satisfying, compelling to me.

I apologize that after reading closely four thread pages I skipped ahead to add this. Maybe all these ides were well covered in other posts, and what I write is now out of context for the way the thread is going. I felt that we need to know what we, the Canon community is building for group-think. Thanks to all who are adding viewpoints and perhaps propelling Canon to faster action. I admit to disappointment in Canon but they know what they are doing financially and will not do anything for us because our cheering section is louder over "on this side".


----------



## kubelik (Jan 28, 2016)

it'd be really nice if it came with a 35-50mm f/2 or a 24-35mm f/2 lens. if I had the disposable income, I'd buy something like that. but the reality is, as a casual shooter, I'd still rather save up for the eventual 5D Mk IV and replace my 5D Mk III with that. it's tough to put a lot of money into a niche body when you can spend the money and have an all-rounder. for now, the G7 series satisfies my needs to an ultra-portable camera; perhaps over time they will bump up the sensor size in that or increase the aperture and amount of glass on their 1" sensor lineup.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 28, 2016)

Crosswind said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...seriously, who would you recommend a $3k p&s to? Family member learning? A pro?
> ...



It's true, I recently went to Central America and took a 1DS MkIII, an 11-24, a 35 f2 IS and a 100L Macro. Of the 812 shots I have, 525 of them are with the 35, the 11-24 at 196 consisted of many bracketed images that I could easily have shot by stitching the 35, and I could live without the 91 images from the 100 Macro, sure there are some nice ones, but I could live without them.

That means I could reduce my camera bag from a 1DS MkIII + spare battery and charger, 11-24 and 35 f2 IS to a simple single body with fixed lens. Or if the shoot required backup I could take the new camera instead of a second 1DS MkIII, not truthfully as deep from a backup point of view, but very workable and if it was less imposing for people shots, had a true silent shutter and just did things differently then it would add an extra something to the kit.

If Canon do make something like this I am sure they will have done the market research to estimate their sales potential and apart from one or two snafus, North American EOS-M sales spring to mind, they seem to be pretty good at doing that. I wouldn't jump on it at $3,000 as I am not an early adopter, but I could easily see myself transitioning to a single 1DX MkII and one of these rumoured fixed lens FF cameras from the two 1DS MkIII's and EOS-M I currently use.

As for the P&S epithet, I don't care what people call it, just what images come out of it.


----------

