# Canon Full Frame Mirrorless is Definitely Coming, and The Wait Won't Be as Long as We Thought



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 23, 2018)

```
We have now confirmed from a couple of good sources that a full frame mirrorless camera is well into its development cycle, as the camera is being used by select Canon pro photographers. We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-asking-select-professionals-what-they-want-in-a-mirrorless-camera/">reported back in January that a survey</a> went out to some Explorers of Light about what they wanted to see in a “professional” mirrorless camera, and that dialogue has apparently continued.</p>
<p>While an announcement date is not yet set for the camera, and little is known about it specifications wise, I’m very confident we’re going to see something announced before the end of Q1 in 2019.</p>
<p>One source said that Canon has been quite open about the product development with professionals because they want to be sure to “get it right”, and they don’t want to fall into the trap of a first generation product not being great.</p>
<p>The biggest question I want answered is what will the native lens mount be? No one has provided any reliable information on that or any other specifications.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a “development” announcement at Photokina if the camera itself isn’t ready for production.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Punio (Mar 23, 2018)

Main thing I want to know is the Lens mount. My hope is that it is the EF mount, but my head tells me from what I could gather from the previous interview is that they will probably have an adapter 'to not ignore the millions if EF users' but use the new EF-M mount to take advantage of the new tech they can develop. Just makes sense, even though it would mean losing the EF range.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2018)

If they're seeking (and have been influenced by) pros and EoLs, I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount. These are mainly people who are used to the ergonomics of 1- and 5-series bodies, and while a FF MILC can be a bit smaller than those bodies while maintaining similar ergonomics, I would expect something closer to an xxD body size/shape for the FF MILC, rather than something closer to the M5.


----------



## mppix (Mar 23, 2018)

Hopefully, MILO "5DSR" with EF


----------



## exkeks (Mar 23, 2018)

Anxiously waiting if it'll be like 1D-expensive or only like 5D-expensive...


----------



## jeanluc (Mar 23, 2018)

That's great news. 

I am still hoping for a 5dsr2, but who knows, maybe this will be it...a la A7R3.

Either way, a lot of questions will be answered. The lens mount going forward is the main question I think we all want answered. I hope for EF, but we shall see.

Especially since I really, really want a TS/E lens...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

Punio said:


> Main thing I want to know is the Lens mount.



+1000. Everything else is secondary, can be changed, improved, etc. Compare the original EOS M to the M5 and it's unrecognizable -- _but that mount remains._

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

exkeks said:


> Anxiously waiting if it'll be like 1D-expensive or only like 5D-expensive...



My guess is 5D expensive with a (largely) 6D feature-set -- though perhaps with an on-chip sensor.

There's no denying that they'll upcharge mirrorless w.r.t. its SLR peers. Why wouldn't they? There's so much pent up demand for this.

And I think they're going to try to make the body quite small like an A7 and that will create precious little real estate for physical controls.

- A


----------



## exkeks (Mar 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount.



Maybe, they find a clever solution just like EF-S but extending even deeper into the then empty mirror box. Thus one could use the old EF lineup as well as a new lens lineup which could be optimized for mirrorless (and size/weight).


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

Also: does anyone believe the first FF mirrorless out of the gate will be anywhere other than relatively entry level?

I see them taking a very EOS M path forward here: start at the bottom, gobble up enthusiasts that want a new gadget and work your way up.

I'm not saying the entire spec list will be a sleeper -- perhaps we'll get 4K and a tilty-flippy. But I'm not at all expecting a 5-series feature set here.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount.



Canon is possibly the only company big enough to do both: offer a thin mount FF mirrorless + a carefully curated handful of new mount lenses for the big dollar paying enthusiasts, while eventually also offering 5-series level mirrorless products with a full EF mount.

But no one will talk about that possibility on day one. Half of us will be furious Canon chose the other mount than the one we wanted and presume the decision is final.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> If they're seeking (and have been influenced by) pros and EoLs, I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount.



Strangely the only EoL I know told me he was hoping for a new mount.

I think we'll see a new mount, but with an included adaptor that can be FIRMLY attached (ie bolted down) to the body for those who need EF lenses more than the new lenses.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 23, 2018)

If it is in the hands of pros for testing, then it must be of a quality and feature set of interest to pros. Right?


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 23, 2018)

I don't see a problem with them using an adapter for the EF mount "as long as" the mount behind it is equally large (or larger).

What would be really awesome is if they would design the Mirrorless mount for an even larger sensor, and then use the adapter for smaller "35mm crop lenses".
Basically the Canon "Professional" Mirrorless camera should be Medium Format Compatible, but this should still be sold in 35mm format as well.

I'd still be happy with a native EF mount and no mirror (or just a hybrid EVF allowing focus peaking on an SLR).


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> If it is in the hands of pros for testing, then it must be of a quality and feature set of interest to pros. Right?



Sure, because lower level rigs are only vetted by forum-dwelling enthusiasts? (My 90D pre-production unit is running brilliantly, btw. ) 

(sorry, couldn't resist.)

I think pros see these rigs regardless of spec, especially for even a modestly-spec'd FF mirrorless offering. 1) Canon wants these rigs to handle/operate well and EoL can surely shake out the bugs, but also 2) even if it's modestly spec'd, it's still the first horse out of the gate and _Canon still wants every current FF user to buy one._ 

So I see pros testing an enthusiast unit like this as a chance for them to learn how a smaller rig might benefit them in general. It's a certainty on launch week one of these EoL folks spins a yarn like "Now this [name here] can't do everything my 1-series can, but I was surprised at how well it does _____" or "I brought on a trip as a b-cam recently and you'd be amazed how often I ended up using it!"

I think they will try to sell this one to every single FF user on day one. We are (by far) an easier sales mountain to climb than flipping Nikon or Sony users.

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> If they're seeking (and have been influenced by) pros and EoLs, I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount. These are mainly people who are used to the ergonomics of 1- and 5-series bodies, and while a FF MILC can be a bit smaller than those bodies while maintaining similar ergonomics, I would expect something closer to an xxD body size/shape for the FF MILC, rather than something closer to the M5.



Neuro, if you are right, I will happily buy one 

This is exactly the device I would like.


----------



## BillB (Mar 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> If they're seeking (and have been influenced by) pros and EoLs, I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount. These are mainly people who are used to the ergonomics of 1- and 5-series bodies, and while a FF MILC can be a bit smaller than those bodies while maintaining similar ergonomics, I would expect something closer to an xxD body size/shape for the FF MILC, rather than something closer to the M5.


hy

I agree that the first new Canon mirrorless is likely to have an EF mount. However, a questionnaire to Canon professionals early this year could indicate that a highend FF mirrorless is not in the late stages of development, and therefore would not be the first FF mirrorless. My guess is the first fullframe mirrorless might be the camera that quite a few people wanted the 6DII to be, with a derivative of the 5DIV sensor, 4K video, and maybe an articulated screen. (It might even have two card slots.) The price would be somewhere between the 6DII and the 5D Mark IV.

There have been intense but opposite internet reactions to the 6DII and the Sony A7III, which tells me that there is interest in the internet crowd at least, in a camera at this price level with "innovative" and "state of the art" performance features.


----------



## Talys (Mar 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If they're seeking (and have been influenced by) pros and EoLs, I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount. These are mainly people who are used to the ergonomics of 1- and 5-series bodies, and while a FF MILC can be a bit smaller than those bodies while maintaining similar ergonomics, I would expect something closer to an xxD body size/shape for the FF MILC, rather than something closer to the M5.
> ...



The Mirrorless Canon that has 5D4 sensor and features will not be priced somewhere between 6DII and 5DIV. It will be priced somewhere around 5DIV. I'm not sure why anyone would expect otherwise.

I do expect that there will be a Mirrorless Canon that is lower-specced and will cost less than that... but I mean, these things aren't rocket science.

OTOH, I really look forward to the next DSLR replacement that advances the 5DSR more than either of those, although they all have potential for taking my money.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> There have been intense but opposite internet reactions to the 6DII and the Sony A7III, which tells me that there is interest in the internet crowd at least, in a camera at this price level with "innovative" and "state of the art" performance features.



Canon will not try to go punch for punch with Sony on the body spec side of things. They'll get murdered there -- Sony's would appear to be giving that A7 III rig away at cost.

Remember, this product will be overwhelmingly aimed at Canon users. So it's far more important that this rig handles brilliantly / seamlessly with other other Canon rigs than it sings on a spec sheet. 

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 23, 2018)

I sure hope it's EF as well and that would also mean that they are not caving to make it as small as possible, the old and tired tenet to a FF MILC. Keep hope alive.


----------



## chik0240 (Mar 23, 2018)

Seems like to me using Ed mount in a fashion like the sigma milc is they way to go, mirrorless is kinda of about the instant peak on the exposed image and with more accurate AF, lack of mirror shaking etc.

From Sony I would say except for ultrawide lens where short flange distance really have an advantage for most lens design it just add back the extra length in the lens, which make the whole system even bulkier

And as the EF-M mount being designed for aps-c format I see non real reason for canon to make yet another mount to create trouble for themselves (either you produce tons of lenses in three mounts which is not comfortable to one another or you scrap the millions of EF lens out there and make existing EF lens user less likely to switch to mirrorless)


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > My guess is the first fullframe mirrorless might be the camera that quite a few people wanted the 6DII to be, with a derivative of the 5DIV sensor, 4K video, and maybe an articulated screen. (It might even have two card slots.) The price would be somewhere between the 6DII and the 5D Mark IV.
> ...



You may be reading Bill literally there. I don't know if he meant an on-chip ADC sensor like the 5D4 or if he meant the actual 5D4 sensor. My guess is the former.

But it's not just the sensor that will drive asking price. The rest of the spec sheet/design does indeed matter:


24 MP sensor + tiny body without a wheel, joystick or chunky grip + 5 fps + heavily cropped 4K + No IBIS + no tilty-flippy + no EVF at all (like the M6) + single card


24 MP sensor + 80D-sized body/grip with a wheel but no joystick + 7 fps + less heavily cropped 4K + No IBIS + tilty-flippy + EVF + single card


24 MP sensor + 5D-sized body with every button/wheel you want + 10 fps + full frame readout 4K + IBIS + tilty-flippy + EVF + dual cards

...would be the same sensor leading to three wildly different price points.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> no tilty-flippy + no EVF at all (like the M6)



I firmly believe Canon's first FF MILC will have at least a tilt screen, if not fully articulated, and will have an EVF. They're aiming for current Canon dSLR users, not smartphone (or P&S) owners, here.




ahsanford said:


> IBIS



Not gonna happen.


----------



## padam (Mar 23, 2018)

It obviously will have the EVF, it will have at least as many features as the M5. The rest is open for grabs, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see a 6D Mark II sensor in there with the same articulating touchscreen (so no 4k, it is mainly a stills camera, not a video camera) with Digic 8 and also roughly the same starting price.

It would frustrate people, but it will enable them to keep it profitable (development costs in check) and also stack up more models above it later down the line (like a mirrorless, more "professional" 5D-like camera or a more video-centric variant) just like they do with the SLRs (and also what Sony is doing, with the A7SIII they will soon have 10 FF mirrorless bodies in total)


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > no tilty-flippy + no EVF at all (like the M6)
> ...



Agree 100% on both. Was just making a point that the sensor alone does not dictate the price point.

My guess is that it will be spec'd like a 6D2 with the following added extras:


Tilty-flippy touchscreen
4K, but surely a limited implementation of it
On-chip ADC sensor -- but a modest resolution one, say 24 MP or so

- A


----------



## woodman411 (Mar 23, 2018)

I think eventually we'll see 3 or 4 full-frame mirrorless bodies from Canon, similar to the current dslr lineup, something like this:

- 6D-M: priority on smallest body possible with lower resolution, lower cost
- 5D-M: all-rounder with medium resolution and fps. Larger body than 6 series, and dual-slots
- 1D-M: priority on flagship speed, largest body
- 5DS-M: priority on resolution

If Canon follows the M series path as others have said, then we can expect something like a 6D-M device first. It will also help Canon work out the bugs and refine further for the higher end.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

padam said:


> The rest is open for grabs, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see a 6D Mark II sensor in there



I think it has to be an on-chip sensor or enthusiasts will riot.

The 80D is on-chip now. I believe the _200D_ and _M100_ are as well. Why a $2k+ camera can't even offer a market-parity sensor while across the street Sony is offering 5D4 specs at a 6D2 price would leave Canon looking awfully underweight.

I know Canon plays games with spec/cost like this, but I just can't imagine *that* level of nerf-ery/profiteering being pursued here. This camera's a big 'first' for Canon, and I don't think it will be jammed with > 5 year old sensor tech.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

woodman411 said:


> I think eventually we'll see 3 or 4 full-frame mirrorless bodies from Canon, similar to the current dslr lineup, something like this:
> 
> - 6D-M: priority on smallest body possible with lower resolution, lower cost
> - 5D-M: all-rounder with medium resolution and fps. Larger body than 6 series, and dual-slots
> ...



Largely agree. Makes perfect sense.

Not sure a 1-series mirrorless will ever happen though. I see that camp of shooter being the ones with bumper stickers saying "They can pry my reflex mirror out of my cold, dead hands". But some > 20 fps mirrorless monster with the AF goods to match could change their minds someday. :

- A


----------



## BillB (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> My guess is that it will be spec'd like a 6D2 with the following added extras:
> 
> 
> Tilty-flippy touchscreen
> ...



That is pretty much what I was thinking when I said it might be like the 6DII that the internet crowd wanted. As far as the sensor is concerned, using the 5DIV sensor would avoid development costs and use existing fab facilities, but who knows.


----------



## padam (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I think it has to be an on-chip sensor or enthusiasts will riot.
> 
> The 80D is on-chip now. I believe the _200D_ and _M100_ are as well. Why a $2k+ camera can't even offer a market-parity sensor while across the street Sony is offering 5D4 specs at a 6D2 price would leave Canon looking awfully underweight.




Yes, but they are also very very similar sensors (only the M50 has a newer sensor but I don't think it is major improvement). If they develop a brand new sensor people will moan about the high price, so it is either this or that. Same thing with the battery as well, they will use either the LP-E6(N) or the LP-E12

As far as the A7III looks great on paper there are many features that aren't written on the spec sheet and simply don't work nearly as well as with a Canon camera, so Canon is not necessarily looking at that directly, they are just looking at their own system and how they can integrate it into that.

Seeing how well the DPAF works on the 6DII here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krGKwz-fLzs
a smaller mirrorless version with even better processor and DPAF would be a fine camera, no matter how much flaws it would have.
But of course it leaves plenty of room for newer better (more expensive) models...


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 23, 2018)

If I were to guess:

A new mount, the EF-X mount. Sort of like the EF and the EF-S mount, where it would have the same flange distance as the EF mounts, so we can continue to use all our old lenses. It would have the mating collar similar to the EF-s mount, so that you could not mount an EF-X lens on a FF EF camera. This would allow a lens design that protruded into the camera body, very similar to EF-S.

This would give us:
EF mount - takes all EF lenses
EF-S mount - takes all EF and EF-S lenses
EF-X mount - Takes all EF, EF-S, and EF-X lenses, goes into crop mode when EF-S lens mounted

Canon could then release the line without any native lenses, and add EF-X lenses as released. Most EF-X lenses would tend to be medium to wide angle.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

padam said:


> Yes, but they are also very very similar sensors (only the M50 has a newer sensor but I don't think it is major improvement). If they develop a brand new sensor people will moan about the high price, so it is either this or that. ..



Can you name me the last time Canon recycled a FF sensor in another body?

1DX = new
_(maybe the 1DX sensor got recycled into the 1D C?)_
5D3 = new
6D1 = new
5DS / 5DS R = new
1DX2 = new
5D4 = new
6D2 = new

I appreciate Canon can be ruthless in the crop sensor world, but when cameras pull in north of $2k, the new sensor fab seems to get paid for, doesn't it?

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 23, 2018)

Canon will transition from 2 SLR mounts in the past
* EF = FF image circle
* EF-S = APS-C image circle

to 2 mirrorless [shorter FFD] mounts in the future
* EF-"X" = full frame image circle
* EF-M = APS-C image circle

anything else makes less sense.


----------



## BillB (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> woodman411 said:
> 
> 
> > I think eventually we'll see 3 or 4 full-frame mirrorless bodies from Canon, similar to the current dslr lineup, something like this:
> ...



At the high end, the 5DS is the next in line for refreshment, and it still doesn't have the new sensor technology. Canon may also seem some value in keeping the 5DIV and 1DXII on the market as OVF cameras with the associated AF system. Until recently, Canon has said that telephoto autofocus was an issue with mirrorless.


----------



## peters (Mar 23, 2018)

exkeks said:


> Anxiously waiting if it'll be like 1D-expensive or only like 5D-expensive...


If it would be a realy professional tool and not another half hearted toy, I would totaly pay 1D-expensive for this camera. 
I realy need a god damn useful 4k Canon Camera... the 1dx hdmi out causes freezes and file losses... the 5d is a total wreck with its crop, slow card slots with aweful codec and insane rolling shutter... and the c200 is not a photocamera (which I need additionaly) and not a fullframe camera...
all I want is a 5d without the bullshit... may it be mirrorless or not, I dont care.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Canon will transition from 2 SLR mounts in the past
> * EF = FF image circle
> * EF-S = APS-C image circle
> 
> ...



EF-S going away for solely EF-M someday is plausible, though it won't be soon. But EF-M has sneakily built up a decent spread of lenses and could conceivably pull this off without freaking out Canon crop devotees. 

But EF to be phased out and wholesale replaced with mirrorless variants of EF lenses? You're dreaming. That would entail Canon rebuilding EF all over again at a staggering cost, all the while scaring EF users away from Canon in the process. Never going to happen.

A thin new mount + a select number of new mount FF lenses could happen, but they'll point users to an EF adaptor for the rest. No chance they rebuild most/all of EF from the ground up.

- A


----------



## criscokkat (Mar 23, 2018)

I think the idea of having a EF compatible mount that protrudes into the body makes the most sense. The end game of having a smaller camera is reducing the *entire* size of the camera front to back to make it unobtrusive. This will never happen when you have a very wide aperture lens or a longer zoom lens. But a pancake lens that takes advantage of the extra 20 mm of room on the inside, or a ultra wide that does the same? That's a different story.

Although 90% of the current lenses in production could be shortened.


----------



## mppix (Mar 23, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> I think the idea of having a EF compatible mount that protrudes into the body makes the most sense. The end game of having a smaller camera is reducing the *entire* size of the camera front to back to make it unobtrusive. This will never happen when you have a very wide aperture lens or a longer zoom lens. But a pancake lens that takes advantage of the extra 20 mm of room on the inside, or a ultra wide that does the same? That's a different story.
> 
> Although 90% of the current lenses in production could be shortened.



To me, this makes the most sense: a mount that accepts EF lenses as well as EF-X lenses that can extend into the camera (being incompatible with existing EF cameras).


----------



## unfocused (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Can you name me the last time Canon recycled a FF sensor in another body?



I don’t think that applies in this case. The different sensors are needed for product differentiation among DSLRs. There is no need for that with mirrorless because the body style itself is the difference. A Recycled 5D IV sensor would actually boost confidence in a new product and help sell it to enthusiasts.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 23, 2018)

There won't be two EF-M mounts in the future because they don't need it. There are two sensible choices for a mount, and standard EF isn't EITHER of them.

EF-S was a hack to allow lenses to make use of the greater room behind the sensor to position rear elements nearer the sensor (which, if you listen to the doomsayers here is apparently a bad thing.)

This isn't needed for EF-M to go full frame.

A full frame lens can fit perfectly onto the current EF-M mount. So they don't need to invent a new mount, they already have one.

Plus, the advantage is, just like with the Sony FE mount, you can use the APS-C lenses on your FF mirrorless body - albeit with some kind of cropping depending on the vignetting - however people have found that some of the ultrawide zooms on Sony do give useable full-frame coverage, or near-as, at certain zoom levels. So they're not junk.


What is the other option? A full-frame mirrorless camera won't have the EF mount - but it COULD have the EF-S mount, for exactly the same reason. Your EF-S 10-22 suddenly becomes a great ultrawide angle zoom for your full frame mirrorless. You will even be astonished how much more of the full-frame area is covered by the standard EF-S 18-55 than you'd expect. And, of course, all of these will work great in crop mode, and if the new sensor has some kind of onboard ADC as it probably should, a crop mode would be a ton faster and therefore actually useful for doing whatever photography you'd normally have a 7D for.

Personally, I'd put my money on the EF-M mount for the first mirrorless camera. Canon haven't invested in this new mount just to have a minor low-end sideline.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 23, 2018)

There would need to be a much more significant benefit in size and weight than we've seen from the Sony GM series to necessitate a change from the EF mount.

I would be curious if over the years Canon has identified other ways to improve on the EF mount. That could be interesting. Less clipped bokeh? 

Overall, I find the rumors of before Q1 2019 and Canon reaching out to EoL and pros in January to be difficult to reconcile. It takes time to design, source parts, and the manufacture a camera. The only way that makes sense is if the questions were more about firmware or features that could be added easily. But the basic physical camera was already pretty well set.


----------



## Lucidmike78 (Mar 23, 2018)

It would be nice if they kept the camera bodies the same size, and instead of the prism, put the best OVF in there, an electronic variable ND, and an AA filter that you can switch on and off. I would love to not have an AA filter for landscapes, but have it for portraits and for whenever the situation may call for it. Maybe even increase the size of the battery so that it keeps the weight after the prism is gone and the battery life is extended. The 5D4's battery life is pretty short and will only get shorter with the OVF. And while we're at it, a fully articulating screen would be very useful to mix up perspectives and compositions.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> What is the other option? A full-frame mirrorless camera won't have the EF mount - but it COULD have the EF-S mount, for exactly the same reason. Your EF-S 10-22 suddenly becomes a great ultrawide angle zoom for your full frame mirrorless.



Yes, you can barely notice the vignetting.....


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 23, 2018)

Well, obviously at 10mm you have a few problems  but from about 14mm or 15mm it's fine


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > What is the other option? A full-frame mirrorless camera won't have the EF mount - but it COULD have the EF-S mount, for exactly the same reason. Your EF-S 10-22 suddenly becomes a great ultrawide angle zoom for your full frame mirrorless.
> ...



With a Sony, you could push those shadows eight stops without a problem and never even notice the vignetting. But alas, this is Canon.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 23, 2018)

docsmith said:


> There would need to be a much more significant benefit in size and weight than we've seen from the Sony GM series to necessitate a change from the EF mount.



The GM series from Sony were not designed as lightweight lenses, but to be as good optically as they can with little compromise for weight.

If you look at the non-GM series lens for Sony you'll see plenty of options where high quality lenses are able to be constructed with a far lighter weight.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

docsmith said:


> I would be curious if over the years Canon has identified other ways to improve on the EF mount. That could be interesting. Less clipped bokeh?



Pull out the mirror box and clipped bokeh should be greatly mitigated, no? (Anyone have an A7 + adaptor + one of the D-shaped wide open bokeh suspects (either 85L comes to mind) to confirm this?)

But I'm not sure how you'd mitigate that in the current EF SLR setup. The mirror can only be so big to mitigate this before into clunks into something internally or forces major internal geometry changes.

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 23, 2018)

I like the idea of built in ND and AA on and off. Once again, please keep it 5/6 Series big, too many cramped controls kills the user experience and just plain rules out the Joystick.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, obviously at 10mm you have a few problems  but from about 14mm or 15mm it's fine



So sayeth anyone who tells me my 100mm front filtering setup will be fine with the 11-24 / 14-24 lenses. :

Physics is a jerk that way.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > What is the other option? A full-frame mirrorless camera won't have the EF mount - but it COULD have the EF-S mount, for exactly the same reason. Your EF-S 10-22 suddenly becomes a great ultrawide angle zoom for your full frame mirrorless.
> ...



Looks like a 16-35 f/2.8L III shot wide open at 16mm. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> If you look at the non-GM series lens for Sony you'll see plenty of options where high quality lenses are able to be constructed with a far lighter weight.



Sure, but good luck convincing a working professional that f/2 primes and f/4 zooms are quick enough for their needs. I appreciate these slower lenses can be very well built (Zeiss, especially), but the principal driver of size is FL + speed, and pros aren't going to avoid using combinations of a specific FL + speed they've always used on their SLRs.

Again: Physics = jerk on this front. If you want shorter/lighter lenses for more than just a handful of shorter FL lenses, you kinda have to curve the sensor, don't you?

- A


----------



## tmroper (Mar 23, 2018)

I hope they go more for a Leica SL type form factor, rather than the Sony Alphas (but with much better ergonomics than the SL). I've used the Sonys, and own a Lumix g7, and while I do like many features a mirrorless offers, I can't stand hitting some button or wheel every single time I pick one up. I know it's partly a learned muscle memory thing, but at some point, too small is just plain too small for constant, all day use.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, obviously at 10mm you have a few problems  but from about 14mm or 15mm it's fine


Yes, I was quite surprised at how well it worked at 16mm....


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



LOL ;D


----------



## docsmith (Mar 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > There would need to be a much more significant benefit in size and weight than we've seen from the Sony GM series to necessitate a change from the EF mount.
> ...



Sure, I've seen the smaller Sony lenses. But if I am eventually replacing my EF "L" lenses, I am going to want both the optical quality and some other reason to move off of the EF lens mount.

In other words, to necessitate a change in mount, hold quality, cost and all other things equal (or better) to current EF lenses, and the EF-X lens mount needs to be better is some way. Otherwise, why bother?

And the GM is not better than EF L lenses (depends on focal length, but, overall, pretty similar). Yet, the 24-70 GM is a bit longer and heavier:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=787&LensComp=1105&Units=E

Quality (24 mm):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1105&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Quality (70 mm):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1105&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## Tangent (Mar 23, 2018)

_Minority opinion_: I think C needs to have a new EF-FF-M mount that would eliminate the mirror box throw distance of the EF mount. Not to do so would put C at permanent disadvantage in lens design for FF mirrorless. Ten years from now C mirrorless would seem dinosaurish if it still had the EF mirror throw still in place. Not good. Customers ten years from now would be saying Not Acceptable.

Option 1: Maybe there could be an accommodation for both without an adapter: perhaps a helical mechanism so that an EF lens could mount and click in place and stop, but an EF-FF-M mount lens would mount and then be able to twist a bit further as it is drawn in to click into place closer to the sensor. Seems feasible. But maybe too costly.

Option 2: Sell the new EF-FF-M camera bundled with a "free" EF adapter. Set an accessory price for the EF adapter at somewhere near cost -- not the usual cost plus 500 percent that applies for most accessories.

I think C had better get the EF-FF-M mount right, and if it means distributing EF adapters at a loss and allocating this as an expense to EF-FF-M conversion it would be worth it to take that hit. Sticking with a legacy mirror throw mount is not a long term option. Again, imho: I realize it is a minority view around here.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 23, 2018)

Chances that Canon does anything that might imply their EF lens line-up will become obsolete equals zero. EF mount was good enough for their Cinema line which didn’t require it. Why would they go another direction for full frame mirrorless. Weight and size constrained users can go with EF-m. Quality of Canons apps-c mirrorless cameras still has a lot of room for growth. There isn’t anything magicical about 36mm sensors


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 23, 2018)

Tangent said:


> Again, imho: I realize it is a minority view around here.



ONLY around here. somehow the forum seems to be dominated by large-handed, all-day large-white-lens shooting folks ... reality is different. 


reality looks different. Almost everybody wants smaller and lighter gear that handles 90% of all capturing situations perfectly well ... big gear only to be carried along and mounted (via adapter) when really needed.


----------



## BillB (Mar 23, 2018)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Can you name me the last time Canon recycled a FF sensor in another body?
> ...



If they do use a recycled 5DIV sensor, I think the camera would have to have a price below the 5DIV if they want to move sales. At the same price level, I don't know how many people would take a EVF over an OVF, especially for a camera with the 5DIV's Liveview capabilities, which you ought to use if you are using a tripod. If Canon wants to introduce a mirrorless at the 5DIV price level, I think they would want to have a sensor significantly better than the one in the 5DIV.


----------



## blackbox (Mar 23, 2018)

Hoping a Senior Canon rep is reading this, if it is not a EF mount, I will be leaving Canon for for Sony!!


----------



## BillB (Mar 23, 2018)

docsmith said:


> There would need to be a much more significant benefit in size and weight than we've seen from the Sony GM series to necessitate a change from the EF mount.
> 
> I would be curious if over the years Canon has identified other ways to improve on the EF mount. That could be interesting. Less clipped bokeh?



My understanding is that the mirrorbox is the source of the clipped bokeh, so that problem might go away with mirrorless.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> If they do use a recycled 5DIV sensor, I think the camera would have to have a price below the 5DIV if they want to move sales. At the same price level, I don't know how many people would take a EVF over an OVF, especially for a camera with the 5DIV's Liveview capabilities, which you ought to use if you are using a tripod. If Canon wants to introduce a mirrorless at the 5DIV price level, I think they would want to have a sensor significantly better than the one in the 5DIV.



Just my take: 

It's less about choosing an EVF over an OVF to me. It's about what an EVF based camera can add to your capabilities.

For me, I really want to use manual focus large aperture glass handheld with the camera held up to my eye. As interchangeable focusing screens have largely gone the way of the dodo, the only way to do that with a contemporary FF rig is to get a 1DX2. No thank you. 

For others, it's mirror slap, truly silent shooting, the potential for very high burst rates, a highly customizable VF experience, the ability to adapt older / non-Canon glass, or the chance to enjoy a smaller form factor (conditions apply).

So I see this (at first) being a hard sell directly at current Canon SLR guys as their next new camera or possibly a second camera to carry alongside their current SLR. It's not about being categorically better -- it's about being able to add to what you can do.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> My understanding is that the mirrorbox is the source of the clipped bokeh, so that problem might go away with mirrorless.



Simple enough to verify, right? Slap an adapted 85L on an A7 and see what the wide open OOF output looks like. 

I tried finding such a gallery on Flickr, stabbing at searches in Shutterdial, etc. but could not find any. Please post a link if you come across some, thx.

- A


----------



## BillB (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



But how many times do you shoot 16mm at f2.8 anyway?


----------



## BillB (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > If they do use a recycled 5DIV sensor, I think the camera would have to have a price below the 5DIV if they want to move sales. At the same price level, I don't know how many people would take a EVF over an OVF, especially for a camera with the 5DIV's Liveview capabilities, which you ought to use if you are using a tripod. If Canon wants to introduce a mirrorless at the 5DIV price level, I think they would want to have a sensor significantly better than the one in the 5DIV.
> ...



I agree. Presumably Canon is not going to stop producing DSLR cameras anytime soon, so it will come down to consumer preference. I am not sure how the chips will fall, given both cameras at the same price.


----------



## transpo1 (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> exkeks said:
> 
> 
> > Anxiously waiting if it'll be like 1D-expensive or only like 5D-expensive...
> ...



If they’re going to upcharge, they better include comparable features, such as no crop 4K, comparable dynamic range, and Log. Hopefully, there’s a Digic 8 in there and no market segment protection by cropping/hobbling the 4K a la M50.


----------



## slclick (Mar 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



It's like asking for a fast macro lens


----------



## Talys (Mar 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> So I see this (at first) being a hard sell directly at current Canon SLR guys as their next new camera or possibly a second camera to carry alongside their current SLR. It's not about being categorically better -- it's about being able to add to what you can do.



At the high end, I couldn't agree more. You just can't replace a SLR with a mirrorless for everything, yet. But that doesn't stop them from selling mirrorless cameras to SLR owners.


----------



## mppix (Mar 23, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Well, obviously at 10mm you have a few problems  but from about 14mm or 15mm it's fine
> ...



Not sure if we will see crop lenses soon on full frame.
Here some results with a Tamron SP 17-50 F2.8 Di II @ 17mm, 25mm, 35mm, and 50mm


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 23, 2018)

Hope is not that flat rectangle of the photo.


----------



## Woody (Mar 23, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> While an announcement date is not yet set for the camera, and little is known about it specifications wise, I’m very confident we’re going to see something announced before the end of Q1 in 2019.



That is still much later than Thom Hogan's prediction.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 23, 2018)

Woody said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > While an announcement date is not yet set for the camera, and little is known about it specifications wise, I’m very confident we’re going to see something announced before the end of Q1 in 2019.
> ...



I hear that Canon is holding off until the magic codec is finished and the camera will support 8K video at 60fps.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 24, 2018)

I think it is telling that Canon's FF mirrorless won't be announced until next year. One argument could be made that Canon was caught with their pants down and only recently got serious about it. The other is that they are going to release a "game changing" camera. I still believe there will be two mounts available eventually. Obviously one will be EF and the other will be adaptable to all lenses, including EF. The new mount camera may well incorporate IBIS, thereby allowing for a smaller-still line of new high performance lenses. Market leadership aside, I think/hope that Canon will consider it a matter of pride to release a kick ass camera to silence the snarky no-innovation crowd. It's good to dream...


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2018)

brad-man said:


> I think it is telling that Canon's FF mirrorless won't be announced until next year. One argument could be made that Canon was caught with their pants down and only recently got serious about it. The other is that they are going to release a "game changing" camera. I still believe there will be two mounts available eventually. Obviously one will be EF and the other will be adaptable to all lenses, including EF. The new mount camera may well incorporate IBIS, thereby allowing for a smaller-still line of new high performance lenses. Market leadership aside, I think/hope that Canon will consider it a matter of pride to release a kick ass camera to silence the snarky no-innovation crowd. It's good to dream...



I don’t think they were caught flat footed, they are a conservative company and are not going to jump in until they are ready. The M series of cameras are a good window on where they are. This is the proving ground for mirrorless technologies.

Look at the AF of the M’s... dual pixel is made for mirrorless!
A decent EVF on the M50....
The articulated touchscreen and interface of the 6D2....

All the pieces are there, we are just waiting on integration and testing. With a departure from normal like this, one should expect a long beta test to make sure that all the bugs are out. They are slow, but when they release something, it usually works.


----------



## slclick (Mar 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is telling that Canon's FF mirrorless won't be announced until next year. One argument could be made that Canon was caught with their pants down and only recently got serious about it. The other is that they are going to release a "game changing" camera. I still believe there will be two mounts available eventually. Obviously one will be EF and the other will be adaptable to all lenses, including EF. The new mount camera may well incorporate IBIS, thereby allowing for a smaller-still line of new high performance lenses. Market leadership aside, I think/hope that Canon will consider it a matter of pride to release a kick ass camera to silence the snarky no-innovation crowd. It's good to dream...
> ...



It usually works, not too mention it's supported and has great ergo and menus.


----------



## Talys (Mar 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Tangent said:
> 
> 
> > Again, imho: I realize it is a minority view around here.
> ...



That's not it at all.

I like small cameras too. I've spent an inordinate amount of money on small travel cameras, right up to thousand-dollar plus point and shoots "back in the day" before smartphones were good for that task. But I look at the lens and the camera as a package, and I don't see the advantage of spending $2,000-$3,000 on a full frame body, only to attach the vast majority of small lenses.

So for my small camera needs, I'd rather have an APSC with a small lens. On full frame, virtually all the lenses I use are f/4, f/2.8, or wider (with the exception of 100-400), and that just doesn't jive with small body.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ...Almost everybody wants smaller and lighter gear that handles 90% of all capturing situations perfectly well...
> ...



Exactly. If you truly want "smaller and lighter gear that handles 90% of all capturing situations perfectly well" there are already plenty of cameras on the market that meet that criteria, since any APS-C camera will cover that and, to be honest, so will any smart phone released in the last four to five years.


----------



## BillB (Mar 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > So I see this (at first) being a hard sell directly at current Canon SLR guys as their next new camera or possibly a second camera to carry alongside their current SLR. It's not about being categorically better -- it's about being able to add to what you can do.
> ...



Marketing FF mirrorless as an additional camera rather than a replacement camera will be a neat trick if they can convince enough DSLR owners to go that route, especially for the more expensive mirrorless. May be an argument for starting with midrange rather than high end. Sort of an upgrade from using M and other aps-c cameras as the additional camera.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 24, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> Although 90% of the current lenses in production could be shortened.



Which ones can be shortened? Why would Canon be producing them longer when they could be shortened? Well, it would be easier if you could tell us which lenses, the 10%, can't be shortened.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 24, 2018)

blackbox said:


> Hoping a Senior Canon rep is reading this, if it is not a EF mount, I will be leaving Canon for for Sony!!



The whole team read your post. They are now shaking in their boots.


----------



## Perio (Mar 24, 2018)

I'm sure only few other members will agree with me, but I'd love to have a 1DX-like mirrorless camera. But I assume that this won't be financially reasonable to release such camera, at least now.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Agree!

And I really don't want an EVF. I might put up with an EVF in something like the EOS M system, where the point of the system is equipment which produces pretty good IQ which is genuinely small and light and the mirrorless technology makes a significant difference in allowing the system to be small and light. On a full frame camera though I will generally want faster aperture lenses, and lenses for a range of focal lengths, and then the overall size (ie camera and lens) difference between SLR and mirrorless becomes much less significant - and in fact you want a bit of size and even a bit of weight in the body so it balances better with the lens. 

At least at this point in time, given the choice between FF SLR or mirrorless, I will take SLR without a second thought, for features like OVF, battery life and AF. I won't say I'll never buy a FF mirrorless, but I think it's highly unlikely to be any time soon. The FF mirrorless would have to offer significant (practical - not just spec sheet!) advantages over SLR, and at this point I'm not seeing that. (In saying that, for all I know mirrorless may offer something more on the video side, but I have never investigated that. My interest is in stills photography.)


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> criscokkat said:
> 
> 
> > Although 90% of the current lenses in production could be shortened.
> ...



I am sure that at least 90 percent of the lenses that Canon makes could be shortened, but at a loss of image quality. They could also be made cheaper, at a loss of image quality......

You want a high quality lens, you pay the price..... both in size and in dollars!


----------



## rjbray01 (Mar 24, 2018)

Success or fail of this camera will ultimately depend on the quality of viewfinder - not the lens mount choice (which is obviously going to be EF anyway ...)

If the viewfinder sucks like in every other Canon mirrorless camera today then 80D, 5D, 6D and 7D owners won't switch.

They've either got come come up with retina ri-res and ultra-fast refresh speed or fail.

Hybrid OVF/EVF would be best and leapfrog the competition ... but it seems Canon's engineers are struggling to keep up these days


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 24, 2018)

exkeks said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount.
> ...


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If they're seeking (and have been influenced by) pros and EoLs, I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount.
> ...



Same here: Why omit the chance of
(1) adapting smaller EF-X lenses for compactness, tilt/shift ranges and enhanced IQ
(2) creating (switcheable) tele converters of higher quality (more freedom of lens placement) <= EDIT: ADDED
(3) using other glass
(4) last but not least to sell future adapters with additional controls like a concentric ring to set e.g. the aperture with an OLED display to show the aperture value (yes, I want some FD lens features back!)


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 24, 2018)

Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old.

There are many reasons to replace the mount.

A more intelligent modern mount might include the ability to have a fast data link between the lens and the body. Imagine, for example, a situation where a specific lens as a coprocessor within it to help deal with specific calculations it needs (for example, for an enhanced IS system), or with a macro light embedded in the lens that, because of the improved communication system is able to communicate via ETTL with the camera. 

Autofocus tilt-shift lenses and the ability for tilt-shift lenses and for lenses with apodization filters to communicate and record those settings into the EXIF data also become possible.

Also, more efficient power usage, better weatherproofing, all of these can be put into a new design.

Right now we're stuck with an interface designed at the time the Commodore 64 was the most popular home computer.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old.
> 
> There are many reasons to replace the mount.
> 
> ...


And what do you need for such a mount’s electronics? You need power and ground, serial data in and out.

Yes, at the time the mount was designed serial links were typically 9600 baud in consumer devices, but even back then we were in the megabits per second for serial links. Now we do gigabits.

Undoubtedly, Canon has upgraded this link speed many times. Let’s say the first cameras and lenses back when the mount came out had a speed of 1.... a couple of years later, out comes a lens that can communicate at speed 2. On power up, the camera asks the lens (at whatever the default speed is... 0.1?), what the coms speed is that it can run at. The lens reply’s “1”, so the coms are set to 1. The next body comes out supporting speed 5. On power up it talks to the lens, the lens says “2”, so that’s what the link speed is set to. And so on.....

The lenses are already intelligent, and they run the IS system and already hold their own calibration data....

The only difference that I could see on a new design would be to change the serial link to differential, but that only helps if you need longer distances or higher transfer rates than you have now. They need neither


----------



## scyrene (Mar 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old.



So? Does everything old have to be replaced?



jolyonralph said:


> A more intelligent modern mount might include the ability to have a fast data link between the lens and the body. Imagine, for example, a situation where a specific lens as a coprocessor within it to help deal with specific calculations it needs (for example, for an enhanced IS system), or with a macro light embedded in the lens that, because of the improved communication system is able to communicate via ETTL with the camera.
> 
> Autofocus tilt-shift lenses and the ability for tilt-shift lenses and for lenses with apodization filters to communicate and record those settings into the EXIF data also become possible.



These seem marginal improvements at best, and hardly enough motivation to introduce a whole new line of lenses/make the current lineup obsolete.



jolyonralph said:


> Also, more efficient power usage, better weatherproofing, all of these can be put into a new design.



What does this have to do with the lens mount??


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 24, 2018)

You of course forget the major advantage of a new lens mount - that we all have to buy new lenses!

(yes, not an advantage for us, but Canon aren't in business just to keep us happy)


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> You of course forget the major advantage of a new lens mount - that we all have to buy new lenses!
> 
> (yes, not an advantage for us, but Canon aren't in business just to keep us happy)



That would be as smart as killing the Apple II line in favor of the Mac.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 24, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> Success or fail of this camera will ultimately depend on the quality of viewfinder - not the lens mount choice (which is obviously going to be EF anyway ...)
> 
> If the viewfinder sucks like in every other Canon mirrorless camera today then 80D, 5D, 6D and 7D owners won't switch.
> 
> ...


Canon is not locked into the viewfinder design. It can evolve with time.
Once chosen, they are locked in on the mount for many years. So, they will want to choose wisely. The executive interview gave me the impression that Canon is still pondering the mount question.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old.
> 
> There are many reasons to replace the mount.
> 
> ...



How do you know those things aren't possible with the current interface? Current lenses have processors, current lenses have firmware that can be updated via the camera body. 

Are you suggesting the reason tilt-shift lenses don't have AF is that the lens interface is too slow? That the slow interface —and not the lack of lens encoders for things like TS settings and Macro Lite status— is the reason those things aren't recorded in the EXIF? I know people like to make stuff up to bash Canon, but it should at least _seem_ credible.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old...
> ...



I was thinking the same thing. The mount simply connects the lens to the camera and allows the two to communicate. It’s not like it has any processing power itself.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


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


Not only that, but part of the mount was the communications standard. With the EF mount, canon changed from having a wire connection for each electronic function to sending serial commands, and even at the speeds of 30 years ago, they had more than enough to do the job...


----------



## kiwiengr (Mar 24, 2018)

My take on this....

1. Is the desire for a FF mirrorless to do away with the mirror or to reduce size...
2. If it is out there in the wild currently being tested, what lens are being used
3. Reducing size means reducing ergonomics, battery life, less processing capacity

Gut feel, similar form to a 5D, same battery, EF mount, big elimination being the mirror. Enhanced shooting rates.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 24, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


> 1. Is the desire for a FF mirrorless to do away with the mirror or to reduce size...


That's one option. It also allows a number of feature/performance improvements. It opens up opportunities for completely different product lines.



> 3. Reducing size means reducing ergonomics, battery life, less processing capacity


Some people are OK with this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> > 3. Reducing size means reducing ergonomics, battery life, less processing capacity
> 
> 
> Some people are OK with this.



Some aren't. The question is, which group will buy more FF MILCs? I don't know the answer, but I suspect Canon has a fairly accurate guess.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > > 3. Reducing size means reducing ergonomics, battery life, less processing capacity
> ...


It's also important to remember that the numbers in each group may change over time.


----------



## Zaberansary (Mar 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > If it is in the hands of pros for testing, then it must be of a quality and feature set of interest to pros. Right?
> ...



Hey, What do mean your 90D PP is running brilliantly, Can you please share some more Intel?


----------



## haggie (Mar 24, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> I’m very confident we’re going to see something announced before the end of Q1 in 2019





Canon Rumors said:


> I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a “development” announcement at Photokina if the camera itself isn’t ready for production



If this turns out to be true dates for Canon's brand new FF mirrorless, what would that mean for the introduction of the 7D Mk III?
Would Canon introduce 2 high-profile (and probably also: high-stake) cameras in the same period/at the same time?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


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



Of course. In part, at least, because when Canon releases one form factor, those who would buy one will buy one, directly reducing the number in the 'would buy' camp.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2018)

IMHO, talking about mirrorless reducing size in general does the feature decisions a disservice. Canon could make an A7-thin body with a chunky mount, or they could make a thicker full EF body with a dainty mount grip (typo sorry), or one that's just a hair bigger than a deck of cards from the rear view.

I see Canon as having to make careful decisions about three form factors in particular:


*Grip size and its spacing from the mount* --> I think something fairly chunky is best because we are 100% going to mount heavier glass to this thing. As far as spacing goes, ask Sony users -- their grip is comically too close to the mount and fingers don't have enough room with large diameter barrel GM lenses attached. That A7/A9 grip is the photography equivalent of flying in coach. Also: chunkier grip = bigger battery and a greater likelihood we get the top display we love on our nicer SLR bodies.


*Body thickness front to back* --> this is principally about the mount depth needed. But if Canon chose full EF, they still could put parts of the body on a diet as they don't need room for a pentaprism, mirror box, etc. See the odd but understandable Sigma mirrorless system which employs 'lens tube' sort of approach to space the lens appropriately far enough away from the sensor.


*Footprint of the back of the camera* (i.e. the height and width when looking at the LCD side) --> Canon went amazingly small here with the first EOS M models, but as many have pointed out, these had P&S powershot ergononomics, not what you want in a proper camera. I hope Canon is not 'different for different sake' here and does with some touchscreen-heavy interface -- I hope we get a joystick and control wheel for seamlessness with our SLRs when we're shooting with two bodies.

My vote? Full sized grip + [whatever the mount decision needs, thin or EF, I don't care] + Full form factor in the back for proper 5D-like controls. So make it 5D-like or (if a thin mount) make it a 'thin 5D' and keep the rest about the same.

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> IMHO, talking about mirrorless reducing size in general does the feature decisions a disservice. Canon could make an A7-thin body with a chunky mount, or they could make a thicker full EF body with a dainty mount, or one that's just a hair bigger than a deck of cards from the rear view.
> 
> I see Canon as having to make careful decisions about three form factors in particular:
> 
> ...



One other thing is vertical height of the camera. The focus on the grip-to-lens distance often eclipses the fact that even small hands are too large, vertically, for the A7/A9 bodies' vertical height, if you're holding the camera for prolonged periods (like hours). If you are using a heavier lens (like any zoom lens that you'd want to mount on a $3000 camera), what happens is that the bottom of the camera grip, where the battery compartment is, digs in to the lower palm until it eventually becomes painful. That's why Sony sells a $150 half-grip-extender... thing.

I think that Canon's conservative design will result in a vertically stacked lens, viewfinder, and hotshoe (this is my preferred configuration by far, anyways). 

I totally agree about the grip size and spacing. The thing with reconfiguring the camera is that it always ends up with some kind of sacrifice like fewer controls or smaller screen. I think that there is a segment of the midrange enthusiast crowd that would welcome that; but there is a segment of the enthusiast crowd and definitely a big chunk of the professional crowd that doesn't want to sacrifice functionality at the cost of size.

At the end of the day, I don't think any single design will make everyone happy. The solution is to have 2 camera styles -- a full frame EFM for people who just want better available light / lower light photographs; and an full size rig for people who think xxD/xD is the right size for a camera. 

And then ultimately, something professionally oriented that is 1D format.


----------



## kiwiengr (Mar 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> kiwiengr said:
> 
> 
> > > 3. Reducing size means reducing ergonomics, battery life, less processing capacity
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 24, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiengr said:
> ...





> But are the Pro's & the EoL people happy with this?


I'm sure Canon will consider that question in the market positioning of the product.



> I use a 5DIV, I don't want less battery time... I wouldn't even want a different battery... and charger...


I'm sure Canon will consider that question in the market positioning of the product.

You're just one person; your needs are important only if you represent a large segment of the market. Change will happen eventually, it's just a question of when.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 24, 2018)

I think the camera will have the same basic form factor as a 5D series camera and almost the same features. Maybe a new sensor and obviously higher frame rate for stills.

People will complain no matter what the design is, because that is all some people can do... especially those who aren't in the market for this camera to begin with. Others just don't know how to count their blessings.

I'm confident the camera will be comfortable in the hand as that is very important. I'm also confident it will work very reliably, won't double as a canteen or camp stove, and have the finest product support in the industry. It will take the EF and EF-s lenses just like the APS-c line does. So sort of a new mount? (Just to be controversial)

What about size and weight savings on the "L" end? Maybe that's where the DO lenses eventually come into wide use as they are developed.

Can't wait to find out... but I'm hoping for a 5D Mark V myself. I like the sound of the mirror.


----------



## dave hoppus (Mar 24, 2018)

Hopefully some identlical specs as the Leica Q:
Shutter up to 1/16000s 
ISO up to 50.000
At least 24mp
Video don‘t know, but probably 4K 24/25/30 and FullHD 48/50/60/120fps

That would allow to kick Wetzlar‘s ass because if interchangeable lenses. 

Dave


----------



## Talys (Mar 24, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> People will complain no matter what the design is, because that is all some people can do... especially those who aren't in the market for this camera to begin with. Others just don't know how to count their blessings.



Seriously!!!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> I think that Canon's conservative design will result in a vertically stacked lens, viewfinder, and hotshoe (this is my preferred configuration by far, anyways).



Agree completely. Good topic to bring up.

Anyone see this differently? Any chance we see them play left-to-right offsets with the viewfinder or hotshoe? Perhaps offset the VF like a rangefinder?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> The thing with reconfiguring the camera is that it always ends up with some kind of sacrifice like fewer controls or smaller screen. I think that there is a segment of the midrange enthusiast crowd that would welcome that; but there is a segment of the enthusiast crowd and definitely a big chunk of the professional crowd that doesn't want to sacrifice functionality at the cost of size.



I am an enthusiast and I want proper physical controls like my 5D.

That said, I have zero desire for single purpose-dedicated knobs like a host of retro rigs employ. See the X-T2 below. I expressly do not want that. 

I love my 5D's controls and would want something highly similar if possible.

- A


----------



## scrup (Mar 24, 2018)

If Canon uses a new short flange mount, existing EFM users will be pissed. 

Lets hope Canons releases FF mirrorless in EF and EFM mount.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I am an enthusiast and I want proper physical controls like my 5D.
> 
> That said, I have zero desire for single purpose-dedicated knobs like a host of retro rigs employ. See the X-T2 below. I expressly do not want that.
> 
> I love my 5D's controls and would want something highly similar if possible.



There are certainly a few things that could be a LOT easier with the ergonomics on the 5D series.

For example, changing focus mode. But I do agree in general it's relatively well thought out. 

Also, a dedicated exposure compensation dial is a GREAT THING. I love it on the M5 and similarly on the A7RII. It bugs me that I have to juggle buttons to do this on the 5DSR especially if I'm looking down the viewfinder at the time. Of course, it's not as useful without mirrorless, but if you're going to a mirrorless camera then you do not want exactly the same button settings and layout as on a DSLR because the way you shoot and compose is going to be different.

This is something Canon have already got right with the M5, so I expect them to do this well on any FF mirrorless.


----------



## zim (Mar 24, 2018)

I really hope this will be a big ass camera that has an EF mount.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 24, 2018)

zim said:


> I really hope this will be a big ass camera that has an EF mount.



You and me both.


----------



## TAF (Mar 24, 2018)

So, what are the odds that given an on-sensor ADC and the ability to crop (and hence increase frame rate), Canon will provide something extra special to the new user - slow motion video?

Perhaps a 640x480 at 1500fps or so?

That would open an entirely new market area for them.

It would certainly be intriguing.


----------



## slclick (Mar 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The thing with reconfiguring the camera is that it always ends up with some kind of sacrifice like fewer controls or smaller screen. I think that there is a segment of the midrange enthusiast crowd that would welcome that; but there is a segment of the enthusiast crowd and definitely a big chunk of the professional crowd that doesn't want to sacrifice functionality at the cost of size.
> ...



I had an Olympus Pen F and the controls drove me mad, so mad I sold it for an M5 and could not have been happier. The single thing I miss is the awesome control over B&W jpegs. BFD, I'll live. Canon will not cramp it's dials I guarantee that and I will wait until 2026 to have them get it right.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 24, 2018)

TAF said:


> So, what are the odds that given an on-sensor ADC and the ability to crop (and hence increase frame rate), Canon will provide something extra special to the new user - slow motion video?
> 
> Perhaps a 640x480 at 1500fps or so?
> 
> ...



640x480 at 1500fps would certainly be spectacular......

I have an Olympus P/S that can do it at 480fps.... it is pretty neat for small birds and (of course) cats  If the sensor was designed for such operation on a FF canon they should be able to get away with that.... possibly even 960fps 

That one feature alone would interest a number of people.

Anoher possibility is: Take a large buffer, fast storage, and have a full size image burst rate of 60 or 120 frames per second. That would have the pro sports shooters tripping over each other trying to get thier hands on one...

We have no idea what's coming or when, and the speculation is fascinating. This will be interesting!


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 25, 2018)

I predict a new lens mount, a few new lenses out of the gate, along with a heavily marketed magic adapter for ef mount.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 25, 2018)

Canon has gotten themselves into the mirrorless lens mount dilemma ... just like Sony has. Both companies were stupid enough to design a new mirrorless short-FFD lens mount for APS-C image circle only ... [EF-M, E-Mount], posing major challenges to design lenses for FF image circle [see Sony FE lineup - too long, too big and way too expensive] .

Had [stupid] Canon made the EF-M only a few millimetres wider and the FFD a few millimetres longer, they could have moved from EF and EF-S to one universal mirrorless mount ... to handle not only APS-C [EOS M series] but also FF sensors - without compromising future lens designs.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 25, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Also, a dedicated exposure compensation dial is a GREAT THING. I love it on the M5 and similarly on the A7RII. It bugs me that I have to juggle buttons to do this on the 5DSR especially if I'm looking down the viewfinder at the time. Of course, it's not as useful without mirrorless, but if you're going to a mirrorless camera then you do not want exactly the same button settings and layout as on a DSLR because the way you shoot and compose is going to be different.



What buttons do you have to juggle to set exposure compensation on the 5DSr? I just had a look at the 5DSr manual and p214 makes it sound like the rear dial is a dedicated exposure compensation dial (as I believe it is on all Canon cameras which have a rear dial). Am I missing something about the sort of control you are looking for?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Anoher possibility is: Take a large buffer, fast storage, and have a full size image burst rate of 60 or 120 frames per second. That would have the pro sports shooters tripping over each other trying to get thier hands on one...
> 
> We have no idea what's coming or when, and the speculation is fascinating. This will be interesting!



To be honest I don't see any reason why Canon would put such sports features in the new stills camera. I believe 120 fps, even 60, is extremely hard to achieve, and actually no sports photographer would want it at such a high rate. It's an easy way to get memory card filled with basically identical shots and hugely increase processing time. 15-20 fps should be more than sufficient.

I believe Canon will be competing with Sony A7RIII and Nikon D850, so the prospective camera will be kind of a mixture of those two. Alternatively it may happen to be an entry-level FF, something like 6DII.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 25, 2018)

jd7 said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Also, a dedicated exposure compensation dial is a GREAT THING. I love it on the M5 and similarly on the A7RII. It bugs me that I have to juggle buttons to do this on the 5DSR especially if I'm looking down the viewfinder at the time. Of course, it's not as useful without mirrorless, but if you're going to a mirrorless camera then you do not want exactly the same button settings and layout as on a DSLR because the way you shoot and compose is going to be different.
> ...



+1000 exactly

notice it all the time: whiners for "dedicated EV comp dial" typically just don't know or understand Canon's [full-scale] EOS user interface well enough. EV +/- compensation using the [lockable!] big rear thumb wheel could not be implemented any better. Unfortunately it is only implemented that way on Canon mirrorslappers from xxD series upwards. 

Not on Rebels and EOS-M series [with powershot UI and firmware] ... these typically need one (!) "select"-press of the rear wheel and then a turn to dial in exposure comp ... which seems to be too challenging for the Fuji-retro crowd and their desire for a mono-functional EV +/- dial taking up valuable space on the control top deck.


----------



## BillB (Mar 25, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



On the 5DIV, it's a little more tricky with the M setting with auto ISO because the top wheel is used for shutter and the back wheel is used for aperture. The instruction manual is quite clear, but you have to set up a dedicated button so you can use the top wheel for exposure comp too.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Mar 25, 2018)

BillB said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



On the 5D4, using the little toggle that is between the joystick and the back wheel is amazing for EV comp. Canon got the toggle 'just right'.


----------



## kanehi (Mar 25, 2018)

If it's a full frame camera it'll probably use EF lenses. I just hope it's not a watered down camera. Hopefully Canon will develop a full mirrorless camera for each sector of affordability.


----------



## mjg79 (Mar 25, 2018)

I really hope they keep the EF mount.

If you look at Sony's FE mount you see that for lenses longer than 24mm it offers no advantage. Indeed their 24-70/2.8 and 50/1.4 become considerably longer than equivalent lenses for EF mount.

So what about the wide angle? Sony's 16-35GM is better than Canon's new 16-35L III and smaller. The Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 is slightly better and half the size of the ZE 21/2.8. So there really is a big advantage to wide angle lenses. However Canon can still get that with the EF mount. Remove the mirror and allow rear lens elements to protrude into the body. If you look at the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 for the Contax G system you will see how it works. Or see the often forgotten Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar 15mm f4.5 - an ultra wide pancake lens for DSLRs that could only be used on Nikon by locking the mirror up. It's an outstanding performer because the rear most elements are close to the sensor and it makes for a small combination.

What's the benefit of this approach? It means that for lenses like a 24-70/2.8 or a 300/2.8 or an 85/1.4 etc you get a much more balanced device to hold with a centre of gravity more centralised than with Sony's FE mount.

The camera can become smaller with the same mount - the best example we have seen is actually Sony's A99 II - it's a lovely camera to hold and with wide aperture or long glass far nicer to use than the A7R/A9.

I hope Canon goes down this route as it lets them have their cake and eat it. Probably if starting fresh today one would go for something like the Leica M or Contax G flange distance (the Sony is so small it causes those strange long lenses) but Canon already has so much glass in the EF mount to change it a tiny bit makes little sense.

Only other thing I'll add is that one day Canon cameras will have IBIS. This isn't even a question - it will come but they are clearly going to drag their heels for as long as possible. Anyone who has used the Sony cameras will know how good it is. And those who have tried it on Olympus will know it can be amazing. In the future it will be a good way to get people to buy a new camera. I already wonder how many people with 5DSr and 5DIV bodies will decide not to upgrade for a long time - the blunt truth is that for 95% of photographers another 10 megapixels or stop of dynamic range won't actually improve the photos. But IBIS will really dramatically lower ISO in some situations and open up different creative possibilities.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 25, 2018)

again ... if Canon goes to a new short flange focal distance lens mount for their mirrorless FF system ... ALL existing EF lenses will NOT have to be discarded instantly ... they will remain fully useable and functional ... all that's needed is a simple little adapter ring. 

Incredible, how hard is is for many mirrorslapping folks to understand this ... and if one just hates adapters and wants to just go on forever with their EF lenses ... well then loc-tite the adapter into the camera's mount and have a "native EF-mount mirrorless FF Canon camera". 

Everybody can decide on their own speed if & when they want to eventually replace existing EF lenses with new native mirrorless lenses - offering better lens - camera communication and "AI capabilities", way more advanced and better AF performance than possible on DSLRs (eg no micro AF adjustments needed, for starters), better IQ thanks to newer optical designs and materials, and for the most frequently used focal length range a lineup of smaller/lighter and potentially less expensive lenses is possible. ofc nobody knows whether Canon is willing to do so, but they could. Keeping EF mount, they can't.


----------



## mjg79 (Mar 25, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Everybody can decide on their own speed if & when they want to eventually replace existing EF lenses with new native mirrorless lenses - offering better lens - camera communication and "AI capabilities", way more advanced and better AF performance than possible on DSLRs (eg no micro AF adjustments needed, for starters), better IQ thanks to newer optical designs and materials, and for the most frequently used focal length range a lineup of smaller/lighter and potentially less expensive lenses is possible. ofc nobody knows whether Canon is willing to do so, but they could. Keeping EF mount, they can't.



That last part isn't accurate - it would be if they kept the same lens design parameters, but that would be madness. They could just do as Contax did with the G system and allow wider lenses to have the rear elements sit further back as there would be no mirror in the way now. This would give all of the same optical benefits and would mean that we get to keep the lovely EF ergonomics for use with larger and longer lenses.

Making the flange distance shorter as Sony did doesn't magically give you smaller lenses on anything over than wide angles. For longer lenses indeed Sony has struggled and they have sometimes ended up with longer lenses than on EF mount.

If you have one camera and one lens then the Sony approach makes some sense (as long as it isn't a heavy lens - then the ergonomics are terrible). However if you have a kit of 3 or 4 lenses it's very possible that a short flange distance results in a heavier lens selection as the longer lenses will likely become bigger. Compare the 24-70L with the 24-70GM for example.

I could see a good argument for Canon making it slightly shorter though nothing like Sony but the question is would a less than 1/4 inch difference be worthwhile then in making an adapter necessary. An adapter is another point of failure, more complexity, more weather sealing? It's so nice how everything on Canon clicks together so solidly, adapters, even quality ones, eat away at that.


----------



## Woody (Mar 25, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Incredible, how hard is it for many mirrorslapping folks to understand this ... and if one just hates adapters and wants to just go on forever with their EF lenses ... well then loc-tite the adapter into the camera's mount and have a "native EF-mount mirrorless FF Canon camera".



Precisely my sentiments.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 25, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> existing EF lenses will NOT have to be discarded instantly ... they will remain fully useable and functional ... all that's needed is a simple little adapter ring.



In principle I agree; the question is whether they work as well and as reliably with the adapter as native lenses. Many of the reviews I've seen say no, they don't.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 25, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > existing EF lenses will NOT have to be discarded instantly ... they will remain fully useable and functional ... all that's needed is a simple little adapter ring.
> ...



i expect EF lenses to work exactly as well and within exactly the same limitations on any Canon mirrorless camera as they would in live view on any Canon EOS DSLR. Totally irrespective of lens mount choice! 

Even if Canon would make and sell mirrorless FF cameras with "native" EF mount up front, all existing EF glass will be "legacy" ... especially but not only in terms of AF performance.  

Newer designs - eg the few EF lenses with STM drive will likely do better, old clunkers like the 1987 design EF 50/1.4 with it's subpar half-baked "Micro-USM" drive will presumably perform ... not so well. No surprises there and no miracles.

MAYBE Canon will be able *and willing* to adjust newer EF lenses to mirrorless operation via firmware update ...
especially lenses that appeared after DP-AF bodies came out.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 25, 2018)

After releasing FF mirrorless, they will definately release SL1/SL2 kind of FF DSLR. They will keep trying with DSLR.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

We can argue this until the cows come home, and there will be no resolution until the camera is released......

What we have is a trade off between physical size and ergonomics. Basically, as the camera gets smaller and lighter, the worse the ergonomics gets. This can best be seen as we descend from size from the 1DX cameras, down into the rebels, the M series, and to what may the ultimate camera for poor ergonomics, the Olympus Air A01. The A01 was the size of a teleconverter and snapped on to the end of a lens.... you are not going to beat it for small size but the usability was so pathetic that it soon disappeared.

Canon already has M cameras.... that is the practical limit to how small they will go with a FF mirrorless (obviously with wider mount) and for the large end of the scale they could go EF mount and 1DX sized, but that is also a bit extreme. Personally, I would bet on the 6D series as the largest “probable” size.....

In the end, it is going to be the ergonomics of this camera that sells it to the masses. Regardless of price and quality, the masses will never tolerate hauling around a 1DX sized camera around, and if all they want is small, no FF mirrorless will be able to compete with an M. Odds are that we are looking at an enthusiast camera that is targeted after the same people who would get an 80D or a 6D2, and Canon will make their decisions accordingly.

Remember that we forum users do not represent the masses of camera buyers......


----------



## David (Mar 25, 2018)

I still believe an EF mount for a mirrorless camera would allow lenses that extend into the camera body while the existing EF lenses still could be used. This would lead to primes that'd allow a fairly small combo without losing the excellent Canon handling and enough space for a large battery.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> In the end, it is going to be the ergonomics of this camera that sells it to the masses. Regardless of price and quality, the masses will never tolerate hauling around a 1DX sized camera around, and if all they want is small, no FF mirrorless will be able to compete with an M. Odds are that we are looking at an enthusiast camera that is targeted after the same people who would get an 80D or a 6D2, and Canon will make their decisions accordingly.
> 
> Remember that we forum users do not represent the masses of camera buyers......



^^This

There are two camps – those who want small and those who want better ergonomics. Those who want small should be looking to APS-C anyway. In the FF market, those who want small have had several generations of Sony FF MILCs, including both small/slow lenses with compromised IQ and high IQ lenses that are similar to or larger than their dSLR counterparts. Yet...FF dSLRs continue to outsell FF MILCs. What does that suggest about the relative size of those two camps? 

I like small sometimes. That's why I have an M6 (M5 was too big), and 6 of the 7 EF-M lenses. Why don't I just use the mount adapter and EF lenses? After all, I have the same 11-200mm range fully covered by EF glass. I don't, because the ergonomics suck.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Newer designs - eg the few EF lenses with STM drive will likely do better, old clunkers like the 1987 design EF 50/1.4 with it's subpar half-baked "Micro-USM" drive will presumably perform ... not so well. No surprises there and no miracles.



1993, sir. Insult old lenses accurately, please. (1987 was the 50mm _compact macro_, not the 50mm f/1.4 USM.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are two camps – those who want small and those who want better ergonomics a more seamless experience that mimics the FF SLRs they use today. Those who want small should be looking to APS-C anyway.



Agree, but note my edit above.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, it is going to be the ergonomics of this camera that sells it to the masses. Regardless of price and quality, the masses will never tolerate hauling around a 1DX sized camera around, and if all they want is small, no FF mirrorless will be able to compete with an M. Odds are that we are looking at an enthusiast camera that is targeted after the same people who would get an 80D or a 6D2, and Canon will make their decisions accordingly.
> ...



I agree.

Just my opinion here, but what I expect to see is a 6D2 sized body, controls laid out like the 6D2, articulated touchscreen, and mirrorless. I expect the mount to natively take EF glass, EF-S glass (in a crop mode), and (i give this last one 50/50 odds of happening) similar to how EF-S protrudes into a camera body, a new series of EF-X lenses that protrude further into the camera body to allow some shorter wide angle lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Newer designs - eg the few EF lenses with STM drive will likely do better, old clunkers like the 1987 design EF 50/1.4 with it's subpar half-baked "Micro-USM" drive will presumably perform ... not so well. No surprises there and no miracles.
> ...



HEY!!!!!

What if they really are going ahead with the EF-X mount and the 50F1.4 EF-X lens will be the first of the series?


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



;D ;D ;D ;D hahaha! Stir the pot.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Just my opinion here, but what I expect to see is a 6D2 sized body, controls laid out like the 6D2, articulated touchscreen, and mirrorless. I expect the mount to natively take EF glass, EF-S glass (in a crop mode), and (i give this last one 50/50 odds of happening) similar to how EF-S protrudes into a camera body, a new series of EF-X lenses that protrude further into the camera body to allow some shorter wide angle lenses.



If 'protruding in' glass happens, I wonder if it will be a FBW implementation. Hooking up something resembling a teleconverter (with Part A going well within Part B) is a bit daunting at first -- I could see some inexperienced user mangle such an insertion. 

I say FBW in that similarly to how EF-M has a collapsible lens that extends _forward_ after power on, imagine a lens with a typical back mount (nothing protruding yet) with a straightforward mounting process like EF or EF-S, and then at power-up (or perhaps once after mounting) the rear element then telescopes _backwards_ towards the sensor.

In fairness, that would (a) be complicated to implement, likely requiring some sliding tubes/surfaces that might limit the size of that rear element (and thus preclude this from working on large aperture glass), but (b) I don't know how they could do this with ring USM -- it would have to be a FBW focusing tech like STM or Nano USM, right? So perhaps they'd only do this for a handful of slower / smaller / less expensive lenses.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> HEY!!!!!
> 
> What if they really are going ahead with the EF-X mount and the 50F1.4 EF-X lens will be the first of the series?



Then Canon will win the ahsanford Troll of the Decade award. 

Keep in mind I skipped the 5D4 as I didn't think (and still don't think) it will improve my photography or unlock new ways to shoot. But a nicely spec'd mirrorless rig that lets me accurately focus MF lenses certainly might change my mind...

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


I'm one of those people who wants a 50F1.4


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2018)

We've had a lot of threads on mirrorless, gang -- but this is a good one. Nice work. Keep it up!

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

So, let me flip it around, and pose a question of preference for you guys.

Let's put aside all of the lenses that are larger for a moment, including 70-200/2.8. So, think, 24-70/2.8 would be on the larger side of what you'd design the camera around. If you do that, what would be the ideal sized body of any currently made mirrorless or DSLR?

For me, the _size and shape_ of the camera, particularly grip and feel, for walkaround lenses, would be the 80D, though I would like to have some space for 5D-type buttons/joystick.

Looking at lenses that I like to use, a camera the size of an SL is ideal for lenses like 80/1.8. But, there are just not enough lenses of that size and weight that I often have mounted.


----------



## jedy (Mar 25, 2018)

I can't help thinking this camera will be overpriced for what it will offer in specs. Could be 6D II specs but 5D IV price. Canon's underwhelming DSLR releases and their current, overpriced apsc mirrorless cameras led me to this conclusion.


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > HEY!!!!!
> ...



I for one was very pleasantly surprised at the focus peaking on the M5. Time and time again I read about people complaining how it's marginal or poor. Maybe they haven't dialed it it to suit their ergonomics? I use right side touch screen and red illumination and find it nails it every time. This is from someone with poor vision due to APMMPE who gave up MF glass ten years ago.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> So, let me flip it around, and pose a question of preference for you guys.
> 
> Let's put aside all of the lenses that are larger for a moment, including 70-200/2.8. So, think, 24-70/2.8 would be on the larger side of what you'd design the camera around. If you do that, what would be the ideal sized body of any currently made mirrorless or DSLR?
> 
> ...



I’m a wee bit towards the end of the bell curve for size.... 6’3” and when I get on a plane my shoulders are about 6 inches wider than my seat. Of all the camera that I have used, I find the 5D series fits hands best, with the 7D2 close behind. The 6D2 is a touch small for me, but the articulated touchscreen and interface are great.

I think that if they made a mirrorless 6D2 sized, with the articulated touchscreen AND a joystick it would sell well. Then, a year down the road, come out with a 5D sized, super tough, monster with 50fps burst and 6K video....


----------



## dak723 (Mar 25, 2018)

jedy said:


> I can't help thinking this camera will be overpriced for what it will offer in specs. Could be 6D II specs but 5D IV price. Canon's underwhelming DSLR releases and their current, overpriced apsc mirrorless cameras led me to this conclusion.



So how many of the underwhelming and overpriced cameras have you actually used? 

I just returned the "twice the price" "pro level" Olympus E-M1 II because it just can't compete with my Canon M5. And I love Olympus cameras - and still have the E-M1, but Canon's touch focus AF point selector using EVF works much better. When comparing the video, it's not even close. Don't need any pro bells and whistles or 4K, just need video to focus for everyday type activities. Canon's DPAF does the job better than anything else I have tried.


----------



## faustino (Mar 25, 2018)

Regarding the mount standard, I would keep the EF using the space left by the mirror to throw in some features: (1) an incorporated polariser filter, maybe one that automatically rotates as the photographer rotate the camera from landscape to portrait; (2) an incorporated ND filter, or even multiple ones; IBIS; ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There are two camps – those who want small and those who want better ergonomics a more seamless experience that mimics the FF SLRs they use today. Those who want small should be looking to APS-C anyway.
> ...



While I acknowledge that ergonomics are subjective, as is any use of the word 'better', let me ask...have you tried using an a7-series body with a 24-70/2.8GM or 70-200/2.8GM? I have, and I can confidently state that the ergonomics of my 1D X with the corresponding f/2.8L zooms is better. Much better.


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > So, let me flip it around, and pose a question of preference for you guys.
> ...



I would be very happy with that. The 80D's size might cause some compromises - like fewer buttons, smaller screen, etc -- that are less than ideal for my dream camera.

I do like the 80D's depth more than the 6D2, though. I know it's only a tiny difference, but I am not 6'3" 




neuroanatomist said:


> While I acknowledge that ergonomics are subjective, as is any use of the word 'better', let me ask...have you tried using an a7-series body with a 24-70/2.8GM or 70-200/2.8GM? I have, and I can confidently state that the ergonomics of my 1D X with the corresponding f/2.8L zooms is better. Much better.



The ergonomics of a Rebel with the corresponding f/2.8L zooms are also much better. Presuming your fingers don't cramp against the lens barrel, you need a grip on A7 to make the camera tolerable to use for an extended time when paired with against 1kg - 1.5kg lenses. Then, the camera has downright weird ergonomics. It just too tall and skinny.

At the end of the day, I do think there are people who want M5 bodies with full frame sensors and optically compromised lenses. I am the first person to scream, "this is crazy". But the market is there, so if Canon wants to give them some love, I'll just shrug, _as long as it doesn't impede their release of cameras for the enthusiast/professional market where bodies are sized properly to the most common lenses that are used on those bodies_.

I mean, there are people who think that there's no point to a 85/1.4, because a 24-105/4 or even some superzoom can do the job "just as well". Great for them, build them what they want and sell it to them -- but it's not for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> I mean, there are people who think that there's no point to a 85/1.4, because a 24-105/4 or even some superzoom can do the job "just as well". Great for them, build them what they want and sell it to them -- but it's not for me.



I think there's a point to both. I guess that's why I have >20 lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I think that if they made a mirrorless 6D2 sized, with the articulated touchscreen AND a joystick it would sell well. Then, a year down the road, come out with a 5D sized, super tough, monster with 50fps burst and 6K video....
> ...



And this is the great ergonomics quandary..... how to fit a wide variety of sizes and desires? Personally, I prefer the 7D2/5D4 sized body and the joystick, but also like the articulated touchscreen of the 6D2. My wish is that they will enter the FF mirrorless segment at the bottom of the category with the mirrorless equivalent of the 6D2, and follow it up later with higher end models, like a 50fps 5D equivalent and then a 100fps iDX equivalent with 6K video  This scenario is clouded considerably by my personal desire...

What I really expect to see happen is for the rebels to fade away... At some point I expect to see a much lower level FF mirrorless with Rebel like features and interface... this is where the real money is. Imagine if Canon announced a FF rebel mirrorless, perhaps a mirrorless FF SL2, for $600! Imagine the impact that would have on the market!!!!! Imagine the noise on this forum!

My prediction is that whatever they choose, there will be some very distraught forum users and calls of "Canon is *******", and that it will sell well....


----------



## TAF (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > So, what are the odds that given an on-sensor ADC and the ability to crop (and hence increase frame rate), Canon will provide something extra special to the new user - slow motion video?
> ...




Ah yes, cat videos...I have been fairly pleased with my iPhone 6 for slowish motion of my feline overlords. 480 fps? Sounds very interesting indeed. I'll have to take a look.

Now, a notional 960 fps from Canon would be a great starting point. The resolution of old Casio F1 got very small at theses levels; if they can stick to at least VGA, they would own the market segment.

I hadn't considered full size at 60-120 fps, but that would be an amazing capability for sports photographers (which is a market that Canon tries very hard to own).

If they provide such a feature, I might have to become an 'early adopter'.

My cats would thank them for it.


----------



## Yasko (Mar 25, 2018)

When I consider all the latest FF EF lens releases by Canon (TS-E, 85 1.4, the upcoming 70-200 f/4 etc) I just don't see the EF mount being replaced completely or being reduced to a more or less 'use a bad adapter for them'-alternative.

Either EF mount or a really well thought-through adapter solution for EF lenses it will be.
My two cents ^^


----------



## BillB (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> HEY!!!!!
> 
> What if they really are going ahead with the EF-X mount and the 50F1.4 EF-X lens will be the first of the series?



Would that be your EF-X proposal or AvTvM's notion of a short flange and slightly narrower throat? With your design, the 50mm F1.4 might as well be basically the same old EF because nothing would be protruding behind the mount. On the other hand, a lens with AvTvM's EF-X specs would need a camera with the same specs, and some of us might be very unhappy.


----------



## BillB (Mar 25, 2018)

What I really expect to see happen is for the rebels to fade away... At some point I expect to see a much lower level FF mirrorless with Rebel like features and interface... this is where the real money is. Imagine if Canon announced a FF rebel mirrorless, perhaps a mirrorless FF SL2, for $600! Imagine the impact that would have on the market!!!!! Imagine the noise on this forum!

[/quote]

At the lower levels, I have my doubts about how much of a price premium the market will support for FF cameras (and lenses) compared to aps-c cameras, M and otherwise, and that leads to the question of how much more expensive it will be to make FF cameras.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 25, 2018)

My prediction is that whatever they choose, there will be some very distraught forum users and calls of "Canon is *******", and that it will sell well....
[/quote]

Canon is *******, maybe not today or tomorrow but soon.
I've seen the future. In 2049 all the ads are for Sony.

In the meantime I'd be happy with a 5D size body (I find 1DX too big). I wouldn't mind an adapter as long as it proves to be non impactful on quality. Something that could be permanently left on would be good.
If it could have a good focus system and 12 FPS I'd take it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

BillB said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > What I really expect to see happen is for the rebels to fade away... At some point I expect to see a much lower level FF mirrorless with Rebel like features and interface... this is where the real money is. Imagine if Canon announced a FF rebel mirrorless, perhaps a mirrorless FF SL2, for $600! Imagine the impact that would have on the market!!!!! Imagine the noise on this forum!
> ...



Historically, with poor chip yields it cost about $15 to produce a crop sensor and $200 to produce a FF sensor. I don't know what the numbers are like now for the price, but yields are supposed to be almost identical so one would expect it to be about 3 times as much. Mirror assemblies are larger and need to be more robust for FF so that drives the price up too.....

With mirrorless, the only real difference in the electronics is the sensor itself, and it may well prove to be cheaper to make a mirrorless FF camera as you don't need the optics for the viewfinder and the separate AF module, plus all the calibration problems to go with it...


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Canon is *******, maybe not today or tomorrow but soon.
> I've seen the future. In 2049 all the ads are for Sony.



and I shall be old and senile, talking about the good old days of film, and when telephones had mechanical dials and wires.... and instead of computers we had slide rulers..... and poor ahsanford will still be waiting for a 50F1.4....


----------



## vangelismm (Mar 25, 2018)

Why speculate so much about a hypothetical bad adapter?

There is something wrong with current EF-m adapter?


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I suspect there will be a scarcity premium for at least two years that has nothing to do with manufacturing cost.


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Well, in my mind, the solution is to not try to make everything fit on one camera body. Why should a studio or sports camera be the best tool for someone who is on doing a mountain hike or on a kayak, or someone who wants to discreetly take candid photographs?

I think that you are right and that eventually Rebels will give way to MILCs. However, I don't think it will be full frame, because full frame lenses will always cost more and be larger than lenses for smaller sensors. I think that eventually, APSC sensors will have better low light performance, and this will make an M5 or M6 format camera very popular.

Personally, I have no problem in having an investment in 2 complete camera systems, one for when small size or discretion matters, and one for when there's legitimate advantages to larger bodies.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 25, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> My prediction is that whatever they choose, there will be some very distraught forum users and calls of "Canon is *******", and that it will sell well....
> 
> 
> Canon is *******, maybe not today or tomorrow but soon.
> ...



People are already threatening to jump ship.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> Personally, I have no problem in having an investment in 2 complete camera systems, one for when small size or discretion matters, and one for when there's legitimate advantages to larger bodies.



Same here....

In the Canon ecosystem, the M cameras seem the best poised to take over small and discrete, but what happens in large and high quality? I can see the 1, 5, 6, and 7 series being eventually replace with their mirrorless counterparts, but what about the crop DSLR? Do they get squeezed out? Does the XXD go FF mirrorless and the rebels go M? 

We are approaching a disruption as we transit from one tech to another, but unlike the film to digital discontinuity, this one is an evolution of a sub-component and will not be as drastic.... but it sure does make for interesting times and speculation....


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I have no problem in having an investment in 2 complete camera systems, one for when small size or discretion matters, and one for when there's legitimate advantages to larger bodies.
> ...



I think a lot of people believe that is a likely scenario. I think there will be a lot fewer budget crop DSLRs from Canon in the future, but there will be something in that space for the perceivable future.

At the moment, my 80D is still a fantastic (amazing) ISO100 studio camera. With a grip on it, there is literally nothing that another body does that I could need in that context, except for full frame field of view if I need a very wide shot. But even then, the EFS10-18 is usually pretty acceptable.


----------



## Woody (Mar 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> have you tried using an a7-series body with a 24-70/2.8GM or 70-200/2.8GM? I have, and I can confidently state that the ergonomics of my 1D X with the corresponding f/2.8L zooms is better. Much better.



I have tried the A7S MkII with 24-70 f/4 OSS. Ergonomics is really really awful.


----------



## sanj (Mar 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Me too. Currently my APSC system is Sony 6500 with some really brilliant Sigma and Zeiss lenses. Very happy with them. Also very happy with my heavy full frame Canon cameras and heavy lenses. Different applications.


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 26, 2018)

I am very excited to see Canon's progress into the (FF) mirrorless world. 
For context, my digital photography journey in a nutshell:
- 1999 first Digital P&S
- 2005 first DSLR (Canon 350D).
- 2018 first Mirrorless (Canon M5)

After seeing some interesting signs in the M50, I am relatively optimistic Canon is going to provide reassuringly high quality mirrorless offerings in the relatively near future: both in the APS-C sensor size, and the 35mm (aka 'FF') format.

The favourite Canon DSLR I own is my 80D camera. The sensor provides great IQ, body size suits my hands well, (though I do miss the joystick of my 7D) and feature-set rich. I have about 8 EF/EF-S lenses.

I love my Canon M5 - it's great as an additional & small camera. (I own 4 EF-M lenses). It's feature set is adequate- and I do appreciate the handling.
The M5's DPAF works very well - I have tested speed and reliability / accuracy against my 80D and they are essentially identical (also using my EF to EF-M adaptor)

So what I would like in a 'more pro' / FF Canon mirrorless? Even quicker AF, improved subject tracking and better handling in low light (-3 to -4EV would be ideal).

A mirrorless FF Canon the size of a 80D, being about 200gr lighter, would be ideal - and where wide angle lenses could be significantly smaller / lighter than the current FF DSLR lenses, would be much appreciated. A FF mirrorless with the feature set of a 80, at the price point that is similar to the 6DmkII would be great. 
Can Canon do this... I think they can, and are pulling the technology together (as per the interview / article).

If Canon can (or need to!) create a new mirrorless "FF" mount that is compatible with existing EF, EF-S and EF-M lenses, all the better.
Looking forward to the future..... 

Paul


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> And this is the great ergonomics quandary..... how to fit a wide variety of sizes and desires?



where is the problem? 

When Canon introduces FF mirrorless system with a new "slim" EF-X mirrorless mount, they can and will offer mirrorless camera bodies in ALL sizes ... from XXS [Sony RX-1R II size but with mount] all the way to XXXL [1D X sized] ... and each model will find its targeted market segment. As in the past with DSLRs, many customers will buy 2 or 3 different sized bodies ... to best fit different capture situations and photographic tasks. All existing EF lenses will continue to work with the help of a "Canon Advanced Lens Device" [to avoid the hated label "lens mount adapter"] - easy to explain, no major problem. Even "no adapters"-forum posters will - mostly - quickly get over it. And Canon will be selling new, improved lenses in EF-X mount by the millions for years to come ... instead of selling a few copies of marginally iterated Mk. II,III,IV,V .. versions of EF glass.  

BUT if canon were to keep EF mount for FF mirrorless, there will be no option for XS and S size mirrorless cameras. There would also be no option to make and sell XS, S, and M sized mirrorless FF lenses. And there would be *significantly less lens sales for many years to come*. 

Both "no, sorry, we dont have that" factors would shut Canon out of not so small - and growing (!) - market segments of [aging and decently affluent] enthusiasts looking for "smaller/lighter gear, but with FF sensor capabilities and its advantage over APS-C sensors - any one or more of the following: high rez, good DR, excellent low light performance, shallow DOF ... as first and only system or as secondary, additional system. 

If "stupid me" can figure this out, I am sure even "stupid Canon" will. 8)


----------



## Yasko (Mar 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> where is the problem?
> 
> When Canon introduces FF mirrorless system with a new "slim" EF-X mirrorless mount, they can and will offer mirrorless camera bodies in ALL sizes ... from XXS [Sony RX-1R II size but with mount] all the way to XXXL [1D X sized] ... and each model will find its targeted market segment. As in the past with DSLRs, many customers will buy 2 or 3 different sized bodies ... to best fit different capture situations and photographic tasks. All existing EF lenses will continue to work with the help of a "Canon Advanced Lens Device" [to avoid the hated label "lens mount adapter"] - easy to explain, no major problem. Even "no adapters"-forum posters will - mostly - quickly get over it. And Canon will be selling new, improved lenses in EF-X mount by the millions for years to come ... instead of selling a few copies of marginally iterated Mk. II,III,IV,V .. versions of EF glass.
> 
> ...



There are already S sized mirrorless cameras from Canon, just not FF.
The "problem" with bigger sensors is, you need bigger aperture lenses that are generally bigger and thus a bigger body facilitates holding an otherwise sometimes more imbalanced device.
I am not saying there is no sense in having a smaller body design with a lens that IS smaller than other FF lenses, for example like the 40 mm pancake or a wide angle lens that would profit from a shorter flange distance.

But these are special cases. There is no general "Canon needs to go for a new mount" or "Canon has to go on with EF mount".
In general, the benefits of a smaller body are much less obvious when you have large FF lenses snapped onto the body. That's a fact. Else, the handling gets much worse.
On the plus side you could use a by design smaller lens (short focal length prime) with a smaller body which would play into a nice handling and small body, in this case.

So no need for sassy claims like "why won't anybody get that?".


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2018)

Yasko said:


> There are already S sized mirrorless cameras from Canon, just not FF.
> The "problem" with bigger sensors is, you need bigger aperture lenses that are generally bigger and thus a bigger body facilitates holding an otherwise sometimes more imbalanced device.



there are NO "XS"-sized FF MILCs in the entire market yet. There are no (more) "S"mall sized FF MILCs in the entire market [Sony A7 1st gen was one] . There are only "M" sized FF MILCs in the market currently [Sony A7 II and III series]. 

Canon and people like Neuro would conclude from that "there are hardly any buyers for XS and S FF MILC systems out there". I conclude from it: "there are interesting market segments totally uncovered at the moment. So lets use this incredible stupidity of our competitors - namely Nikon and Fuji - and combat Sony why they are still at fairly low market share ... go ahead, let's test the waters with some decent, small FF MILC products at decent prices and see how many we sell. And be ready to ramp up production facilities in the space vacated by our dying mirrorslapper business of yesteryear ... " 

PS: FF MILCs with a "bigger" sensor than APS-C offer all the photographic opportunities of a smaller sensor at SMALLER apertures (not bigger) ... eg. FF f/2.0 DOF needs f/1.4 APS-C lens - the latter likely being bigger and for sure more expensive. And using smaller, lighter, cheaper f/4 zooms and 1 stop higher ISO is absolutely equivalent in imaging performance to using big, fat, heavy and expensive f/2.8 zooms on APS-C sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Canon and people like Neuro would conclude from that "there are hardly any buyers for XS and S FF MILC systems out there". I conclude from it: "there are interesting market segments totally uncovered at the moment.



The difference is that Canon has asked buyers, whereas you and I have not. Also note that covering 'interesting market segments totally uncovered at the moment' is only profitable if those segments are large enough to drive a positive ROI...and you have zero evidence that is the case.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2018)

Yasko said:


> So no need for sassy claims like "why won't anybody get that?".



well, there seems to be. 

just look at things from a general, pure logics point of view. 

Plan A: new "slim" mount. Everything possible. Small and big cameras. Small and big lenses. Plus new possibilities and freedoms in lens design. Full backwards compatibility with all existing EF lenses. Plus possibility to use many other lenses from Canon [FD] and other manufacturers - if so inclined. Plus uch higher lens sales for Canon, as many customers - existing and new - will pick up new versions of lenses ... immediately or over the years to come ... whenever they would like to get "enhanced capabilities and performance" from IQ to AF to lens-mount protocol/E-TTL flash etc. 

Plan B: keep EF mount] - allows only for a small subset of solution A. Only bulky cameras possible. Only relatively bulky lenses possible, even in most frequently used focal length range. Much lower lens sales over many years to come.

Now why should or would Canon go for clearly inferior plan B? 
Only because some forum denizens "just don't get it" and are clamoring for "no adapter!" to continue using their old EF shards?  

Surely not. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2018)

AvTvM, I know you have an M camera. Do you have an EF mount adapter? Do you use it? Do you like it?


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM, I know you have an M camera. Do you have an EF mount adapter? Do you use it? Do you like it?



yes. i do have the Canon EF-M/EF adapter and do use it, when i really want/need to mount a (large) EF or EF-S lens. Most often this is the EF-S 60 which handles and performs quite well - also with adapter. Prefer the longer focal length over the EF-M 28 Macro. 

Next often I use the EF 50/1.8 STM ... whenever i want/need a faster + (relatively) longer focal length than what is available as native EF-M lens. Also handles very well with adapter. My cheap and simple "shallow DOF Portrait setup" ... in absence of an EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM lens. 

Additional bonus with the Canon lens adapter i the included (detachable!) tripod foot that works with every Canon lens including those that dont come with lens ring/tripod foot or where Canon would want me to buy a lens-specific ring at insane prices and sometimes also hard to find. 

Sometimes I also use EF 70-200/2.8 - eg. at concerts, when want 2 bodies along ... wide-angle eg 24-70/2.8 II on my 5D3. E.g. on me and EF-M + 70-200/2.8 L IS on tripod further back in room ... i dont shoot video, but it would presumably also work well for video. 

And ocassionally I use my M as crop sensor tele extender .. .eg. tried out the Tamron 150-600 some time ago ... on both 5D 3 and on EOS M ... on static subjects [don't shoot sports or BIF or wildlife] ... eg trying to get "full moon over certain buildings or landscape features" ... where i always am focal length limited and want to use crop factor for max. tele effect / FOV ... 600mm x 1.6 -> 960mm ... handling of combo [on tripod] was good, AF performance with Tamron 150-600 was borderline ... whimpy LP-E12 battery had difficulty moving focal group i guess ... 

I find the Canon EF/EF-M adapter well made, very compact, not grossly overpriced  ... and handling easy. When i am "moon-chasing in the field" or some similar city-scape activity i typically have only 1 large (EF-mount) lens along ... and leave the adapter on the lens, when i switch to an EF-M lens in between. 

Overall I do think I am pretty representative for what people might do in terms of adapting EF lenses to a small mirrorless body [no matter whether crop or FF]. 

I am very tired of always hearing "size advantage of small body is gone, as soon as one attaches large lenses to it".Of course it is. But hey, thats not, what i want. Or only on special occasions. What i want is a small, as universal and capable as possible set - camera body + a few small lenses. And the possibility to occasionally also use larger lenses - when needed and not available/possible "in small". I do not want to regularly a small mirrorles body with huge Zeiss Otuses or XXL big whites ... handheld. And nobody else in their right mind would. 

All i want ... is a SMALL, LIGHT, CAPABLE, noise- and vibration-free MILC as my "universal" camera ... and for best possible IQ, DR, rez, low light capabilities and shallow DOF-potential I want a good FF sensor in it, rather than a "half-frame" APS-C one. 

Due to many years of familiarity with Canon / EOS user interface and my firm belief it is overall "best in class", I would prefer if it came from Canon. So basically i am waiting for a "modern day, digital equivalent" to the [legendary, analog] Minolta CL system. At Minolta prices of course, not at Leica prices. And with the added possibilities to use all of the Canon EF lenses with a simple little "adapter" whenever I want to. 

PS: yes, i am 100% sure i am not the only one waiting for such a setup.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Thanks, AvTvM. I also have the adapter...I don't usually use it, although I bring it while traveling as an emergency backup in case my 1D X fails. I've used it with the 100L macro, and the 85L. Both are fine on a tripod, for handheld use both suck eggs. I suspect most users don't typically use tripods (which is why Canon got away with omitting the tripod foot from the later kit-included EF mount adapters). 



AvTvM said:


> PS: yes, i am 100% sure i am not the only one waiting for such a setup.



I agree...but that's irrelevant. The question is how many people are waiting for such a setup, vs. how many would prefer to mount their EF lenses directly. You don't know the answer, nor do I. Canon likely has a good guess, which they will indirectly share with us when they annuonce a FF MILC and the mount therein.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect most users don't typically use tripods (which is why Canon got away with omitting the tripod foot from the later kit-included EF mount adapters).



if you ask me, then it was rather some "innovative Canon controller type" saying "leave out the foot ... it will save us 99 cent on each kit" ...  

if i view that move positively: it opens up the market for EdMika, RRS, Novoflex and a dirty dozen Chinese CNC milling shops to bring a *really right" tripod foot for Canon adapters to market ... the one with Arca dovetail grooves built in. 

I mean .. how much innovation does it take to obsolete one of the 3 parts in this image ... stupid, Canon!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 26, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> While I acknowledge that ergonomics are subjective, as is any use of the word 'better', let me ask...have you tried using an a7-series body with a 24-70/2.8GM or 70-200/2.8GM? I have, and I can confidently state that the ergonomics of my 1D X with the corresponding f/2.8L zooms is better. Much better.



Yes, agree of course, but you miss my point. If Canon makes a FF mirrorless with a better ergonomic setup than the competition, great for us. But if that better design doesn't look/feel/handle like the 5D/6D/7D bodies we use, it will mean moving from SLR on one shoulder to the mirrorless on our other will be a less seamless experience.

So I think for a such a massive userbase, the ergonomics / controls should be better than the competition, but also familiar to us. Canon shouldn't come up with something left-field controls wise with FF mirrorless, IMHO.

As a nutty example, let's day Canon drops the back main wheel in favor of zoning the touchscreen into an AF selection part of the screen and a 'do what the big wheel used to do' part of the screen. It could be brilliant, and open up the door for a massive back LCD. But if you are also shooting with a 5D that trip/assignment/event, switching between the two will be clunky. 

I'm not discouraging innovation here, but keep the changes modest and familiar.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 26, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> If it could have a good focus system and 12 FPS I'd take it in a heartbeat.



I keep seeing (here above) plus others hoping for / presuming FF mirrorless will have higher fps than SLR. I get that -- the mirrorbox isn't rate limiting anymore. But is there any chance that the AF might be? Are we confident that DPAF can process all that input with AF in each frame, or will Canon pull some A7 I and II nonsense with locked AF after the first frame?

- A


----------



## unfocused (Mar 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> ...I conclude from it: "there are interesting market segments totally uncovered at the moment. So lets use this incredible stupidity of our competitors - namely Nikon and Fuji - and combat Sony why they are still at fairly low market share ... go ahead, let's test the waters with some decent, small FF MILC products at decent prices and see how many we sell. And be ready to ramp up production facilities in the space vacated by our dying mirrorslapper business of yesteryear ... "



Ignoring some of the over-the-top sarcasm here, the core flaw with this reasoning is that it's too expensive and too risky for companies to randomly "test the waters" with products. Instead they use market research to test the waters and determine whether or not something is viable. 

You have an idea that you are convinced is viable. But, there is little doubt that Canon has already tested your ideas and determined whether or not you are correct. The only way you will ever know (short of conducting your own market research and developing your own competing product) if you were correct or not is to wait and see what comes to market. 

If the product you prefer comes to market, then you can pat yourself on the back for being visionary. But, if it doesn't then you can either conclude you were wrong or you can go to your grave complaining about "stupid" Canon.


----------



## KirkD (Mar 26, 2018)

Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 26, 2018)

Woody said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > have you tried using an a7-series body with a 24-70/2.8GM or 70-200/2.8GM? I have, and I can confidently state that the ergonomics of my 1D X with the corresponding f/2.8L zooms is better. Much better.
> ...



Sorry, Neuro, I blew past that question. Yes on an A7R2 when I visited B&H a few years back, but no on big glass. But even the f/4 zoom I think was bolted on there was enough to tell me what a hot mess big/fast glass would be on that body. My hands -- which are not big -- were cramped and immediately reminded me of the 'iron claw' grip I always had to use when I bolted my EF 24-70 f/2.8L I on my old T1i. In short, it sucked.

Some of Sony's body design decisions could be rationalized, I guess. 

Cramped/limited controls are a value proposition you opt into, it says 'To keep things small, this is the cost'. Tiny buttons and menu-drilling-down it is. Fair trade.

But an undersized grip too close to a mount intended for big/heavy glass is more of a prison sentence, it says 'My hands hurt without end, and that reality is all my fault'. No logic that it fits in a tinier bag will make your hands feel better.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 26, 2018)

KirkD said:


> Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.



So what tech, exactly, is Canon *"one year behind Sony in"* if they are leaps and bounds ahead of Sony in lenses, auto focus and color science? And how important is it to the actual end image?


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 26, 2018)

Well, I see people mentioning 120fps stills shooting for sports and wildlife, etc. Maybe somebody needs that. I don't know. I would find handling that many files overwhelming. I can see filling my CF card over and over again in an hour. Surely with that capability there would also be the capability to slow the capture rate down? Selectable fps? I'd be more than thrilled with 14 fps myself. Even that would be a chore for me to go through. What about pros that have to quickly select photos and transmit them to editors? Do they have time to go through tens of thousands of photos to pick what to send?

Then for video I'm seeing wishes approaching 1000fps? Wow. Wouldn't it be better, at that point, to just slow things down in software? Again, I don't know. I don't shoot video at all.

How fast is too fast?


----------



## scyrene (Mar 26, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, I see people mentioning 120fps stills shooting for sports and wildlife, etc. Maybe somebody needs that. I don't know. I would find handling that many files overwhelming. I can see filling my CF card over and over again in an hour. Surely with that capability there would also be the capability to slow the capture rate down? Selectable fps? I'd be more than thrilled with 14 fps myself. Even that would be a chore for me to go through. What about pros that have to quickly select photos and transmit them to editors? Do they have time to go through tens of thousands of photos to pick what to send?
> 
> Then for video I'm seeing wishes approaching 1000fps? Wow. Wouldn't it be better, at that point, to just slow things down in software? Again, I don't know. I don't shoot video at all.
> 
> How fast is too fast?



1000fps for video has interesting creative and scientific applications, but for many purposes would be overkill (I'd love to have the option, however). Slowing down in software, if I understand you correctly, is not the same at all. It just puts a bigger pause between each frame, rather than having more frames (almost like the difference between digital and optical zoom, if you'll allow the metaphor). As for 120fps stills, I totally agree. Once again, I suppose one could argue that more is always better just in case, but imho for almost everyone almost all the time, it would be too much. Until and unless software can help - and be trusted - to select key moments, then it's unrealistic to expect people to sift through that many shots, even if memory cards could accomodate them all.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 26, 2018)

KirkD said:


> Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.



I would actually say that Canon may not be nearly as far behind as one may think as Sony is in a state of refining it's A7 line as opposed to making quantum leaps in design and manufacture.

With their ability to have watched Sony "experiment" on the public, Canon has seen what they are making and what the market is asking for or rejecting. IMO they have also had the luxury of a very large market share permitting them a cautious approach to entering the mirrorless market. They can now avoid a lot of the mistakes that they may have made absent a pioneer.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 26, 2018)

Normalnorm said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.
> ...



+1. When you lead the market, it's much wiser to be a fast follower than a brave innovator. There is more to lose than to gain, and as you said, the waiting period isn't Canon sitting on its rear. I'm guessing every moment since the A7 brand was launched was marketing research gold for Canon's future endeavors. 

I'm not saying Canon doesn't innovate -- they do in very strategic areas that reward a _portfolio_ and not a spec sheet (DPAF is the great example, touch AF point selection surely to go wide in future models, etc.). But Canon doesn't need to swing for the fences and periodically strike out. Sony _has_ to take chances to win share, while Canon does not.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect most users don't typically use tripods (which is why Canon got away with omitting the tripod foot from the later kit-included EF mount adapters).
> ...



Canon has been shipping the bundled mount adapter without the tripod foot for quite some time now...so, where are all the *really right" tripod foot adapters? If there were a significant market for them, they'd be available. There's one from Chinese CNC shop Kenro selling on eBay for $26. One. Chris Hejnar was contacted about it around a year ago and asked to make one, he determined he couldn't do it profitably for the market demand. 

Once again you succeed in demonstrating how radically your understanding of the market differs from those who actually produce ILCs and related products. I applaud your persistence in believing that your understanding is correct, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. :


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 26, 2018)

scyrene said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I see people mentioning 120fps stills shooting for sports and wildlife, etc. Maybe somebody needs that. I don't know. I would find handling that many files overwhelming. I can see filling my CF card over and over again in an hour. Surely with that capability there would also be the capability to slow the capture rate down? Selectable fps? I'd be more than thrilled with 14 fps myself. Even that would be a chore for me to go through. What about pros that have to quickly select photos and transmit them to editors? Do they have time to go through tens of thousands of photos to pick what to send?
> ...



Exactly. For me there comes a point when too fast actually slows everything down.

I would guess some will say that if Brand X can do it, then Brand Y has to do it or be left behind. I just don't buy that argument in all cases. Toyota is far more profitable than Ferrari, but their street models could not compete in the same class.

On top of that are speed limits. In this hobby, the speed limits for me are memory, computing power, patience, etc.

Yes, Ferrari can brag about besting a Corolla on speed. Practically, though, it doesn't matter much and actually becomes a far lesser value to most people. That is the world Canon is in. Canon markets to the masses for the most profit.

Uncle Earl might be able to go out and buy a 1DX II and all the L lenses. He could brag about it, but that's about it because he really has no practical use for such a beast.

I think the same goes in the megapixel war. There comes a point for most of us where more is just too much to handle. The average person, and this forum's population does not represent the average person, doesn't upgrade every time something new comes out screaming, "It's about time!" 

I think that is what is missing sometimes in the Canon vs Nikon vs Sony debates about who is ahead or behind. Just because a camera can do something doesn't necessarily mean it is practical or useful at all.


----------



## BillB (Mar 26, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > KirkD said:
> ...



Canon may be a year behind in the sense that Canon will roll out a midrange equivalent a year after the A7III hit the market. However that does not necessarily means that that Canon is a year behind in the development of new features and additional cameras. That depends on what is in the pipeline and we are only guessing about that.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 26, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.
> ...



Golly, I was going to say the exact same thing but you beat me to it!

Funny how the Sony lovers have no perspective. And, oh, Sony is about 25 years behind in ergonomics...


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 26, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


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



+1. I always found the tripod foot fiddly and rarely used it. I had added a generic RRS plate to it to be compatible with AS tripods, but the most use it got was with a M3 + 18-135 IS lens for video. And that happened because RRS didn't make M3 plates. With RRS and others supporting the new Canon EF-M cameras, the value of the tripod foot for the EF-M adapter decreases. The L-plate on the body is more versatile because you can change orientation, and you can use a tripod with any lens -- not just adapted lenses. All the heavier/longer telephoto lenses have tripod colllars already anyway.

That said, I'm keeping my original adapter with foot and selling the NIB adapter that came with the M5. Keeping it for sentimental rather than functional reasons.


----------



## Talys (Mar 26, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.
> ...



On the actual image end, the only thing that Sony really has going for it is that their sensor has a highly desirable mix of resolution, SNR/ISO curve, and drive speed for their high-end enthusiast product. It is a better blend than what Canon currently offers in cameras launched in 2016 and prior.

The rest of it is a lot of technology that doesn't ultimately impact the image, though some things only possible with an EVF like focus magnification is nice technology -- with the caveat that Sony's implementation is often very awkward, making it awesome to demonstrate but clumsy to use.

My hope, like others, is that Canon takes a cue, and simply develops similar features in their EVF full frame, but in a way that is much more usable.

And for heavens sake, let me keep my mechanical USM focus rings, please please please.


----------



## BillB (Mar 26, 2018)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ...I conclude from it: "there are interesting market segments totally uncovered at the moment. So lets use this incredible stupidity of our competitors - namely Nikon and Fuji - and combat Sony why they are still at fairly low market share ... go ahead, let's test the waters with some decent, small FF MILC products at decent prices and see how many we sell. And be ready to ramp up production facilities in the space vacated by our dying mirrorslapper business of yesteryear ... "
> ...



If the first Canon fullframe mirrorless camera is coming sooner than we think, that means that Canon has already locked up the design of that camera, including the design of the mount that it will have. Trying to guess what decisions Canon has made does have some amusement value for me, and I actually learn things that interest me when posts discuss what may or may not be possible in camera design. However, I find it difficult to see any value in repeated posts on what Canon should have done, when we don't even know yet what they did. Either Canon did or did not decide to base its entire mirrorless camera line on a new camera mount intended to optimize a very small FF, relatively inexpensive, mirrorless camera using small high quality lenses, or it did not. At some point we will find out.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> And for heavens sake, let me keep my mechanical USM focus rings, please please please.



+1. I'm bracing for a spate of focus by wire lenses to accompany this launch. :-[

Perhaps adapted-in-crop crowd can shed some light on this. Can anyone tell me if their adapted Ring USM glass on EF-M worked all right? Was it slower to confirm, less accurate, less consistent, etc? Did the FTM mechanical override still work well on the adaptor, or did the AF kick back in and try to re-lock when you used it?

I'm not saying I'll _never_ use a focus by wire lens (after all, my new 50 prime may very well be Nano USM), but if I can adapt a Ring USM lens that does the same job, I always will.

- A


----------



## bwud (Mar 26, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > And for heavens sake, let me keep my mechanical USM focus rings, please please please.
> ...



I have no issues using my canon mechanical focus lenses adapted. My cameras are all set up with focus decoupled from the shutter button, so there is no conflict between MF and AF. I don’t use focus confirmation (don’t know if the Sony bodies even support it) so I can’t speak to that question. Zoom in the EVF makes manual focus a joy. I still prefer the experience of mechanical focus rings. None of the FBW lenses I have (24-70GM, 100-400GM, batis 25, batis 85) really have the feel right.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 26, 2018)

Yasko said:


> When I consider all the latest FF EF lens releases by Canon (TS-E, 85 1.4, the upcoming 70-200 f/4 etc) I just don't see the EF mount being replaced completely or being reduced to a more or less 'use a bad adapter for them'-alternative.
> 
> Either EF mount or a really well thought-through adapter solution for EF lenses it will be.
> My two cents ^^



The patent for a EF / EF-s adapter to a new lens mount for mirrorless was discussed on Canon Rumors almost 3 years ago, so Canon has had a plan for a long time, the question is if they will actually come out with the new lens mount.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26883.15

"A patent showing an EF/EF-S adaptor for a full frame mirrorless from Canon has appeared. There is a switch on the adaptor to go between EF and EF-S lenses. Patent Publication No. 2015-118208 (Google Translated)

Published 2015.6.25
Filing date 2013.12.18
 Canon patents

Flange back is shorter body
Flange back is long, a lens having the same image circle as the image pickup device body
Flange back is long, a lens with a smaller image circle than the image pickup device body
Mount adapter to change the diameter of the flare cut stop, depending on the image circle of mounting the lens"


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 26, 2018)

Coming in late to this game folks, but exciting news to be sure. Canon has barely scratched the surface with EF-M glass for the crop bodies, so I'm really 50/50 on whether we see a whole new glass line for a FF MILC. 

People use these for smaller size so from that end, it makes more sense to dedicate a new lens line for it, but at the same time, Canon's biggest selling point to move this new MILC would be inherent compatibility with the already existing and best lens line-up produced.

I have the EOS M and I have the EF adapter. It does make it pretty clunky with most lenses. I'd have to imagine having a FF MILC body engineered from scratch to accommodate the EF mount natively would be notably less so. I'd like to see a decent sized FF MILC body closer to a 5 body than the current M bodies. I'd also have to think Canon would be more inclined to make this a video friendly body. Maybe not 60fps 4k, but certainly 30fps 4k by that point.

Rest of the specs akin to the 6D2 perhaps? Or maybe a new sensor altogether?


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 26, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > If it could have a good focus system and 12 FPS I'd take it in a heartbeat.
> ...



Let's consider the data flow of the 1DX2. I shoot 4k on it at 60fps. That's 8.8Mpix in MJPG format which generate HUGE files. That's with the mirror up (obviously) DPAF running and auto focusing WHILE shooting video. If we multiply the 8.8Mpix and divide the frame rate of 60 by a factor of 2.7 times, we can roughly extrapolate that a 24MPix sensor readout could produce 22fps in JPG. Let's just say 20fps to round down.

Now granted we're talking about a 1DX2 with multiple processors, but let's assume a single Digic 8 could still handle 12-15fps?

We have better tech minded people here than me, so feel free any of you to weigh in if I'm off base on this.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 26, 2018)

PureClassA said:


> Coming in late to this game folks, but exciting news to be sure. Canon has barely scratched the surface with EF-M glass for the crop bodies, so I'm really 50/50 on whether we see a whole new glass line for a FF MILC.
> 
> People use these for smaller size so from that end, it makes more sense to dedicate a new lens line for it, but at the same time, Canon's biggest selling point to move this new MILC would be inherent compatibility with the already existing and best lens line-up produced.
> 
> ...



Making it a hybrid stills/video camera makes the most sense for a mirrorless, due to the nature of an evf etc, so I really hope Canon come to the party on the video features. The M50 looks like they're at least looking in the right direction. 

As for the placement, I think that using the 6d sensor would be dropping the ball immensely - I can't see by sensible reason to use a sensor they know is not their best. It wouldn't be giving the system a fair go.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 26, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Yasko said:
> 
> 
> > When I consider all the latest FF EF lens releases by Canon (TS-E, 85 1.4, the upcoming 70-200 f/4 etc) I just don't see the EF mount being replaced completely or being reduced to a more or less 'use a bad adapter for them'-alternative.
> ...



This still proves nothing.... for all we know, Canon could be planning a FF mirrorless with a shallow flange, and also a FF mirrorless with the EF mount.

Or... they could be planning something completely different and the patent relates to one of their test designs, which may or may not ever see the light of day, kind of like the 200Mpixel APS-H sensor....

All is speculation until the official announcement(s)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Yasko said:
> ...



What it proves is that they have invested time and money to develop a adapter and have designed a new lens mount. It does not imply that it will happen, but they have definitely thought it out.


----------



## tmroper (Mar 26, 2018)

ahsanford said:


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



Sony technology still doesn't even include a fully-functional touch screen. I mean, even the 5D Mark IV has that, and it's an old-fashioned DSLR. I do think mirrorless will own the future, but the race has just begun, and no one's ahead or behind at this point. Although if I had to pick a front-runner, it would be Panasonic.


----------



## slclick (Mar 26, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > And for heavens sake, let me keep my mechanical USM focus rings, please please please.
> ...



My L lenses work just fine on my M5. Not as snappy as the STM glass but accurate and decently fast.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 26, 2018)

slclick said:


> My L lenses work just fine on my M5. Not as snappy as the STM glass but accurate and decently fast.



_Your USM lenses on the adaptor are slower than STM on the native EF-M mount?!_

Unless you are shooting some famously slow USM L lenses, like the 85 f/1.2L II or the 180L Macro, I would call that a blistering indictment for adapting lenses. I say that because modern/contemporary USM should mop the floor with STM in virtually any comparison w.r.t. stills focusing speed.

Other folks who adapt on EF-M today -- have you had the same experience? 

- A


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Mar 26, 2018)

It needs to be a professional body (5D equivalent ruggedness and features) and it needs to be EF mount. End of story. I could see it being a flagship 1D mirrorless, but that'll put it out of reach for most Canon users. Lower than where the 5D is and 1. current Canon professionals won't leave their 5D for it and 2. it won't be competitive with Sony.


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

PureClassA said:


> I have the EOS M and I have the EF adapter. It does make it pretty clunky with most lenses. I'd have to imagine having a FF MILC body engineered from scratch to accommodate the EF mount natively would be notably less so.



The problem is, there's absolutely no evidence that indicates this. I acknowledge, we have a sample size of 1 (Sony), but it's not like there will be all that many more FF mirrorless systems when we're done. With Sony, all the newly engineered lenses are mostly bigger than Canon glass of the same type when you look at lenses specifically designed for full frame, professional users / performance enthusiasts mind.

With a few exceptions, the small lenses that are FE mount are essentially cheap lenses with variable apertures. Your most popular zooms for performance cameras like 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, and 100-200 are all in the size range of Canon/Nikon full frame glass, plus a small tapering mount that connects the 60-80mm front portion to the smaller throat.

Are there exceptions? Yes, of course, notably 50mm and 85mm, especially 85/1.8 (being mostly plastic and not weather sealed is certainly a factor, though). But if you look at Canon, even the old 85/1.8 is not a large lens. And the 85/1.4 on Sony is very slightly larger than Canon EF85/1.4 -- except the Canon has IS and the Sony does not.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> It needs to be a professional body (5D equivalent ruggedness and features) and it needs to be EF mount. End of story. I could see it being a flagship 1D mirrorless, but that'll put it out of reach for most Canon users. Lower than where the 5D is and 1. current Canon professionals won't leave their 5D for it and 2. it won't be competitive with Sony.



Who said anything about pleasing _professionals_ with this first offering? I see a next-to-zero chance of that.

I think the first FF offering will be a pricey toy for enthusiasts and affluent folks with disposable income -- a 6D2 feature set with an EVF (and possibly a better sensor). But as much as I want a mirrorless 5D, I'd be stunned if we got that right out of the gate.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> With RRS and others supporting the new Canon EF-M cameras, the value of the tripod foot for the EF-M adapter decreases. The L-plate on the body is more versatile because you can change orientation, and you can use a tripod with any lens -- not just adapted lenses.



Supporting the M5, from what I've seen. I haven't found a L-plate for my M6 so far, not even a base plate (Hejnar has one that _almost_ fits, but doesn't sit quite flush on the camera bottom due to one of the small, round nubs on the camera (it has four 'feet'). Currently, I have a little Hejnar generic 0.8" plate that works ok, but I'd prefer the dovetails to be lateral rather than axial, and what I'd really like is a proper L-plate (and even better, a modular one like the RRS 1D X plate). 

I'm sure RRS will do an L-plate for a Canon FF MILC.


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm sure RRS will do an L-plate for a Canon FF MILC.



I'm sure they will too -- since they'll probably charge $200 for it and people will still eagerly snap it up


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure RRS will do an L-plate for a Canon FF MILC.
> ...



The $250 I paid for my 1D X L-plate was money very well spent. I particularly like that the hex tool stores in the plate, comes in handy not just for removing the upright part of the bracket, but for tightening lens plates, etc. It even saved the guy at the counter at Canon's New Jersey repair center from a trip to the back when another customer needed to remove his camera plate, when I had brought my 1D X in for the recall service.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It needs to be a professional body (5D equivalent ruggedness and features) and it needs to be EF mount. End of story. I could see it being a flagship 1D mirrorless, but that'll put it out of reach for most Canon users. Lower than where the 5D is and 1. current Canon professionals won't leave their 5D for it and 2. it won't be competitive with Sony.
> ...



That's my expectation too.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


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



I like mine too but they cheaped out for the 1DX MkII owners, they should have done away with the hump for the cable release as the MkII isn’t where the MkI’s is, meanwhile they did change the base to accept their stupid sling strap!


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It needs to be a professional body (5D equivalent ruggedness and features) and it needs to be EF mount. End of story. I could see it being a flagship 1D mirrorless, but that'll put it out of reach for most Canon users. Lower than where the 5D is and 1. current Canon professionals won't leave their 5D for it and 2. it won't be competitive with Sony.
> ...



I disagree. The fact that Canon EoL (and CPS members) were surveyed about mirrorless and are now field testing, along with the report that Canon "wants to get it right," indicates a professional body. It would otherwise be an unusual interest in what professionals want for an enthusiast product. Canon also has a strong history of releasing professional bodies first and then trickling/watering down those features into more affordable options:

1D then 5D
5D then 6D
C300 then C100
etc.

Furthermore, I think Canon feels the heat on the FF mirrorless front. Sony went from having one professional FF mirrorless with the a9 to having two after the third iteration of the a7 line. If I were Canon I'd feel the need to compete with at least one of these with my first entry into this segment. A mirrorless 6d Mk II won't. Canon needs to flex some muscle and renew excitement among their user base. A prosumer offering won't. 

TL;DR: Canon will announce the 5D V, their first full-frame mirrorless camera in Q1 2019 with availability summer 2019  You heard it here first.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 27, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...



I'm curious to see if they run a dual release, a mirrorless version and a mirrored version of the next 5d, biggest difference would be the evf vs ovf. Most of the other features could be matched, and that'd keep a foot on each side if the line


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...



I'm with ahsanford on this one. 

I think that the long term goal (Tokyo 2020) is to have a professional (1D) product, and therefore, professionals and EoL are important to set Canon on the right path.

But the 2019 goal will be something closer to a enthusiast / portable professional, 5D price point product.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Mar 27, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I'm sure Canon execs have stayed up late at night trying to figure out whether to jump into mirrorless with one, or two feet. I love my OVF, but it's undeniable that mirrorless is the future. A dual release would be a good way to test what the market truly wants, but not sure how viable that really is. Although I will say I personally don't want a mirrorless body any smaller than the current 5D, so if they just remove the mirrorbox to squeeze in an EVF, leaving everything else the same, it would be perfect for me.


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I'm sure Canon execs have stayed up late at night trying to figure out whether to jump into mirrorless with one, or two feet. I love my OVF, but it's undeniable that mirrorless is the future. A dual release would be a good way to test what the market truly wants, but not sure how viable that really is. Although I will say I personally don't want a mirrorless body any smaller than the current 5D, so if they just remove the mirrorbox to squeeze in an EVF, leaving everything else the same, it would be perfect for me.



I don't think that would prove much. I think that there is more _demand_ for a mirrorless release, simply because most Canon owners don't own a full frame mirrorless (ie Sony A7/A9). DSLRs are pretty mature. I mean, I know lots of guys with 5DMk3, because they don't see enough of an advantage in the Mk4 to be worth a $3000 spend.

But once someone has both a mirrorless and DSLR, _which will they prefer?_ I think that's the real test. And how many people who buy a FF Mirrorless will go on the MILC treadmill for a while, like they did with DSLRs until those matured?

And of course, 10-15 years after a FF mirrorless launch, when someone is using a FF, will they still prefer DSLR for some (common) things.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I will say I personally don't want a mirrorless body any smaller than the current 5D, so if they just remove the mirrorbox to squeeze in an EVF, leaving everything else the same, it would be perfect for me.
> ...



Upsides to this idea: 


The 'EF-X' lenses that nest inside of the EF mount could lead to some smaller aggregate lens + body sizes on wide FLs at modest apertures
Still could be quicker fps-wise than it's SLR counterpart (no mirror box slowing things down)
Manual lens use could be awesome (for all mirrorless shapes/sizes, in fairness)
Great for controls and seamlessness with our current daily drivers (6D, 5D, 7D, etc.)
No adaptors and no mandate to buy new lenses to enjoy the new platform; EF is good to go on day one
Great for handling bigger lenses
Potential to share 5D accessories, L-plates, batteries, etc.

Downsides to this idea:

Not as small as it could be (for the small-size-insistent crowd)
Full EF mount = can't adapt other lenses
The loud braying of the internet, eager to bash anything that isn't simultaneously very small and very well spec'd. They'd have a field day with this.



Talys said:


> I think that there is more _demand_ for a mirrorless release, simply because most Canon owners don't own a full frame mirrorless (ie Sony A7/A9). DSLRs are pretty mature. I mean, I know lots of guys with 5DMk3, because they don't see enough of an advantage in the Mk4 to be worth a $3000 spend.



^^^ This is 100% me ^^^

Tell me I can (a) use manual focus large aperture glass handheld or (b) amplify light in a dark shooting environment, mirrorless absolutely would get my attention in a 5D form factor.

- A


----------



## JohanCruyff (Mar 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


+1: 6D or 5D segment in 2019, and 1D segment in 2020. 
Where do we have to sign?  
___________________________

What can we suggest Canon about model's naming?
If M5 Mark II and M6 Mark II are going to be replaced by full frame versions (M5 Mark II and M6 Mark II), then the "pro" model will be called M1. Otherwise?


----------



## djkraq (Mar 27, 2018)

What I want in a Canon FF Mirrorless:

A new DP RAW similar to Pixel Shift or similar
DPAF
8-10 fps RAW
Eye-AF would be a plus
Focus Peaking (for manual lenses)
Ergonomics like a standard 5D DSLR but with larger battery
A new mount (allowing for more AF Points to sensor)
An EF Mount Adapter (for our old lenses)
5 Axis IBIS 

C-Log for Video
4k 30p 4:2:0
1080p up to 120fps
1080p 60fps 4:2:2 8-bit
1080p 30fps 4:2:2 10-bit

I actually like my cameras larger as they are more ergonomic to me and have a professional look to my clients. They tend to think that since my camera is larger, it will produce better photos (yeah, right lol). But in all seriousness, I would rather them keep it large, have better weather sealing and durability.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 27, 2018)

djkraq said:


> What I want in a Canon FF Mirrorless:
> 
> A new DP RAW similar to Pixel Shift or similar
> DPAF
> ...



This sounds pretty much like a sony a7r3 in a 5d body - which is pretty much what I would love to see also, along with a tilt/flip screen. Another surprisingly useful feature would be usb charging, with 2x usb ports.


----------



## sigh (Mar 27, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> djkraq said:
> 
> 
> > What I want in a Canon FF Mirrorless:
> ...



I'd also be happy with that. I'm not too bothered about a full tilt/flip screen like the 80D or M50 if we get DPAF. 

On the video side, I doubt we'll get C-Log first time round (maybe as a paid upgrade?), or any form of 10-bit video, but I would like there to be no crop in 4k. I used the 5D4 over a long weekend (I currently have a 5D3 and A7R3) and the crop in 4k was not to my liking. That's just my opinion, I have no idea what pros, EoL or Canon's marketing says. I didn't have too many concerns about the MJPEG codec other than space requirements and that, even on my beefy machine, I had to transcode the footage to edit it smoothly.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 27, 2018)

djkraq said:


> A new mount (allowing for more AF Points to sensor).



What do you mean by this? You don’t need additional electrical contacts when you increase the AF sensor count (which with DPAF is pretty much a linear relationship with resolution). The logic is done in the camera, the mount only has to send power and instructions to the lens accordingly.


----------



## Duct_Taper (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > My L lenses work just fine on my M5. Not as snappy as the STM glass but accurate and decently fast.
> ...



I can't speak for adapted EF-M performance but based on EF-S experience you have to be a bit careful with generalizations w.r.t STM focusing speed... it's very lens dependent. In my experience the 24, 40, and 50 are all a bit 'leisurely' but the 18-135 and the 55-250 are very fast. I'd actually say my 55-250 STM is as fast or faster than my 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, maybe even my 100 f/2 USM.


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



The fastest autofocusing lens I have ever seen is the focus by wire EFS 18-135 USM (nano), which is to say, it's so fast that I don't even know that it's autofocused; plus, it's totally quiet. 

However, I still wouldn't choose it over ring USM for nearly all purposes.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> I can't speak for adapted EF-M performance but based on EF-S experience you have to be a bit careful with generalizations w.r.t STM focusing speed... it's very lens dependent. In my experience the 24, 40, and 50 are all a bit 'leisurely' but the 18-135 and the 55-250 are very fast. I'd actually say my 55-250 STM is as fast or faster than my 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, maybe even my 100 f/2 USM.



Appreciate that STM has improved, sure. Modern STM being on the level with 20+ year old non-L USM is plausible, I guess.

But slclick said his L lenses were slower than STM. That's a different animal, right?

slclick, can you tell us which L lenses you've seen slower-than-STM performance with on your M5? If it's a modern ring USM setup that we normally don't associate with having slow focus, either the new STM is blisteringly fast or the adaptor is slowing down the AF.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> The fastest autofocusing lens I have ever seen is the focus by wire EFS 18-135 USM (nano), which is to say, it's so fast that I don't even know that it's autofocused; plus, it's totally quiet.
> 
> However, I still wouldn't choose it over ring USM for nearly all purposes.



I prefer my ring USM glass, but yes, the two nano lenses' AF seems impressive.

From LensTip (one of the few groups that looks at AF speed) on the other Nano USM lens:

_"What’s more the autofocus performance is sensationally fast. Running through the whole distance scale and confirming the focus at the shorter end of the focal lengths spectrum takes 0.1-0.2 of a second; for the longer focal lengths the process is by 0.1-0.2 of a second longer.

To be honest I am a bit surprised that, for the first time, such technology appears in completely amateur constructions. The working culture of the autofocus, its noiselessness, 100% accuracy, and superior speed put to shame even some professional lenses. A round of applause for Canon!"_

And a gold-standard-quick ring USM zoom?

_"On the EOS 1Ds Mark III, even in the full working range, the running though the scale, no matter from what end, takes about 0.3-0.4 of a second. Using the limited 2.5 meters to infinity range you can shorten that time by next 0.1 of a second. These are results worth of a reliable journalistic instrument."_

So the Nano was:

70mm: 0.1 - 0.2s
300mm 0.2 - 0.4s

and the 70-200L was (at either end of the FL):

Not delimited: 0.3 - 0.4s
Delimited: 0.2 - 0.3s

Which is quite impressive for the Nano (considering the major cost delta). These comparisons are never perfect -- it appears the former was run on the 5D3 and the latter on the 1DS3, but still: not bad, Nano.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old.
> ...



Oh, and just to drive the point home, let's look at what Canon has to say on the matter:

[quote author=Canon]
Since the first EOS cameras and EF lenses in 1987, a number of new technologies have been introduced into Canon's EOS system. As new camera and/or lens features have been developed, this has added to the amount of items communicated between body and lens. Canon has been able to do this and maintain practically total compatibility going back to the earliest EOS bodies and lenses. *Most importantly, the lens mount and the gold contacts have not changed one bit! *Features introduced since 1987, which have altered the way data, is communicated include:

Predictive AI Servo AF (focus tracking on moving subjects)
Micro-USMs (extremely small Ultrasonic focusing motors)
Tilt-shift lenses with Automatic Diaphragm operation
Multiple-point AF systems, from 3 points up to 45
Image Stabilization
E-TTL flash (which relies on instant analysis of a pre-flash)
Wireless E-TTL flash

Furthermore, as new cameras have been developed, new and faster communication methods have been introduced to give us faster autofocus, more precise light metering, faster shooting speeds (up to 9 fps with autofocus on the EOS-1v, for instance), and of course the new features that digital SLRs bring to the table. Data communication has accordingly changed over time, and occasionally a new camera will be launched that modifies how data is transmitted between body and lens.
[/quote]

So again, please explain how the '30 year old communication' is a limiting factor of the EF mount...


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The fastest autofocusing lens I have ever seen is the focus by wire EFS 18-135 USM (nano), which is to say, it's so fast that I don't even know that it's autofocused; plus, it's totally quiet.
> ...



I have owned both the EFS18-135 USM and the EF 70-300 USM II, and the 18-135 feels way faster (it is noticeably faster than a 24-105 or 24-70 mounted on an 80D).

There is another big difference: on the 70-300 (which I ultimately sold), autofocus was not as consistent, sometimes resulting in slight softness, while my 18-135 is very consistent. Of course, it just be my luck of the draw.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> I have owned both the EFS18-135 USM and the EF 70-300 USM II, and the 18-135 feels way faster (it is noticeably faster than a 24-105 or 24-70 mounted on an 80D).
> 
> There is another big difference: on the 70-300 (which I ultimately sold), autofocus was not as consistent, sometimes resulting in slight softness, while my 18-135 is very consistent. Of course, it just be my luck of the draw.



Keep in mind that I'm just using these numbers to soften the blow when my EF 50mm f/1.4 IS (Ring) USM turns out to just be an EF 50mm f/1.4 (Nano) USM II. ;D

If it's quick, consistent and internal focusing, I suppose I could live with FBW.

But I'm OT here. Apologies.

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Duct_Taper said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak for adapted EF-M performance but based on EF-S experience you have to be a bit careful with generalizations w.r.t STM focusing speed... it's very lens dependent. In my experience the 24, 40, and 50 are all a bit 'leisurely' but the 18-135 and the 55-250 are very fast. I'd actually say my 55-250 STM is as fast or faster than my 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, maybe even my 100 f/2 USM.
> ...



Perhaps I phrased that incorrectly. L lenses (24-70 2.8 Mk2, 135L, 16-35 f/4L) slower focusing on adapted M5 than on native FF but in no means hunting or inaccurate. Relative to the 50 1.8 STM and 40 2.8 adapted or the native EF-M, I'll have to get back to you on that. The 50 1.8 STM does very well on the M5.... the 40, not so well but still no slouch. The 50 is just a great pairing. I would say the 50 adapted is as fast as the EF-M 22. My findings on the 40 mirror Dustin's I have found. But it's only AF speed, everything else is fine. I will get around to testing the adapted L vs STM's on the M5 one of these days and tell you what I thought.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

slclick said:


> Perhaps I phrased that incorrectly. L lenses (24-70 2.8 Mk2, 135L, 16-35 f/4L) slower focusing on adapted M5 than on native FF but in no means hunting or inaccurate. Relative to the 50 1.8 STM and 40 2.8 adapted or the native EF-M, I'll have to get back to you on that. The 50 1.8 STM does very well on the M5.... the 40, not so well but still no slouch. The 50 is just a great pairing. I would say the 50 adapted is as fast as the EF-M 22. My findings on the 40 mirror Dustin's I have found. But it's only AF speed, everything else is fine. I will get around to testing the adapted L vs STM's on the M5 one of these days and tell you what I thought.



Thank you, this is what I want to drill down on. The thin mirrorless + adaptor camp would have us believe that there are no tradeoffs to AF performance on an adaptor, and if that hasn't been your experience, it _might_ imply that the most discerning/picky photographer might need a true EF mount make their EF glass sing. (Could also be DPAF vs. the standard SLR AF, in fairness.)

Again: I'd like more on this from everyone, please. Those who have an M5 or M6, relatively modern FF SLR w/DPAF, some quick L lenses and an adaptor, please go to town and tell us what you find!

Ideally, we'd compare the focus speed of:

SLR standard AF setup
SLR with AF on LiveView
M5/M6 through an adaptor

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I phrased that incorrectly. L lenses (24-70 2.8 Mk2, 135L, 16-35 f/4L) slower focusing on adapted M5 than on native FF but in no means hunting or inaccurate. Relative to the 50 1.8 STM and 40 2.8 adapted or the native EF-M, I'll have to get back to you on that. The 50 1.8 STM does very well on the M5.... the 40, not so well but still no slouch. The 50 is just a great pairing. I would say the 50 adapted is as fast as the EF-M 22. My findings on the 40 mirror Dustin's I have found. But it's only AF speed, everything else is fine. I will get around to testing the adapted L vs STM's on the M5 one of these days and tell you what I thought.
> ...



Or birder/action photographer. AF speed is really important if you're trying to catch something in motion, and even a small drop in autofocus performance can mean the difference between a keeper and a culled shot. There is no way someone for whom AF speed is important enough a reason to upgrade or choose a lens would then be satisfied with a system that downgraded AF speed 

On the other hand, I would not put it past Canon to improve the electronics in an adapter mount aimed to professionals to provide 100% efficiency for EF lenses. 

We should also consider that we may not be comparing apples to apples, because most people will comparing the AF speed through the lens on a 5D, for example, to DPAF through the sensor on an M5. I mean, how many photographers use live view on their DSLR for action shots? 

I'd love to hear more about this, too!


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I phrased that incorrectly. L lenses (24-70 2.8 Mk2, 135L, 16-35 f/4L) slower focusing on adapted M5 than on native FF but in no means hunting or inaccurate. Relative to the 50 1.8 STM and 40 2.8 adapted or the native EF-M, I'll have to get back to you on that. The 50 1.8 STM does very well on the M5.... the 40, not so well but still no slouch. The 50 is just a great pairing. I would say the 50 adapted is as fast as the EF-M 22. My findings on the 40 mirror Dustin's I have found. But it's only AF speed, everything else is fine. I will get around to testing the adapted L vs STM's on the M5 one of these days and tell you what I thought.
> ...



I would never be surprised that anytime (everytime?) you add an adapter, an extender, bellows, extension tubes, spacers or an XYT4-X Pro Optical Modulator to a lens and extend the distance between rear element and sensor, you would lose something. And if anyone thinks this isn't true then they don't have a dog in their precious flange distance fight.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Thank you, this is what I want to drill down on. The thin mirrorless + adaptor camp would have us believe that there are no tradeoffs to AF performance on an adaptor, and if that hasn't been your experience, it _might_ imply that the most discerning/picky photographer might need a true EF mount make their EF glass sing. (Could also be DPAF vs. the standard SLR AF, in fairness.)



you must be joking. A Canon lens mount adapter [like EF/EF-M] is a distance tube with wiring thru of the electrical contacts. 

Any "negative impact" on AF performance comes from the fact that when (old) EF lenses are used, they are designed for DSLR / Phase-AF operation, not for mirrorless. 

The only vaild comparison for EF glass is their AF performance *IN LIVE VIEW MODE* on DP-AF DSLRs .. and even that comparison is skewed, because the (better) DLSRs have bigger batteries and way more juice to power the AF drive in lenses, than the whimpy LP-E17 in an EOS M5/M6 offers. 

There is no technical reason to assume AF performance of EF glass mounted on a decent Canon FF MILC with "slim mount" by means of an original-Canon adapter (not some cheap China cr+p) would not exactly match that lens' AF performance in live-view mode on a DP-AF sensored DSLR. 

Older EF glass AF [not Nano USM, not STM, not chipped/firmwared for DP-AF sensors] will not necessarily "sing" in mirrorslapper Live view mode or on a mirrorless body ... totally irrespective of whether mirrorless cam has "native EF" mount or a new, short FFD "EF-X" mount ... 

IF there is an AF speed/performance hit, it will NOT stem from use of a Canon lens mount adapter, but from those "legacy" EF lenses' inability [including L lenses preceding the very latest versions] to fully utilize the advanced options of DP-AF in DSLR Live View mode or of mirrorless DP-AF ... as simple as that.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

Again, glad we're talking.

I've repeatedly heard one group of users state 'adding extra bits can't be helping' or 'Sony's adaptors don't work that well', etc. and imply that adaptors have a performance cost.

And then we have others saying and adaptor is just an electrical passthrough and should have no performance hit at all.

And AvTvM may very well be right that differences in focusing with adaptors may be more about the core AF technology of the body and not the lens.

So let's sort that out. Prove it once and for all. Run the same damn EF lens the three different ways I mentioned above -- SLR with the traditional AF setup, SLR with DPAF in liveview, and the adapted M5/M6. This should be a pretty straightforward exercise.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 27, 2018)

slclick said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



you also must be joking. we are not talking about "optical modifiers" here. We talk about an as-simple-as can be distance tube with electrical wiring-thru which does nothing but re-establish the flange focal distance EF glass needs to properly work [on a mirrorless camera with a shorter FFD]. Provided the adapter is decently built and precise - as will be the case with original Canon adapters [just look at the EF/EF-M mount adapter!], there will be no IQ hit whatsoever. 

Putting third party gear from the likes of metabones or cheap thrills china stuff between lens and body may have all sorts of "unwanted effects" ... 

Not to mention "adapters" that bring optical glass elements into the light path ... as is the case e.g. with metabones "speed boosters" and similar stuff ... or with tele-converters ... including Canon's own, although they are rather decent - they do have a negative impact on IQ. no miracles in optics.


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Again, glad we're talking.
> 
> I've repeatedly heard one group of users state 'adding extra bits can't be helping' or 'Sony's adaptors don't work that well', etc. and imply that adaptors have a performance cost.
> 
> ...



Great. Homework.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> there will be no IQ hit whatsoever.



Agree, sure. But  I was talking about AF speed all this time.

- A

P.S. Please try to trim quotes when you can. Many long re-posts in succession tend to kill threads off.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Again, glad we're talking.
> 
> I've repeatedly heard one group of users state 'adding extra bits can't be helping' or 'Sony's adaptors don't work that well', etc. and imply that adaptors have a performance cost.
> 
> ...



Or read the results by a universally respected tester who has already looked into it.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

Roger's conclusion is that even good quality 'simple' tube type adapters have a real impact on IQ especially off center and even on smaller formats.

You are all talking about a 135 format sensor, comparatively large, and using the lenses native image circle.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Roger's conclusion is that even good quality 'simple' tube type adapters have a real impact on IQ...



Again, I'm talking about AF speed.

But nice link, thx.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Roger's conclusion is that even good quality 'simple' tube type adapters have a real impact on IQ...
> ...



The AF speed isn't impacted by a simple tube type adapter. But that is irrelevant because you will never have two cameras that you can test it on, i.e. with the same primary AF that takes the same lens with and without an adapter.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> The AF speed isn't impacted by a simple tube type adapter.



That is a sentence. Has anyone ever proven that? Makes sense, but why are so many folks arguing over this in this forum right now? Let's end that with some data, eh?

Test [any EF lens] on:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Any EF mount SLR with DPAF using the standard SLR AF setup
[*]Any EF mount SLR with DPAF using LiveView / DPAF
[*]An M5/M6 with an adaptor using the standard DPAF-based AF
[/list]

If (3) is slower to focus than (2), seeing as both cameras are using DPAF, one might presume the adaptor could be the cause. What else might it be? (Asking honestly, not rhetorically.) 

(1) vs. (2) is just a curiosity of mine.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The AF speed isn't impacted by a simple tube type adapter.
> ...



No. Because of my second sentence._ "But that is irrelevant because you will never have two cameras that you can test it on, i.e. with the same primary AF that takes the same lens with and without an adapter."_

Your suggested test is the test that isn't. An M5 and _"Any EF mount SLR with DPAF using LiveView / DPAF"_ are NOT the same thing.

Electrical charge, as in this application, is not effected to any impactful degree by a short straight additional length and a single extra connection, ergo the AF speed won't be affected by the addition of a short straight-through adapter. 

There is no reason why to should be. But even the best 'simple' adapters are an optical compromise. It's a compromise I can see Canon making going down a sensor size where the body can be much smaller and the main 'advantage' of that is smaller system size and the worst of the compromises are mitigated by using the best part of the image circle. I cannot see Canon doing that for a high quality and expensive, pro and advanced amateur orientated system where IQ and endless mindless testing will pull every theoretical and real compromise out on display for all to see.

Besides, the best indicator that Canon will retain the EF amount for the FF mirrorless system is the fact that Nikon have already said they are making a mount change. Nikon and Canon are deliberately contrarian.


----------



## mppix (Mar 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Again, glad we're talking.
> ...



Nice link. So Canon "Air" may be different than other manufacturers "Air" in extension tubes after all


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Electrical charge, as in this application, is not effected to any impactful degree by a short straight additional length and a single extra connection, ergo the AF speed won't be affected by the addition of a short straight-through adapter.



I think you are missing the point. I agree with you. _But no one has proven this for those that do not agree with you._

So let's just go and knock that piece of work out. I know there's not a perfect means to do this, so I've proposed what I've proposed. If there's a better way to do it, propose that and I'll support you.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Electrical charge, as in this application, is not effected to any impactful degree by a short straight additional length and a single extra connection, ergo the AF speed won't be affected by the addition of a short straight-through adapter.
> ...



Sorry, for a second there I choked on my dinner! 

Since when did anybody here ever prove anything to anybody? Those that understand logic and accept open methodology testing generally agree on facts, then there are the other half of the forum, call them "_the deplorables_" if you like, I wouldn't, who won't accept facts based answers or opinions, ever, no matter the source.

I propose stop trying to pander to the illogical whims of people trying to waste your time, it is a precious commodity we only start to realize is as limited as it is when we don't have much left. Who cares what the answer is to a pointless question that can never be answered? Your test would prove nothing but give those that want it another source of straw to build their army of irrelevance.

When the Canon FF mirrorless comes out, whatever it is or has or does, it will be criticized by many who have never used it. Some will declare it, DOA, some will say they are going to jump ship, some will say it is the end of Canon for whatever pet reason they have. Others will like it, hell I still like my original M as it does everything I ever expected it to. But when this FF mirrorless does come out those that are interested in it can test it's AF speed as it is relevant to their uses and needs with the lenses they require.

Or, stop feeding the trolls...


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


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


I agree.

This is like mixing apples and oranges together to find out what grapefruit and kiwi taste like. There is no applicable data to be found. When something comes out, then it will be as it is.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

OR... We find out adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF.

What conclusions would we draw then? Perhaps the adaptor is as much of an instantaneous passenger as we all believe and it turns out that the time to lock with DPAF on two different cameras is different. 

So it's not just my fighting ignorance or walking disagreement into agreement. I actually find that path of inquiry interesting independently of that. Much like how no one seems to study AF accuracy/consistency, few seem to study AF speed. So let's do that.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> OR... We find out adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF.
> 
> What conclusions would we draw then? Perhaps the adaptor is as much of an instantaneous passenger as we all believe and it turns out that the time to lock with DPAF on two different cameras is different.
> 
> ...



No, you just open the barn to more straw for the contrarians to built their straw men out of.

The results of your test would not help you determine anything other than the simplest of results, it doesn't give you any useful data with which to extrapolate potential results from future gear. So if you want to know if adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF then you can know that, but not anything about a future FF Canon mirrorless camera, nothing about adapters etc etc. We know practically nothing about the various algorithms that actually number crunch this stuff, or any one of a multitude of factors and processes that make up the the differences between an M5 and a DSLR with DPAF, or the differences between an M or DSLR with DPAF and the future FF Canon mirrorless.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> The results of your test would not help you determine anything other than the simplest of results, it doesn't give you any useful data with which to extrapolate potential results from future gear. So if you want to know if adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF then you can know that, but not anything about a future FF Canon mirrorless camera, nothing about adapters etc etc. We know practically nothing about the various algorithms that actually number crunch this stuff, or any one of a multitude of factors and processes that make up the the differences between an M5 and a DSLR with DPAF, or the differences between an M or DSLR with DPAF and the future FF Canon mirrorless.



So in this sea of uncertainty, it's best to sit on our hands and say "At I least I know _I'm_ right"?

That might work for you, but I'd like to learn more about this. Sure, it might be a highly granular combination-dependent piece of information that may not apply to future bodies and future adaptors, but it gives us a read on how well Canon does on this front today. That's enough for me.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The results of your test would not help you determine anything other than the simplest of results, it doesn't give you any useful data with which to extrapolate potential results from future gear. So if you want to know if adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF then you can know that, but not anything about a future FF Canon mirrorless camera, nothing about adapters etc etc. We know practically nothing about the various algorithms that actually number crunch this stuff, or any one of a multitude of factors and processes that make up the the differences between an M5 and a DSLR with DPAF, or the differences between an M or DSLR with DPAF and the future FF Canon mirrorless.
> ...



No not at all, but don't forget two things.

1/ The immortal quote from Mark Twain _“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”_
2/ If you are in it for the photography there are better ways to spend your time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGngRlWHmZw

Of course a sound understanding of the basics of photography are helpful to achieve your intended goal, but not much more to create incredible and engaging images.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 28, 2018)

as stated before: on any mirrorless canon camera (almost) ALL existing canon EF-lenses will be "legacy" as far as AF performance is concerned. 

(almost): very few possible exceptions: 1. STM, 2. nano USM, 3. maybe! latest version chipped lenses that were launched after DP-AF DSLRs came out.

"legacy" and questionmarks re. AF performance apply no matter, whether an EF lens is mounted using a (simple distance tube) mount adapter or not. 

just accept it folks. your (old) EF glass, including "premium" L shards - will overall never be "as good" as new, designed for mirrorless lenses will be when used on new mirrorless cameras. to get best performance, you will have to buy new glass for new (FF mirrorless) cameras. the delta in terms of AF performance and other dimensions may be tiny in some cases, but it is there and it will get largdr with every new generation of Canon FF cameras to come.

nothing wrong with that, just a fact if technical development. and Canon's business model for years to come. "you can continue using your existing lenses, but if you want superior, native performance, then buy our new lenses." business as usual.


----------



## Takingshots (Mar 28, 2018)

I am one not to wait till next year and anticipate what will be coming and whether my L lens will be good on this Canon FF mirrorless. My 60D is about to retire and vacation is on the horizon.
Remember not too long ago alot of anticipation went into 6D mk ii but it was a let down. While the filed tests are in progress on the Sony A7iii, I will spend the $2000 when it is available. Compare to 6D mk ii in terms of pricing and specs .. it's a no brainer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Takingshots said:


> I am one not to wait till next year and anticipate what will be coming and whether my L lens will be good on this Canon FF mirrorless. My 60D is about to retire and vacation is on the horizon.
> Remember not too long ago alot of anticipation went into 6D mk ii but it was a let down. While the filed tests are in progress on the Sony A7iii, I will spend the $2000 when it is available. Compare to 6D mk ii in terms of pricing and specs .. it's a no brainer.



Indeed...and the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Always. 

Of course, it's more likely that you're all talk and no action. Just like three years ago when you were going to buy the a7RII. 



Takingshots said:


> At this juncture if Sony A7rii is as good as they stated on the write up, I will pass up Canon and go for Sony. I will be waiting for more reviews and test field b4 plunging 3,000 + dough into the new system. I will use meta bone for my Canon lens....


----------



## slclick (Mar 28, 2018)

Takingshots said:


> I am one not to wait till next year and anticipate what will be coming and whether my L lens will be good on this Canon FF mirrorless. My 60D is about to retire and vacation is on the horizon.
> Remember not too long ago alot of anticipation went into 6D mk ii but it was a let down. While the filed tests are in progress on the Sony A7iii, I will spend the $2000 when it is available. Compare to 6D mk ii in terms of pricing and specs .. it's a no brainer.



So tell us about the letdown, when YOU used the 6D2 how did it let you down? Or, do you mean by internet camera YouTube pundits? Really, this is tiring. The reality of the 6D2 is that people reading about it bash it and users and owners love it.


----------



## TAF (Mar 28, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I'm curious to see if they run a dual release, a mirrorless version and a mirrored version of the next 5d, biggest difference would be the evf vs ovf. Most of the other features could be matched, and that'd keep a foot on each side if the line




Wouldn't it be a hoot if they released a 5DV and a 5DVm simultaneously, at the same price point? The m would have some additional features that are only possible with mirrorless (is there anything that a mirrored camera can do that a mirrorless cannot?), but would otherwise be identical.

That would be ht ultimate market survey!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 28, 2018)

TAF said:


> (is there anything that a mirrored camera can do that a mirrorless cannot?)



Yes, everything involving the OVF.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2018)

slclick said:


> Takingshots said:
> 
> 
> > I am one not to wait till next year and anticipate what will be coming and whether my L lens will be good on this Canon FF mirrorless. My 60D is about to retire and vacation is on the horizon.
> ...



I've noticed the 6D MkII is having a bit of a renaissance lately with several high profile YouTubers and social media types now saying it has an excellent combination of features for high end vlogging. FF, touch screen, tilt flip screen, Canon colors etc etc, they are beginning to pass up on the 4k as it takes so much time and storage space and few people end up viewing it anyway due to transmission limitations. 

It could be a very savvy marketing ploy by Canon but it does tick a lot of boxes for a lot of people.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

TAF said:


> (is there anything that a mirrored camera can do that a mirrorless cannot?)



If you strip away the major design/system decisions (grip, mount, form factor) that lead to mirrorless looking/feeling different than SLRs and just focus on the core photo taking ability, the differences are significant but (in my mind) fairly small in number. If an identical mount / grip / form factor mirrorless rig and SLR were offered side by side, my 'SLR wins' column is as follows:


The VF doesn't require (much) power to use --> far better battery life (unless you're shooting in LiveView all day)
The detail/reality/feel of the VF is better
The OVF and AF feels more present and responsive

And, this last bit being more commentary than a hard truth, but *SLR users know what they'll be getting*. The core SLR technology has been mastered over countless product iterations; in comparison, the _components_ of mirrorless are all understood but they simply don't have the system flight hours logged that SLRs do. So SLR users generally get a highly consistent user experience, where it's amazing to read mirrorless system reviews and Company A has a wretched EVF, Company B still hasn't figured out focus peaking, Company C doesn't understand the basic ergonomic realities of the size of the human hand, etc. -- you just never hear that stuff for an SLR. Folks are just angry/happy at feature set, AF and IQ.

That's not to say mirrorless is clearly second fiddle. It's not. It just shines in other ways. Whether one is better than the other depends on your needs. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I've noticed the 6D MkII is having a bit of a renaissance lately with several high profile YouTubers and social media types now saying it has an excellent combination of features for high end vlogging. FF, touch screen, tilt flip screen, Canon colors etc etc, they are beginning to pass up on the 4k as it takes so much time and storage space and few people end up viewing it anyway due to transmission limitations.
> 
> It could be a very savvy marketing ploy by Canon but it does tick a lot of boxes for a lot of people.



Stills: The 6D1 userbase had a good swath of amateur landscapers who didn't need 1-series or 5-series feature sets. So for that camp to not get on-chip ADC is still a slap in the face to me. I'm rarely critical of Canon -- not an apologist so much as respectful that there's some savvy marketeers at work -- but I truly think they laid an egg on that single decision. 

Video: No 4K is a letdown, but even if 4K happened, it probably would have gotten heavily shackled (huge crop, limited codec/bitrate options, etc). I know it's a big deal for some people, but they are welcome to find other cameras with tilty-flippy and DPAF and 4K (good luck with that).

But _other than those two things_, it's a compelling user experience: FF sensor + tilty-flippy + touchscreen + DPAF + Canon ergonomics/reliability + native connectivity to EF is a powerful value proposition.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The VF doesn't require power to use --> far better battery life (unless you're shooting in LiveView all day)



Just to be pedantic, with most current higher-end Canon cameras (i.e. ones with a transmissive LCD) that's technically not true. While it doesn't require _much_ power, it still requires some...and draws it whether the camera is powered on or not. If you haven't tried it, look through the VF with the camera powered off, then pull the battery and look through the VF again.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The VF doesn't require power to use --> far better battery life (unless you're shooting in LiveView all day)
> ...



I _knew_ someone would call me on the transmissive bit. You got me. 

Updated.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed the 6D MkII is having a bit of a renaissance lately with several high profile YouTubers and social media types now saying it has an excellent combination of features for high end vlogging. FF, touch screen, tilt flip screen, Canon colors etc etc, they are beginning to pass up on the 4k as it takes so much time and storage space and few people end up viewing it anyway due to transmission limitations.
> ...


To your first point, you make an unsubstantiated assumption that the MkI owners automatically make up a significant number of the MkII expected sales. I don't think that is true, even the 1 and 5 series user base has traditionally skipped generations, so even if market research showed 6D buyers not moving up to the 5 series then the number of 6D MkI users going to a 6D MkII, whatever the improvements, is not significant enough to try to target them.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> To your first point, you make an unsubstantiated assumption that the MkI owners automatically make up a significant number of the MkII expected sales. I don't think that is true, even the 1 and 5 series user base has traditionally skipped generations, so even if market research showed 6D buyers not moving up to the 5 series then the number of 6D MkI users going to a 6D MkII, whatever the improvements, is not significant enough to try to target them.



Fair, but that doesn't mean Canon completely disregards who is using that platform today when they design the next version. 6D1 users absolutely are _part_ of the target market of the 6D2.

Also, 'try to target them' implies on-chip ADC would be an exxxxxtra special carrot to lure them into buying a 6D2. I think if you ask most any person here, on-chip ADC wasn't remotely a 50-50 'we might get it' sort of offering -- it was a stone cold expectation in 2017. I still find it a fairly shocking omission from that product in that regard.

But you make a very fair point: sequels are hardly aimed at just their current userbase. 80D users who love their on-chip ADC sensor and were considering a jump up to a 6D2 would probably have been p---ed about this decision as well. 

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


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





There is a very practical difference, however, to me as a bird-in-flight photographer. 

Whether a Canon is on, off, or in sleep, as I bring it to my eye I see what's through the viewfinder, and I can position my lens to allow autofocus to do its job.

On the other hand, even if a mirrorless is on, the viewfinder is not powered unless I bring my eye close to it. As I'm settling in to take the shot, there are precious fractions of a second lost. If it's in sleep or just turned on, the blackout period is longer. Half or a third of a second doesn't feel like much, but every moment counts. 

If Canon were to make a professional mirrorless, I hope that there is a High Performance mode, where the EVF is constantly powered. Yes, I would hate the battery draw, and I don't relish requiring 4 batteries for an afternoon. However, I hate missing shots even more.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> On the other hand, even if a mirrorless is on, the viewfinder is not powered unless I bring my eye close to it. As I'm settling in to take the shot, there are precious fractions of a second lost. If it's in sleep or just turned on, the blackout period is longer. Half or a third of a second doesn't feel like much, but every moment counts.
> 
> If Canon were to make a professional mirrorless, I hope that there is a High Performance mode, where the EVF is constantly powered. Yes, I would hate the battery draw, and I don't relish requiring 4 batteries for an afternoon. However, I hate missing shots even more.



+1. People talk about 'responsiveness of an EVF' and we get into a coarse discussion of lag that only skims the top of the need. Folks who capture action have really high expectations of responsiveness, and that includes EVF wake up time, lag, refresh rate, blackout time during burst shooting, etc.

So as much as I was surprised at how few things made my list of what an SLR does definitively better than a same mount / same form factor / same spec'd mirrorless setup, those things are absolutely vital to some folks. They are not small considerations.

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > (is there anything that a mirrored camera can do that a mirrorless cannot?)
> ...



And more. These come to mind --

1. Autofocus effectively in poor light.
2. Autofocus effectively using flash illuminators
3. Constantly provide an image to the viewfinder, even when it's not right against your eye *
4. Last a full day of shooting on a single battery

* It's possible, but it isn't available in any camera I'm aware of -- probably because battery life would then be miserable.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> 1. Autofocus effectively in poor light.



Sure, agree -- but I am also intrigued to amplify light with an EVF and use any AF lens as an MF lens with focus peaking in really dark environments. 

That could _possibly_ net in-focus shots that an OVF without a focusing screen (i.e. the vast majority of our SLRs) could not reel in, like -5 EV or worse. Have any mirrorless owners tried something like this before?

Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't be quick, reliable or fun to do. But it could reel in some shots an SLR could not.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > To your first point, you make an unsubstantiated assumption that the MkI owners automatically make up a significant number of the MkII expected sales. I don't think that is true, even the 1 and 5 series user base has traditionally skipped generations, so even if market research showed 6D buyers not moving up to the 5 series then the number of 6D MkI users going to a 6D MkII, whatever the improvements, is not significant enough to try to target them.
> ...



I'm not saying Canon don't make mistakes, I am saying most of our assumptions are probably unfounded and inaccurate, which means assumptions based on those assumptions will almost certainly be even further from a fact based observation.

We don't know what the 5D MkII sales were against projections even though many people said the AF not getting upgraded was a let down. We don't know what the 6D MkII sales have been against projections so we don't even know if Canon did a good job or not! But, considering the B&H price is only $100 off launch price and CPW deals are not yielding 15% off launch price I don't see any signs of fire sale or distress pricing which leads me to think that maybe Canon are pretty comfortable with their 6D MkII feature set. I think we can be pretty sure they have the margins in it to win an aggressive price war with Sony against the A7III if they wanted to.

All of which ends up creating the biggest question, apart from the small group of forum warriors, and worriers, who is to say what the mistakes are that Canon make and how meaningful they are? If you never know the benchmark they set themselves you can never know if they hit it, or not!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> That could _possibly_ net in-focus shots that an OVF without a focusing screen (i.e. the vast majority of our SLRs) could not reel in, like -5 EV or worse. Have any mirrorless owners tried something like this before?



An example of -5 EV is 1/15 s, f/1.4, ISO 102400 – do you honestly think such a shot would be one you'd keep? Ok, if it was of Elvis and Bigfoot in flagrante delicto in a coal mine, maybe...but otherwise?

The only utility I see for that is if lighting a nearly-black scene with flash in the absense of an on-board AF assist lamp (e.g. using Canon's RT system with an ST-E3-RT in the hotshoe – and in that case, I'd put a 600EX-RT on the camera for the AF assist, without the flash firing if I wanted all the light to come from off-camera strobes).


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> An example of -5 EV is 1/15 s, f/1.4, ISO 102400 – do you honestly think such a shot would be one you'd keep? Ok, if it was of Elvis and Bigfoot in flagrante delicto in a coal mine, maybe...but otherwise?
> 
> The only utility I see for that is if lighting a nearly-black scene with flash in the absense of an on-board AF assist lamp (e.g. using Canon's RT system with an ST-E3-RT in the hotshoe – and in that case, I'd put a 600EX-RT on the camera for the AF assist, without the flash firing if I wanted all the light to come from off-camera strobes).



-5EV would be more of a parlour trick, I admit, but it has come up in less extreme situations. 

My venerable 50 f/1.4 USM (and I'm sure other older lenses) would actually be usable in dimly lit rooms, concert venues, etc. as I could override the AF and use peaking. That would honestly be useful to me.

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Autofocus effectively in poor light.
> ...



Oh, there are plenty of things to love about mirrorless too; don't get me wrong.

I think focus magnification is at the top of my list of likes. It makes manual focus, and even supported autofocus very accurate.

I have mixed feelings about light amplification. It looks and works great when the room is dim, but frankly, I can see with an OVF anyways, and autofocus with an AF illuminator works perfectly from a DSLR. Things like focus peaking work much worse without good light, by the way. Right about when I'd start to really want light amplification, image is extremely grainy and not very easy to focus. Plus, focus peaking works only on the very highest contrast edges. Again, I prefer to use a flash illuminator.

I don't have any significant experience with a mirrorless other than the Sony. On the Sony, there is ONE AF illuminator that actually lights up a traditional cross pattern. The other ones, including first party flashes, do not light, except the camera has a red light that pretty much everyone agrees does more harm than good). The cross pattern will actually light up for as long as it takes for the lens to autofocus. The caveat, however, is that it still takes _forever_ for the lens to autofocus in dim/dark.

My suspicion is that the way mirrorless autofocus using the main sensor is simply different from the AF sensor in DSLRs, so they can't take advantage of quickly autofocusing on the projected pattern as do DSLRs. I don't know the science of it.

Now, I expect that this will improve over time. When mirrorless autofocus works better with flash photography in dark conditions from a practical perspective (strip away cool tech; I just want to take photos that are composed right and in-focus), I will be much more receptive.




neuroanatomist said:


> The only utility I see for that is if lighting a nearly-black scene with flash in the absense of an on-board AF assist lamp (e.g. using Canon's RT system with an ST-E3-RT in the hotshoe – and in that case, I'd put a 600EX-RT on the camera for the AF assist, without the flash firing if I wanted all the light to come from off-camera strobes).



Just use the Yongnuo E3-RT  It has an AF illuminator, and it works with first-party Canon flashes 

I'm up to owing FOUR of those controllers, now, lol.


----------



## djkraq (Mar 28, 2018)

Seeing how the new C700 Full Frame was just now released, I feel pretty comfortable that the new Canon Mirrorless will be EF Mount. Is this a good thing? I think yes. I don't use and don't care about adapted lenses. If I can only use Canon mount lenses, I'm ok with that. I have no reason to put a Sony lens on my Canon body. I think this is an awesome move for Canon if they are going this route. I really hope they keep the size of the 5D series and add more electronics such as IBIS or something like it. 

As I said earlier, it seems like with the release of the C700 FF, Canon seems to be keeping the EF Mount for future FF cameras. No way they be so stupid to create a new system (new FF Mirrorless) just to abandon their newly released cinema committed workhorse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2018)

djkraq said:


> As I said earlier, it seems like with the release of the C700 FF, Canon seems to be keeping the EF Mount for future FF cameras. No way they be so stupid to create a new system (new FF Mirrorless) just to abandon their newly released cinema committed workhorse.



Will a FF cinema camera actually be an industry 'workhorse'? I'm not sure that's true...

Even if it does become true, the number of FF MILCs sold to consumers will vastly dwarf the number of $33K C700FFs sold, so suggesting that the C700FF reflects the FF MILC mount choice sounds like the tail wagging the dog.


----------



## Talys (Mar 28, 2018)

djkraq said:


> Seeing how the new C700 Full Frame was just now released, I feel pretty comfortable that the new Canon Mirrorless will be EF Mount. Is this a good thing? I think yes. I don't use and don't care about adapted lenses. If I can only use Canon mount lenses, I'm ok with that. I have no reason to put a Sony lens on my Canon body. I think this is an awesome move for Canon if they are going this route. I really hope they keep the size of the 5D series and add more electronics such as IBIS or something like it.
> 
> As I said earlier, it seems like with the release of the C700 FF, Canon seems to be keeping the EF Mount for future FF cameras. No way they be so stupid to create a new system (new FF Mirrorless) just to abandon their newly released cinema committed workhorse.



Great point. My money is on a ef compatible native mount that supports EFS style recessed lenses for when it makes sense.


----------



## djkraq (Mar 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> djkraq said:
> 
> 
> > As I said earlier, it seems like with the release of the C700 FF, Canon seems to be keeping the EF Mount for future FF cameras. No way they be so stupid to create a new system (new FF Mirrorless) just to abandon their newly released cinema committed workhorse.
> ...


Well, you seem to be neglecting rental houses for Cinema Cameras and Cinema Lenses. There is NO WAY Canon is going to develop a new Full Frame Cinema Camera and OBLITERATE compatibility with old lenses from their EF System, regardless of high/low end lenses. THAT is ESSENTIALLY what Canon is known for. THAT, color science, menu design and DPAF are what is still making Canon competitive and I highly doubt they are going to release a brand new Cinema Camera with EF Mount (which is essentially mirrorless in design) and then TOTALLY revamp and invest into a brand new camera mount system. Just doesn't seem like Canon. Doesn't seem like a smart move at all if they create something new like that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2018)

djkraq said:


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



Rental houses? Their very existence means fewer units sold, not more units sold. Why buy the cow when you cam borrow some milk for a relatively low cost?

How would a FF MILC with a new mount obliterate anything? Do you suppose Canon will just stop making FF dSLRs and EF lenses when a FF MILC is launched or soon thereafter? Given that dSLRs still outsell MILCs 2:1, that there are no EF-S lenses beyond 250mm, and that all EF lenses also mount on APS-C dLSRs, that idea is patently asinine. Moreover, if Canon goes with a shorter flange focal distance for the FF MILC, there will clearly be a mount adapter available at launch to maintain full compatibility with EF lenses. 

Incidentally, the C700FF also comes in a PL mount. Do you have any idea whether the EF or the PL mount versions of current C-series cameras? I don't, but it's clear that the line is not dependent on the EF mount (the C700 mount can even be switched). 

Also, developing a new MILC camera without native compatibiilty with the EF lineup is exactly what Canon did with the EOS M line – new mount, and an adapter for EF-S/EF lenses. 

FWIW, I _personally_ hope Canon's FF MILC uses the current EF mount. But honestly, your C700FF-based arguments in favor of them doing so simply don't hold water.


----------



## slclick (Mar 28, 2018)

I canno


----------



## slclick (Mar 28, 2018)

I cannot imagine Canon seeing a need to accommodate EF-S lenses outside of crop bodies.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Given the cost and specialized design of Canon's cinema lenses, I don't see how on earth anyone could believe that the release of a full frame cinema camera would have any relationship to whatever mount might end up on a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. 

I believe it will likely be an EF mount, but I don't see any reason to read the release of a new full frame cinema camera as having any relevancy.


----------



## Talys (Mar 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, even if a mirrorless is on, the viewfinder is not powered unless I bring my eye close to it. As I'm settling in to take the shot, there are precious fractions of a second lost. If it's in sleep or just turned on, the blackout period is longer. Half or a third of a second doesn't feel like much, but every moment counts.
> ...



Yeah, the thing is, a lot of these factors aren't really immediately obvious. I mean, I tried a demo of the a7r3 in a store, and used and a7r2 previously for a few hours. But it wasn't really until I 'lived' with and a7r3 for an extended time that I picked up on these things. 

I think that the A7R3 made a big jump in EVF usability, but the problem is. The viewfinder is so critical to successful photography that even small compromises can be impactful. I just hope that Canon's semi-professional product takes all that in mind, and at least gives the user the ability to make those choices. 

Going back to the question of what an OVF system can do over an EVF one, if it comes down to "take a picture before it's gone" does matter!


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 29, 2018)

For the purpose of discussion about AF speed, and particularly as I see this being a major aspect of Canon’s more serious (future) FF MILC models, I will post a few replies in this thread.
My replies will mainly relate to my experience of using several lenses on Canon DSLRs over the past 14 years, and also more recently with my Canon mirrorless cameras.
I undertake a variety of photography, from birds in flight (BIF) to some sports, to active children, to wildlife, etc. So I have a reasonable ‘base’ from which to present these findings… though please note below, my ‘method’ is not as scientific as if I had equipment to measure AF speed of the various lenses (and then indeed, to test on various DSLR bodies).

In this first thread, I will “categorise” the speed of various lenses. I will list numbers, to provide the ‘groups’ … with 1. Being the speediest lens I have ever used, to 10. being the slowest.
Note there are some numerical ‘gaps’ between the groups, representing bigger differences in speed. (i.e. the difference between 1. and 2. Is ‘less’ (or at least less in my experience) to the difference between 6. and 8.
Within each ‘group’ – I will list the lenses in order, where there are feelings of ‘fastest at the top and slowest at the bottom’ – but each group feeling very ‘close’ to each other. 
I would love to have equipment to do the AF speed test scientifically… but alas, I do not have the equipment for that. 
I hope that someone else can contribute here. I recall reading the beautifully detailed Lens Rentals article about AF speed, accuracy and consistency that was written some years ago. The reassuring thing was, that my experience (prior to reading the article) matched what the article found. 

The lenses listed below are lenses I have used sufficiently in order to have a good understanding of their speed. Most of these lenses I have owned for periods of years (some of them I have sold in the meantime, as I ‘upgraded’ my lenses, and generally succumb to G.A.S.) ;D
So, without further ado, here is the order of speed, from fast to slow, using the phase detect – through a DSLR’s dedicated AF sensor, based on my 7D / 80D.

*1.*
Canon 18-135mm nanoUSM

*2.*
Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L ii
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L USM
Canon 16-35mm f/4 L USM
Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 USM
Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

*3.*
Sigma 8-16mm EX HSM
Sigma 10-20mm EX HSM
Canon 18-135mm STM
Canon 55-250mm STM
Canon 35mm L f/1.4 USM

*5.*
Canon 18-55mm STM
Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM
Canon 24mm f/2.8 STM

*6.*
Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM

*8.*
Canon 18-200mm IS
Canon 18-55mm IS ii
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon 18-55mm ii

*10.*
Canon 50mm f/1.8 ii
Tamron 18-250mm
Tamron 60mm f/2

There are a few Canon macro lenses I own (or have owned) that are worth a final mention, and I feel cannot really be placed in any group above, because of their unique characteristics.
As macro lenses are designed to focus down very close, the way they focus at close distances vs further distances varies more than the average lens.
Hence, it means in some instances they will act like lenses in the 2. Group (when smaller changes in focus distance are required), but when they have to ‘rack through’ a larger focus distance change, they might be more around a number 4. according to the above schema.
Canon 100mm macro L f/2.8 USM (depends where focussed) 
Canon 60mm macro f/2.8 USM (depends where focussed)
Canon 100mm macro f/2.8 USM (depends where focussed)

I will say (write) here, that like another person who posted in this thread, the first time I picked up the Canon 18-135mm nanoUSM lens on a brand new Canon 80D in store, I was totally impressed at the AF speed. I couldn’t believe how quick it focussed. I had the 18-135mm STM, and several USM lenses, and this lens was notably quicker. I did a direct comparison between it and the 35mm f/1.4 USM in the store – and it won hands down. I then compared it against other lenses at a later stage, and it still impressed as a super fast AF’ing lens. The 18-135mm nanoUSM in phase detect was blazingly fast, and also very fast in DPAF Live view.

Next, I will post my experiences about the lenses I have tried in Live View – I will limit this to DPAF in my 80D (and M5). The subset of lenses that I have used extensively enough in (DPAF) Live View to make a comparison against each other, is smaller than the list above.
While I have had other / older Canon cameras (e.g. 7D, 700D, 100D, etc) – that had varying speeds of Live View AF- none come close to that of the 80D and M5. I will say here, the 80D and M5 are actually very close to each other in terms of DPAF (Live View) speed.
I will also add a note about using EF to EF-M lens adapters, and how my experience with that has played out (albeit in a more limited capacity again). I have used a EF to EF-M adapter on my M5 (and also on my M10… but that’s another story! Lol)

I trust that my post here is somewhat helpful, and can generate more discussion – particularly as I share about my experiences in Live View, as I expect Canon will refine and improve the speed and sensitivity of DPAF moving forward, both for their FF mirrorless, but also for other cameras (e.g. DPAF Live View in DSLRs, and smaller mirrorless cameras, e.g. the successors to the M5, etc).

Regards

PJ 8)


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Mar 29, 2018)

pj1974 said:


> For the purpose of discussion about AF speed, and particularly as I see this being a major aspect of Canon’s more serious (future) FF MILC models, I will post a few replies in this thread.
> My replies will mainly relate to my experience of using several lenses on Canon DSLRs over the past 14 years, and also more recently with my Canon mirrorless cameras.
> I undertake a variety of photography, from birds in flight (BIF) to some sports, to active children, to wildlife, etc. So I have a reasonable ‘base’ from which to present these findings… though please note below, my ‘method’ is not as scientific as if I had equipment to measure AF speed of the various lenses (and then indeed, to test on various DSLR bodies).
> 
> ...


Thank you - that is a very interesting comparison. Unfortunately I cannot say how your results compare with mine as I don't own any of the lenses in your list. It is an impressive collection though.
Would you say that, generally speaking the lenses focus more quickly on your 7D and 80D than they do on your mirrorless camera with an adapter or is there little difference?


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 29, 2018)

LOL ... *few things* mirrorless cameras do better than mirrorslapping DSLRs ... well lets just start with biggest advantage: no slapping mirror in lightpath! ;D 8)

Resulting in a few advantages ... effective on every single capture!  

1. far LESS VIBRATION possible ... when combined with a decent mechanical shutter unit; ZERO VIBRATION with fully electronic solid-state global shutters 

2. far LESS NOISE possible ... even less than any "quiet mode" on any DSLR ... ZERO NOISE with global electronic shutter 

3. much SHORTER EXPOSURE TIMES possible 

4. much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second possible

5. NO FRONT- / BACK FOCUS possible
AF functionality on sensor = no front and no backfocus, at any aperture, at any focal length, no need for pesky"Micro-AF Adjustments" ...  

6. significantly SMALLER CAMERA BODIES possible ... no mirrorbox, no VF prism 

7. significantly LIGHTER CAMERAS possible - EVF lighter than mech mirror and VF glass prism 

8. WYSIWIG VIEWFINDER possible 

9. SHORTER FFD (flange focal distance) possible = more lens designs possible, more compact lenses possible 
much wider design space for lens designs than on any longer FFD DSLR. Everything that is possible with a DLSR and then a lot on top of that ... no problem to make short FFD longer on a MILC if/when needed [just look at those Sony FE lenses with their hollow extension tubes towards mount ... : ] ... but no chance to make FFD shorter on a DSLR ... with a swingin'-slappin' mirror just waiting to hit rear lens elements ... in short: short FFD makes very compact lenses for the most frequently used focal length range possible [provided lens mount parameters are "wisely chosen"] 

10. plus a whole slew of additional advantages possible with damn mirror(s) cleared out of lightpath for good ... I don't list here, since i am not much interested in them [especially video capture stuff] 

8) ;D


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 29, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Thank you - that is a very interesting comparison. Unfortunately I cannot say how your results compare with mine as I don't own any of the lenses in your list. It is an impressive collection though.
> Would you say that, generally speaking the lenses focus more quickly on your 7D and 80D than they do on your mirrorless camera with an adapter or is there little difference?



Hi Ian_of_glos

Thanks for replying... and reading through a pretty epic-length (almost epistle-length) post. 

Just clarifying, I do not currently own all those lenses now... I have upgraded a few lenses over the years... I have bought several quality lenses 2nd hand at great prices. 

I will post more details in a later (thread... it's bedtime soon here in Australia) - but to summarise, with a third party EF to EF-M adapter, most of my EF. EF-S lenses focus somewhat (slightly) slower on my Canon M5 compared to the same lenses in DPAF Live View on my 80D. There is a slight difference noticed when trying both next to each other. Slight, not huge difference.
(Bear in mind that Live view on my 7D is MUCH slower, as it is *not *DPAF - and it hunts much more). 

"Native" lenses, i.e. my EF-M lenses (e.g. Canon EF-M 15-45mm, Canon EF-M 18-150mm and Canon EF-M 18-55mm) on my M5 focus slightly quicker than the EF/EF-S STM lenses do (with my 3rd party / Andoer adapter). I would be curious if the Canon adapter is any quicker. (Some reports I have read say there is little difference between the Andoer and the Canon EF to EF-M adapter in terms of AF speed).

In all but the lowest of light, the STM lenses on my 80D with DPAF live view, and the EF-M lenses on my M5 seem to have a 'quick and smooth certainty' in obtaining focus, something I really like. I can see Canon improving an already very good DPAF system (speed, consistency and perhaps even smoothness) as their DPAF technology matures, which will likely be implemented in a FF MILC.

Here's to the (bright!) future!! 

Paul 8)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 29, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> LOL ... *few things* mirrorless cameras do better than mirrorslapping DSLRs ... well lets just start with biggest advantage: no slapping mirror in lightpath! ;D 8)
> 
> Resulting in a few advantages ... effective on every single capture!
> 
> ...



The first half of your listing (1 through 5) are not advantages to mirrorless. You state it as if, for example:
[A mirrorless has] much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second [_sic_] possible [than an SLR].

That’s clearly not true. Everything which facilitates the frame rate of a mirrorless camera can be put into one with a mirror. In case you weren’t aware, it moves, and can be held out of the way when desired. The same is true for vibration, exposure time, noise, and front/back focus.

You could have #8 too if you added another (e)VF for use in lockup mode.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> The first half of your listing (1 through 5) are not advantages to mirrorless. You state it as if, for example:
> [A mirrorless has] much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second [_sic_] possible [than an SLR].
> 
> That’s clearly not true. Everything which facilitates the frame rate of a mirrorless camera can be put into one with a mirror.



Yes, this is murky because you could just lock up the mirror and shoot in liveview. I always hate that rebuttal as it is technically true but highly impractical -- one presumes high fps shooters prefer to work through a viewfinder.

You could re-rack AvTvM's statement a different way. Without a mirror, the mirror is no longer rate-limiting the burst speed. So for a fixed cost you could expect higher framerates with the camera held up to your eye than an SLR, especially as time goes on* and higher framerates start to be offered on mid-level cameras.

*In other words, in 10 years, a $2k FF mirrorless very well might have 20 fps performance. I just don't see SLRs being able to do that in such a price point. I could be wrong.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > The first half of your listing (1 through 5) are not advantages to mirrorless. You state it as if, for example:
> ...



Two viewfinders - one optical for use with mirror down, and one electronic for use when mirror up (perhaps off to the left rangefinder style) - might look weird, but it wouldn’t be impractical.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Two viewfinders - one optical for use with mirror down, and one electronic for use when mirror up (perhaps off to the left rangefinder style) - might look weird, but it wouldn’t be impractical.



Seems like a super luxe / complicated option for the 1-series crowd someday. In 10-15 years: "There there, your next 1-series won't have an OVF, but you get _two_ with this one to soften the blow!" 

Speaking of dual/hybrid VFs, does anyone know how well does the XPro-1,2 + X100 line sell vs. the EVF only Fuji rigs?

Do those hybrid VFs work well? Never tried them myself.

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 29, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> 1. far LESS VIBRATION possible ... when combined with a decent mechanical shutter unit; ZERO VIBRATION with fully electronic solid-state global shutters
> 
> 2. far LESS NOISE possible ... even less than any "quiet mode" on any DSLR ... ZERO NOISE with global electronic shutter



Silent Shooting on Sony today causes fierce distortion on anything that moves. It's like using a product in beta.




AvTvM said:


> 3. much SHORTER EXPOSURE TIMES possible
> 
> 4. much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second possible



Because, 1/8000 is just not fast enough.



AvTvM said:


> 5. NO FRONT- / BACK FOCUS possible
> AF functionality on sensor = no front and no backfocus, at any aperture, at any focal length, no need for pesky"Micro-AF Adjustments" ...



But, AF functionality on sensor = inferior AF. Find me a mirrorless that autofocuses as quickly as a 1DXII or 850D in both things that move quickly and when it's even a little darker.




AvTvM said:


> 6. significantly SMALLER CAMERA BODIES possible ... no mirrorbox, no VF prism
> 
> 7. significantly LIGHTER CAMERAS possible - EVF lighter than mech mirror and VF glass prism



Camera bodies CAN be smaller, yes. But to make them ergonomically comfortable to use, you have to bulk them back up again. And you've been shown time and again that as an aggregate weight, it's not lighter in any meaningful way. Yes, you'll save the weight of the mirror and prism, you'll even save the weight of an autofocus sensor! But how many grams is that?




AvTvM said:


> 8. WYSIWIG VIEWFINDER possible



Yes, this is true.



AvTvM said:


> 9. SHORTER FFD (flange focal distance) possible = more lens designs possible, more compact lenses possible
> much wider design space for lens designs than on any longer FFD DSLR. Everything that is possible with a DLSR and then a lot on top of that ... no problem to make short FFD longer on a MILC if/when needed [just look at those Sony FE lenses with their hollow extension tubes towards mount ... : ] ... but no chance to make FFD shorter on a DSLR ... with a swingin'-slappin' mirror just waiting to hit rear lens elements ... in short: short FFD makes very compact lenses for the most frequently used focal length range possible [provided lens mount parameters are "wisely chosen"]



Yes, a shorter FFD is possible, but that doesn't mean that it's a great idea. Sony has been showing us why it hasn't for a few years now.




AvTvM said:


> 10. plus a whole slew of additional advantages possible with damn mirror(s) cleared out of lightpath for good ... I don't list here, since i am not much interested in them [especially video capture stuff]



Yes, we know that you only care about focal lengths up to 100mm, don't like lens controls like focus and zoom, and you care more about the size of your full frame camera than pretty much anything else.

But that doesn't describe a viable professional photography market, so you'll need to keep dreaming about your dream camera. Most people who have those sorts of criteria are over the moon with something like a Galaxy S9.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Two viewfinders - one optical for use with mirror down, and one electronic for use when mirror up (perhaps off to the left rangefinder style) - might look weird, but it wouldn’t be impractical.
> ...



I don’t think it would be significantly more complicated than having an OVF and a rear LCD like all modern DSLRs. You would need the EVF optics, but there’s plenty of room for that. 

I’m not claiming it’s a *good* approach, but it’s certainly doable to achieve both OVF and EVF in one body without a weird hybrid approach which impairs both.


----------



## Talys (Mar 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...




The coolest mechanism would be something you could twist to give you optical or electronic; either a viewfinder that you could reverse, or something that could flip a EVF into place.

I do think that eventually, EVFs can be indistinguishable from OVFs, and that the autofocussing issues I'm unhappy with can be resolved. But because of factors like battery, OVFs will be a reality for a while yet. Keep in mind that even after all this time, automatic, mechanical watches are not only still produced, but are considered luxury items at the top of the food chain -- some cost as much or more as folks' houses. And mechanical watches still serve a practical purpose, for example, with sailors who use them to navigate.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 29, 2018)

mechanical watches. lol. luxury accessories, nothing else. a 10 dollar electronic watch shows time more accurately than any mechanical watch. for 1 or 2 years, not for 1 or 2 weeks. 

mechanical shenanugans are nothing but luxury toys today. slapping mirrors and submirrors ... lol. soon only to be seen behing glass in museums and private collections. next to their red- dotted rangefinder brethren. lol


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 29, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> mechanical shenanugans are nothing but luxury toys today. slapping mirrors and submirrors ... lol. soon only to be seen behing glass in museums and private collections. next to their red- dotted rangefinder brethren. lol



Remind me, good sir: how many awards were won in 2017 with the solid state rigs you claim have relegated SLRs to luxury toy status?

https://petapixel.com/2017/02/16/cameras-captured-winning-shots-world-press-photo-2017/

You see, AvTvM, sometimes I agree with you in what you think will happen over time. But then you write posts describing the world like it's actually the year 2038, and then I wonder if you were sent back in time to lecture us. Because only then would your last post make any sense.

- A


----------



## Talys (Mar 30, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> mechanical watches. lol. luxury accessories, nothing else. a 10 dollar electronic watch shows time more accurately than any mechanical watch. for 1 or 2 years, not for 1 or 2 weeks.
> 
> mechanical shenanugans are nothing but luxury toys today. slapping mirrors and submirrors ... lol. soon only to be seen behing glass in museums and private collections. next to their red- dotted rangefinder brethren. lol



Dude, you took that hook, line, and sinker. Mechanical watches accounted for 77% of the wristwatch marketshare, versus electronic watches, and that's with smartwatches factored in. The two largest watchmakers are Swatch/Omega, at $8.8 billion in sales a year, and Rolex at $4.5 billion.

Nobody questions that a quartz (electronic) watch keeps time better than a mechanical one. But people buy mechanical watches for a whole slew of other reasons -- just like, people don't just choose cameras because of their size or weight, dynamic range, or ability to masterfully record test posters.

Wristwatch industry stats: https://www.statisticbrain.com/wrist-watch-industry-statistics/


Now, I'm not criticizing Casios or Seikos or championing Rolexes or Apples -- No more than I am Sonys or Leicas. But they don't solve everyone's need in every situation; quite to the opposite, the needs of the market are broad as they are deep, and there is a place for all sorts of cameras, just as there is for watches, even if it's a watch or camera you'd never personally be interested in.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > mechanical watches. lol. luxury accessories, nothing else. a 10 dollar electronic watch shows time more accurately than any mechanical watch. for 1 or 2 years, not for 1 or 2 weeks.
> ...



So, we're up to two industries where AvTvM has demonstrated the knowledge and business acumen of a bit of fluffy navel lint. 

Of course, he's only discussed two industries so far...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 30, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Not to mention (and this is being really REALLY pedantic): the key component in all electronic watches is a moving part.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


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


Yes, but the watch is mirrorless.....


----------



## Talys (Mar 30, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



LOL ^.^

Good one


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 30, 2018)

see you at the mechanical watch and mirrorslapper museum ... and the wait won't be as long as you thought


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> see you at the mechanical watch and mirrorslapper museum ... and the wait won't be as long as you thought



I suppose you're right. I was thinking it would be about this long:







...but it will probably happen a few years before that.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 30, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> see you at the mechanical watch and mirrorslapper museum ... and the wait won't be as long as you thought



Let me know when it is; I’ll set the alarm on my quartz-wobbler.


----------



## degos (Mar 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> Dude, you took that hook, line, and sinker. Mechanical watches accounted for 77% of the wristwatch marketshare, versus electronic watches, and that's with smartwatches factored in.



77% by value, not volume. The vast vast majority of the watch-buying public buy something with a quartz oscillator in it. All the Swiss watch makers could blink out of existence tomorrow and there wouldn't be a ripple of time-keeping disruption. They are frankly insignificant to the daily world.

Your argument is like saying that the 1D and 5D lines are the dominant cameras in the World. By revenue perhaps but Canon sells a couple of magnitudes more Rebels than those combined and in turn those lag smartphones by a couple of.magnitudes. Most photos made today are not from an SLR. Canon could close down SLR production tomorrow and most people wouldn't notice or care.

.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 30, 2018)

degos said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, you took that hook, line, and sinker. Mechanical watches accounted for 77% of the wristwatch marketshare, versus electronic watches, and that's with smartwatches factored in.
> ...



That is almost certainly true, but also, most mechanical watches these days have battery + quartz driven movements. In other words, many of those with quartz oscillators are also geared mechanical watches. A better distinction is mechanical versus digital.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> degos said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Apparently those of us with sundials are not a significant sector of the market...... but more importantly, isn’t this thread about waiting for mirrorless FF cameras..... oh wait, you can clock the progress on a sundial..... I gues it is relevant


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 31, 2018)

slclick said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Plus they’re also based on moving parts ( in particular the earth relative to the sun), which AvTVM no likey.


----------



## Talys (Mar 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> degos said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I supplied the link to the source: https://www.statisticbrain.com/wrist-watch-industry-statistics/

There is good breakdown information there. China and Hong Kong account for about a billion out of 1.2 billion wristwatches. But, because they're only worth about $3 each, whereas Swiss watches are worth $739 (and are largely mechanical) the Chinese watches account for a small piece of the value pie. The Chinese slice of the profit pie is probably infinitessimally small compared to the Swiss watchmakers.

The analogy that I was drawing was simply that people buy products for a wide variety of reasons that aren't always obvious, and may not make sense to some. Some of us may have tunnel vision, conflating our own preferences for market viability.

Just like AvTvM did, it's easy to jump from, "I would never buy a mechanical wristwatch" to, "Mechanical wristwatches are dead". Now, just drop in DSLRs.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



everything seems to have a built-in clock these days..... your phone, your computer, the stove, the microwave, the car, the bicycle computer, the camera(s)..... you can't seem to be able to get away from time sources, so I have not bought or worn a watch for at least 20 years...

The only time I can remember buying something specifically to tell time were a bunch or GPS trained rubidium clocks for work...... not exactly something that you wear on the wrist!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 31, 2018)

Talys said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > degos said:
> ...



Yah I looked at the link, I’m just not clear on where they draw the distinction between mechanical and electronic. In my experience, watches are usually categorized as quartz, manual, or automatic, but as mentioned quartz watches are often mechanical.

I’d call both of these mechanical, and the one on my wrist. But one (left) has a quartz oscillator, one (right) is automatic, and one (not pictured but part of the 3% listing) is manual.

Edit: for some reason the picture flipped, so reverse which left with right in the above.
Edit 2: it’s only flipped in the thumbnail, and yes: neither are set


----------



## Talys (Mar 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Yah I looked at the link, I’m just not clear on where they draw the distinction between mechanical and electronic. In my experience, watches are usually categorized as quartz, manual, or automatic, but as mentioned quartz watches are often mechanical.
> 
> I’d call both of these mechanical, and the one on my wrist. But one (left) has a quartz oscillator, one (right) is automatic, and one (not pictured but part of the 3% listing) is manual.
> 
> ...



You're actually confusing the display type with the movement mechanism. The watches that you're describing have an Analog display (as opposed to Digital).

In the wristwatch industry, mechanical is defined as being powered by a spring, meaning either automatic or manual wind -- regardless of the price.

So, even a $6,000 Cartier that's battery-powered is considered an electronic (quartz) watch. An Omega Seamaster can be either, even though they are practically indistinguishable from the exterior.

Not every mechanical watch is expensive. There are plenty of cheap ones that cost almost nothing made out of China: 

https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/mechanical-watches

There is actually an obvious benefit to wind-up mechanical watches over quartz, if you need a time piece. If you're in a poorer part of the world, for example, both a cheap wind-up and a cheap quartz are equally affordable/inexpensive, but one doesn't need a battery to be replaced. Maybe nobody on this forum would consider buying a cheap wind-up, but a lot of them are still made and sold to this day (and if they weren't being bought, even in the US, Walmart wouldn't sell them).

Bringing this full circle back to cameras, a good parallel to this is why a (relatively) inexpensive DSLR like the 4000D could potentially be viable in less affluent parts of the world.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 31, 2018)

I was actually only taking about the movement. I’m not a huge watch guy (I only have those and the wind-up Patek Philippe on my wrist), but I’ve never come across that distinction between analog and digital display. It seems to me that if there are gears and jewels, etc, it’s mechanical, even if the frequency is maintained by a crystal. But I’ll take your word for it.


----------



## Talys (Mar 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I was actually only taking about the movement. I’m not a huge watch guy (I only have those and the Patek Philippe on my wrist), but I’ve never come across that distinction between mechanical and digital display. It seems to me that if there are gears and jewels, etc, it’s mechanical, even if the frequency is maintained by a crystal. But I’ll take your word for it.



Thanks 8) It's analog/digital on the display; mechanical/electronic (or quartz) on the movement.

I am actually NOT really a watch guy, but one of my best friends is, and I have purchased for him relatively inexpensive but rare mechanical watches for several of his birthdays. I've learned everything through osmosis from him 

I am shocked at the price of some mechanical watches. They put the prices of super teles to shame, lol.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 31, 2018)

Hah yah you can spend millions on a watch. Sometimes it’s just a stupid bunch of gemstones covering something which obstensibly tells time, but in the case if wristwatches with several complications in a unique movement, you’re taking a mechanical work of art (Vacheron Constantin comes to mind).


----------



## Rocky (Mar 31, 2018)

For "spinning pendulum" timed mechanical watch, the second hand movement is continuous.
For "quartz" timed mechanical watch, the second hand movement is stepping each second.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 31, 2018)

Let's not forget the quartz actually moves too. It vibrates an exact number of times each second.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 31, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Let's not forget the quartz actually moves too. It vibrates an exact number of times each second.



... that’s how we got here


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 31, 2018)

Rocky said:


> For "spinning pendulum" timed mechanical watch, the second hand movement is continuous.
> For "quartz" timed mechanical watch, the second hand movement is stepping each second.



And that's how one spots a fake Rolex.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 31, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > For "spinning pendulum" timed mechanical watch, the second hand movement is continuous.
> ...


Some fake Rolex are so good that they are fully mechanical, case and band look exactly like the real one. One trick is to weight them with accuracy up to 0.1 gram


----------



## Talys (Mar 31, 2018)

Rocky said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



It's too bad there aren't cheap 200-400 knockoffs that are indistinguishable except for a tenth-gram weight difference


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 31, 2018)

Rocky said:


> For "spinning pendulum" timed mechanical watch, the second hand movement is continuous.
> For "quartz" timed mechanical watch, the second hand movement is stepping each second.



Why would a "spinning pendulum" preclude the use of an escapement?

Further, the smoothest Rolex second hand movements are quartz modulated.

"_A few of Seiko's high-end models have a truly continuous second hand sweep with no mechanically induced stutter if they use a movement type called spring drive, which uses a quartz mechanism to regulate the timepiece so that it doesn't need to have an oscillating balance wheel while preserving the fundamentally mechanical nature of the timepiece. _"


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 31, 2018)

i must admit, that i do prefer analog DISPLAY on timepieces. Because i am old enough to have grown up with it ... clockface, 2 clock-hands/needles ... 1 quick glance and i know what time it is, with more than sufficient precision for anything i do. 

That said, i dont want or like mechanical/geared stuff ... so in my ideal world, a watch is fully electronic, solid state .... if a small bit of slightly swinging quartz is included that's fine with me, long as it does not make any noise audible to me or any vibrations perceptible for me ... with an ANALOG-LOOK clockface. e.g. LCD or OLED or whatever electronic display showing time not in figures but on a (virtual) clockface with 2 moving virtual clockhands. 100% mechanics-free. 

my first own wristwatch was a digital Seiko ... similar to this "James Bond" version here. 





Way back in the mid 1970s ... sub-optimal, because interface was not as intuitive as clockface with 2 hands. But way cool, was the first guy in town sporting one. lol 

My first own car had a digital speedometer ... with those shiny red LED figures. No needle moving. Just those number racing from 0 to 200 in one smooth rapid flow when accelerating. LOL. Loved it. 






"way back" in 1986 ... 

Now, more than 30 years later I still should have to put up with mirror and submirrors slapping when all i want is a a truly electronic, fully digital Canon camera with a 36x24mm sensor. No f+cking way, stupid Canon!


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 31, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> i must admit, that i do prefer analog DISPLAY on timepieces.



Now you've really disappointed me ! I'd have sworn that you'd have been one of the few people left in the developed world who wears a digital display watch ! ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 31, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Further, the smoothest Rolex second hand movements are quartz modulated.



I didn’t know they did that, but I do know they had a line of quartz watches.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 31, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> i must admit, that i do prefer analog DISPLAY on timepieces. Because i am old enough to have grown up with it ... clockface, 2 clock-hands/needles ... 1 quick glance and i know what time it is, with more than sufficient precision for anything i do.


Now you understand the importance of a comfortable user interface and ergonomics. While a digital watch can make it easier to see the precise time, an analog watch is quick, easy and comfortable.



> That said, i dont want or like mechanical/geared stuff ... so in my ideal world


Your ideal world. Others may have different preferences.



> Now, more than 30 years later I still should have to put up with mirror and submirrors slapping when all i want is


Why is this about what you should have to "put up with?"

I recently went looking for a new watch, and was astonished at the variety available at very low cost. Considering how much more expensive it is to make ILC's, it's not really feasible to create a similar variety that will satisfy each person's individual ergonomic and aesthetic preferences. Manufacturers produce what they think will be profitable. You must simply learn that you can't have everything you, personally, want. It'll happen when the manufacturers think it's time, and one vocal advocate is likely seen as an outlier, or a counterexample, rather than as a sign of the trend. They'll go by sales statistics, not forum post statistics.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 31, 2018)

just the other way round. Stupid Canon will soon enough realize that i - AND MANY OTHERS - will simply refuse to buy their wares any longer, if they continue to only offer hopelessly antiquated designs [mirrorslappers]. 

Canon's revenues and profits dont matter to me. They only matter to them. And to some apologists in forums.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 31, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> just the other way round. Stupid Canon will soon enough realize that i - AND MANY OTHERS



Evidence?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2018)

I have a smartwatch that allows me to choose an analog-style clock face, a digital clock face, or a combination display, as I choose.

Wouldn't it be great if my ILC offered a mirror and OVF for quick response, tracking, and better battery life, but could also get the mirror out of the way to show the sensor feed for a WYSIWYG display, enhanced brightness in dim light, and information overlays? Yeah...I'd really like an ILC like that!!


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 31, 2018)

I waited ten years for a watch that had the features that I wanted. Unfortunately, I was late a lot during that period.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 31, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> I waited ten years for a watch that had the features that I wanted. Unfortunately, I was late a lot during that period.



;D ;D ;D 8)


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have a smartwatch that allows me to choose an analog-style clock face, a digital clock face, or a combination display, as I choose.
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if my ILC offered a mirror and OVF for quick response, tracking, and better battery life, but could also get the mirror out of the way to show the sensor feed for a WYSIWYG display, enhanced brightness in dim light, and information overlays? Yeah...I'd really like an ILC like that!!


There was discussion of this a while back when the rumor floated that a "hybrid" VF was in the works. I agree, this would be a nice transition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I have a smartwatch that allows me to choose an analog-style clock face, a digital clock face, or a combination display, as I choose.
> ...



Forgot my disingenuous [sarcasm] tag. 

No transition needed. Think dSLR + Live View.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> No transition needed. Think dSLR + Live View.



The technology is largely there, yes, but a transition is still needed if you want to do this all through the viewfinder like I do. I'm keenly interested in shooting manual lenses handheld, and I have no desire to do that with the camera held out 6-12" in front of my eye.

That said, I don't need a hybrid. Pure EVF would work for me as I don't use servo or high fps shooting that often. I'm shooting One Shot almost all the time, so an EVF that can do One Shot _with benefits_ would be attractive.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'm keenly interested in shooting manual lenses handheld, and I have no desire to do that with the camera held out 6-12" in front of my eye.
> - A



If you're looking at stills photography and relatively shallow dof don't hold your breath 

I have found that the various unmagnified aids in the more recent EVF are pretty flawed when it comes to accuracy. In fact with manual, very fast lenses I'd say the 's' screen is still more accurate. Focus peaking with manual lenses sounds great in theory, but unless the dof is genuinely very shallow, say for instance the eyelashes in a tight head portrait on an 85mm, the graduation of contrast makes it pretty inaccurate. Magnifying does make it accurate but that's pretty darn useless most of the time when having a viewfinder up to your eye. 

A little like digital display watches mirrorless in its present state on larger cameras will rise and fall - - a Sporgon prediction


----------



## slclick (Mar 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > No transition needed. Think dSLR + Live View.
> ...



Have you used an M5? The EVF is pretty good imo. My opinion is based upon first using an Olympus Pen F which truly sucks big time...lag and jumpiness wise. Plus it was far too contrasty. If you are mainly shooting stills and non moving objects, the AF Touch and Drag setting of Absolute gives great control with AF of small areas. I prefer using the right side of the screen with my right thumb while using the EVF


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 31, 2018)

slclick said:


> Have you used an M5? The EVF is pretty good imo. My opinion is based upon first using an Olympus Pen F which truly sucks big time...lag and jumpiness wise. Plus it was far too contrasty. If you are mainly shooting stills and non moving objects, the AF Touch and Drag setting of Absolute gives great control with AF of small areas. I prefer using the right side of the screen with my right thumb while using the EVF



Negative, though I'm guessing I'd be fine with it. My AF needs are modest -- spread of points I'll take as 'pro' / comprehensive as possible, but otherwise I don't really put my 5D3 AF through its paces. So I'm guessing I would have been a fine early adopter to mirrorless.

I just love my 5D3 and what has come out since isn't worth its delta in performance over what I already have, nor will it get me to shoot more and improve my game. So I'm good for now.

- A


----------



## slclick (Mar 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Have you used an M5? The EVF is pretty good imo. My opinion is based upon first using an Olympus Pen F which truly sucks big time...lag and jumpiness wise. Plus it was far too contrasty. If you are mainly shooting stills and non moving objects, the AF Touch and Drag setting of Absolute gives great control with AF of small areas. I prefer using the right side of the screen with my right thumb while using the EVF
> ...



That's my other body as well and I'm in the same boat as I don't shoot servo that often and never video so the 5D3's AF is more than enough for my needs. The M5 is a great little compliment to it as well. I'm packing my M5 travel kit now as I speak.


----------



## TAF (Mar 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, even if a mirrorless is on, the viewfinder is not powered unless I bring my eye close to it. As I'm settling in to take the shot, there are precious fractions of a second lost. If it's in sleep or just turned on, the blackout period is longer. Half or a third of a second doesn't feel like much, but every moment counts.
> ...




Thank you folks for this discussion. The VF response issue is something I hadn't given much thought to, but when laid out like this, it certainly looks like something Canon would have to take into consideration if they hope to sell the new camera to sports photographers (who, like bird is flight and air show and other highly dynamic events) who will likely be the initial market (my estimate of the situation).


----------



## TAF (Mar 31, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> My first own car had a digital speedometer ... with those shiny red LED figures. No needle moving. Just those number racing from 0 to 200 in one smooth rapid flow when accelerating. LOL. Loved it.



What type of car was that? I don't recognize the instrument cluster.


----------



## TAF (Mar 31, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> LOL ... *few things* mirrorless cameras do better than mirrorslapping DSLRs ... well lets just start with biggest advantage: no slapping mirror in lightpath! ;D 8)
> 
> Resulting in a few advantages ... effective on every single capture!
> 
> ...



1-5: great list of advantages.

6 misses the point of the original post, which was a 5DV vs 5DVm - so not applicable to the discussion.

7. Good point.

8. Good point.

9. Again, not applicable to the original postulated introduction.

Since a 5DVm would would be advantageous to me, I think I will start saving my money. I figure I have about a year to save the $3500 it will no doubt cost.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


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


Forgot my [playing the straight man] tag.



> No transition needed. Think dSLR + Live View.


How about hybrid through the VF? How about HUD (optional/configurable) on the OVF view? It is a transition. This is one area where I agree with AvTvM: the mirror will eventually go away, I've just given up predicting when.


----------



## zim (Mar 31, 2018)

TAF said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > My first own car had a digital speedometer ... with those shiny red LED figures. No needle moving. Just those number racing from 0 to 200 in one smooth rapid flow when accelerating. LOL. Loved it.
> ...



KITT


----------



## Talys (Mar 31, 2018)

zim said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



hahaha

The first car I had with a digital odometer was a Corvette LT-1. I absolutely despised that odometer; it was by far the worst part of the car.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 1, 2018)

Talys said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > TAF said:
> ...



I has a pinto once..... a very underpowered car.....

It would have been great with a digital dash, and even better with audio output.....

That thing was so slow you could have used the voice from "the Count" from Sesame Street to yell out the speed when accelerating. 
ONE! ha ha ha ha
TWO! ha ha ha ha
THREE! ha ha ha ha


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 1, 2018)

car with digital dashboard was a (ultra-)compact, ultra-light Fiat Uno Turbo i.e. (Mk. I series) ... must have been 1986 when i bought it. Accelerated and handled like a go-cart. Especially fun on narrow, winding mountain roads (in dry conditions ... lol). Really fun little car. Digital Dashboard worked quite well and attracted quite a bit of attention at the time. 

Would ofc have preferred a digital HUD ... with "analog", non-numeric display ... virtual dials and needles


----------



## stevelee (Apr 2, 2018)

I had a 1989 Nissan Maxima. Great car until I totaled it. The digital clock kept perfect time. However the display of the time rarely worked. Twice a year sometime when I could see it, I would change it to standard or daylight time as the case might be, but the minutes reading was always right. It was generally worthless for telling time, of course, since you usually couldn’t see it. 

For years I wore $25ish Cassio or Timex watches. I didn’t use most of the functions, but did enjoy having two or more time zones to switch between at the touch of a button when traveling. When I retired, I was given a golden Seiko. It looks nice, but I have to set the date manually after months with fewer than 31 days and the time when changing zones or DST. If I set it carefully, it is never a whole second off with that frequency of reset. When the battery needs replacing, the second hand moves in two second skips. 

I have the GPS set the time on the 6D2, but I have to set DST manually. Even my house thermostat does that on its own. If I ever take it to another time zone, I guess I’ll have to tell it that. 

It’s not very sophisticated as a clock, but more on topic, I really like using the OVF, so even after reading these mirorless threads, I still don’t have any interest in getting one. I do use live view as needed and like having the moving screen. And if I want to use a camera that is small and light (and doesn’t have a mirror), there’s my G7X II.


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 2, 2018)

On page 20 of this (long!) thread, I posted my experience and observations of phase detect AF speed with various lenses 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34742.msg714836#msg714836

I am now following up (as I had indicated) with the AF speed of various lenses in Dual Pixel Auto Focus (DPAF) Live View based on my Canon 80D which I have had for around a year. I have not used as many lenses in DPAF, nor as extenisvely in DPAF as I have with phase detect, hence the list is shorter below.

The lenses listed below are lenses I have used sufficiently in order to have a good understanding of their speed in Live View using Canon's DPAF. 
I will 'loosely' use the same 'numerical' rating and grouping that I used before. That is, 1 is the quickest, and higher numbers are slower. Gaps in numbers indicate larger speed differences.

Please note the following for reference: the Canon 18-13mm nanoUSM was "1." in my earlier previous / listing - in phase detect AF. Meaning it was the clear winner (the quickest auto focussing lens) I have used on a 80D. Noteably quicker than the 70-200mm f/2.8 ii. 
The 18-135mm nanoUSM is still the quickest AF lens when it comes to Live View (DPAF) - but not quite as quick as in it was in phase detect. Hence I give it a numerical rating of 3. That means I experience it about as fast as my Sigma HSM lenses (in phase detect), and also as fast as Canon's fastest EF-S STM lenses e.g. 55-250mm STM (in phase detect AF).

3.
Canon 18-135mm nanoUSM

5.
Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 USM
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L USM

7.
Canon 18-135mm STM
Canon 55-250mm STM

8.
Canon 35mm L f/1.4 USM
Canon 18-55mm STM
Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM
Canon 24mm f/2.8 STM

9.
Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM
Sigma 8-16mm EX HSM

10.
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM

12.
Canon 18-55mm IS ii
Canon 55-250mm IS ii
Canon 18-200mm IS

13.
Canon 18-55mm ii

14.
Canon 50mm f/1.8 ii

In Live View on the 80D, the Tamron lenses (Tamron 18-250mm and Tamron 60mm f/2) were very inconsistent to focus. Sometimes they would give the 'red square' (unable to focus) even in good light with decent contrast, but the subject was in focus. Other times they would rack back and forth and 'stutter' near the point of correct focus... so I cannot really include them. Just shows that some of the (at least older) 3rd party lenses won't AF well in PDAF. However my Sigma 8-16mm HSM is actually very good (smooth, relatively quick and accurate).
(I probably should have placed the Tamron 60mm f/2 (macro) lens in the same category as my Canon macro lenses...) :

Quick note about my methodology of autofocus 'testing' / user experience... I am talking about having the lens (manually) focussed to infinity and a subject around 2 metres from me. Then separately, also manually focussing to the minimal focussing distance (MFD).. and focussing on a subject about 10 to 20 metres away... and I 'average out' these. Some lenses take longer one way than the other, whereas other lenses (particularly most of Canon's true ring USM) seem about equally as quick.

I have found the (live view) AF speed of my M5 may be marginally slower with the same lenses (using my 3rd party / Andoer) EF to EF-M lens adapter, but there is not much in it.
The EF-M lenses natively mounted on my M5 are indeed quick.

As a final note... even before DPAF the AF speed in Live View on successive Canon cameras has consistently become faster, e.g. my 700D and 100D focussed notably quicker and more consistently and accurately than my 7D or 600D did in Live View. But DPAF trumps all Canon's previous Live View AF versions!  

Regards

PJ 8)


----------



## Talys (Apr 2, 2018)

@pj - I would definitely concur that the EFS 18-135 USM (Nano) on the 80D using PDAF is the fastest autofocusing lens I have ever seen -- period. It's so damned fast that many times in continuous autofocus I don't even notice the focus shift. For me, this is the gold standard of autofocus, and I wish all other lenses could be this fast.

However, three negatives about nano:

1. The EFS17-135 isn't as consistent as L lenses, sadly -- at least not my copy, based on FoCal. It's still very good, mind you, and near the top of the pack of non-L lenses. 

2. The EF70-300 USM II (the nano one) is not anywhere near as fast. It's much faster than the old 70-300, but it's slower than current generation f/4 L's and f/2.8 L's; also, the consistency on my copy was horrible.

3. They're both focus by wire, and unfortunately, I think that's the fate and nature of Nano USM. Crocodile tears here, over that one.


----------

