# FF EOS-M?



## adhocphotographer (Jun 7, 2013)

Does anyone know if the EF-M lenses have a big enough image circle to work on a FF Sensor in a M body? If not, the emergence of a FF M is very very unlikely!


----------



## drolo61 (Jun 7, 2013)

Clever thinking, would be also keen to know...


----------



## haloGRAPH (Jun 7, 2013)

dpreview says: 

The EF-M mount is 58mm in diameter, with a flange distance of 18mm from the bayonet to the sensor. As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen.

Here is the full Preview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m


----------



## infared (Jun 7, 2013)

How about any M with a viewfinder that can perform competitively in 2013....that would be a step forward.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 7, 2013)

I think the best you could hope for would be a full frame M that works with EF lenses and the adaptors in FF mode, and APS-C mode with EF-m lenses fitted (similar to using Nikon DX lenses on an FX body)

I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless. They just haven't got the concept. Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

The quality from APS-C is great, and has been proven to be exceptional (with the Sony 16MP and 24MP chips) if you really really really must have full frame, then I'm afraid you are going to need a bigger camera. In fact why not just do it properly and get a medium format DSLR?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 7, 2013)

adhocphotographer said:


> Does anyone know if the EF-M lenses have a big enough image circle to work on a FF Sensor in a M body? If not, the emergence of a FF M is very very unlikely!


How does the current EF-M image circle not being "big enough" have anything to do with the emergence of a FF M? *if* and *when* Canon does decide to make a full frame EOS-M I'm pretty sure they would rather produce new lenses for their customers to buy than to let customers use the old lenses and lose out on making profit.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> ...
> 
> I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless. They just haven't got the concept. Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.
> 
> ...



I am one of these folks ;-) ... because
* it enables (r)evolutionary lens designs without retrofocus constructions
* it reduces size, mass, complexity for the mirrorbox and the penta prism
* it would help to reuse my FD lens collection with their great manual focus rings - for video e.g. - via an adaptor (if a FF mirrorless of canon hasn't a native EF mount).

But your arguments about image quality are very important: I am learning
to get out the most of the 40D sensor *technically* which has just 10 Mpix and is 6 or
7 years old (in terms of technology). So: APS-C is at least comparable to the
best 35mm film cameras/films if not a lot better.

Tool-wise I am well equipped - the largest "construction site" for me ist to
get out the most of a camera system in terms of technical quality and
*creativity* - I still have to improve the latter one!


----------



## m (Jun 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless. They just haven't got the concept. Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.



Isn't the opposite one of the reason why people like the leica system?


----------



## noisejammer (Jun 7, 2013)

m said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless. They just haven't got the concept. Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.
> ...


The OM-Zuiko lenses were similarly sized. None of the Leica M-flange lenses offer autofocus which reduces diameter enormously. Secondly, the lens register is 27.80 mm compared with 18 for EOS-M.
Third, the aperture in an EOS-M flange is too small to permit a 24x35 frame to be fully illuminated by a lens with a larger register.

My third point is critical - it forces the lens' exit pupil to lie fairly close to the flange. If you were to use a 24x36 sensor, together with an EOS-M flange, light from the centre of the lens would reach the corners with an angle of incidence of (something like 45-50 degrees. This corresponds to a light cone of about f/0.5 - f/0.4. It's already well established that the sensors have difficulty detecting light from a f/1.4 light cone, so corner pixels wouldn't actually detect any light.

Among my cameras, I own a Fuji X-E1. In all seriousness, it gives my 5D2 a run for it's money. This has lead me to rethink the real value of large sensors.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless. They just haven't got the concept. Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.



One day soon Canon will finally be forced to come up with a super-compact (think Sony RX-1 size) hi-performance FF mirrorless body plus a couple of tiny but fully FF-capable pancake lenses with AF (think EF 40/2.8 size) and an adaptor for EF lenses. And if they manage to do so before somebody else does, I will buy it from Canon ...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 7, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless. They just haven't got the concept. Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.
> ...



I'm not so sure it has to go that way. A mirrorless might make the wider lenses smaller/lighter but f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses are never going to be pocketable. For longer lenses (i.e. 70-200), I don't think it'd make much difference in weight/length at all. Where I hope Canon goes is to first produce a mirrorless camera that has the same sensor distance that uses electronic shutters to boost flash sync speeds and to get rid of the mirror to push the FPS higher. To make that happen, EVF need to get better/cheaper, AF needs to get better, and the overall cost to the consumer needs to be similar.

There is a reason why the RX-1 can not change lenses. If people think the EOS-M options are too slow (to maintain compact size) or too large, then the prospects of a FF version being sucessful drop a lot. Now, if they can shrink the electronics/parts of the 5DIII similarly to the T5i/SL1, then that'll be something.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 7, 2013)

My opinion: (1) FF is a marketing gimmick to sell over-priced cameras; and (2) the 100D should have been a mirrorless camera, similar to the Panasonic G6 or GH3.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 9, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> My opinion: (1) FF is a marketing gimmick to sell over-priced cameras; and (2) the 100D should have been a mirrorless camera, similar to the Panasonic G6 or GH3.



Absolutely ! FF mirrorless at this time misses the major sales advantage - the reduction in size of the camera, the 100D would have been an ideal starter, but perhaps Canon don't feel that EVF/AF tech is good enough at the price for the 100D.

I don't doubt that FF mirrorless will come to the EOS entry/mid/pro ranges at some point in the future, probably with mirrored DSLR's becoming obsolete in the range in the next 5-15 year timeframe depending on how quickly EVF and the associated AF technologies develop.


----------



## optikus (Jun 9, 2013)

Hello together,

my opinion is very good representated by a comparison of EOS 100D and EOS M. Both systems are physically optimized for APS-C-sensor, so you can interpolate e.g. to an hypothetical FF-M and the 6D as a rel. small FF-DSLR.

What's the difference?

EOS-M is only slightly smaller then the EOS 100D, if you apply a fast lens or a longer zoom. EOS-M because you must choice a EOS-Lens + Adapter, but even if Canon introduces longer M-Lenses with faster design, I'm noit shure if we will see this, the advantage "weight" ans "outer dimensions" are gone. No optical viewer is the next point, solvable with electronic means, but this moment there is none. The autofocus issue is to solve, next firmware will improve it shurely.

FF-Lenses will due to the physical facte be larger, even with a shorter mount-dimension, so the advantage of smaller dimensions will not be as significant as perhaps estimated. The advantages of the missing mirror and perhaps the missing mechanical shutter - permanent availiability of sensor-data for metering and autofokus - are not consequently used today.

Therefor for serious use I postulate some things which have to be happened until a Replacement of the mirror makes seriously sense:

- adequate electronic wysiwig-viewfinder
- permanent autofokus in the quality of the actual systems, incl. sensitivity under low ligh
- compatibility-bridge to the existing system
- new body-desing to bring serious advantage to the user.

Jörg


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2013)

optikus said:


> Therefor for serious use I postulate some things which have to be happened until a Replacement of the mirror makes seriously sense:
> 
> - adequate electronic wysiwig-viewfinder
> - permanent autofokus in the quality of the actual systems, incl. sensitivity under low ligh
> ...



On all four points above ... micro-4/3 is check, check, check & check. Mirrorless technology is here, now and fully usable. Conclusion? Canon is falling behind, as is Nikon, with only their lenses keeping the (obsolete) cameras afloat.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 9, 2013)

optikus said:


> Therefor for serious use I postulate some things which have to be happened until a Replacement of the mirror makes seriously sense:
> 
> - adequate electronic wysiwig-viewfinder
> - permanent autofokus in the quality of the actual systems, incl. sensitivity under low ligh
> ...



The fourth point is a good one - I would prefer a box like design e.g. a cube of 8 x 8 x 8 cm³ with a high capacity battery and direct controls dials for aperture (ring around bajonet), Time, ISO, EV compensation. Such a camera with the shorty forty is very compact and fits into a lens compartment. The omitted prism and mirrorbox gives space for the rest - like the above mentioned high capacity battery.

... like the classical Hasselblad or Rollei medium format cameras ... and I remember the Rollei 2000 which was a 35mm camera with exchangeable magazins.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 9, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> optikus said:
> 
> 
> > Therefor for serious use I postulate some things which have to be happened until a Replacement of the mirror makes seriously sense:
> ...



+1 exactly!


re. size/weight advantage of mirrorles vs. DSLRs: yes, tele-lenses and tele-zooms like a 70-200/2.8 L IS will be the same size and weight and their use will almost nullify the size/weight advantage of a compact FF-mirrorless. 
BUT unless totally specialized in photography of certain sports or wildlife, most photographers will not use tele-zooms or long tele lenses ALL the time on their cameras. Actually, many photographers will never use such lenses. Probably 99% of all images are captured using focal lengths between 24 and 100 mm. These lenses especially wide-angle for a FF camera body with a short flange back distance could be considerably smaller than current EF-lenses. Point in case is the Leica M-system and its "surprisingly small" (fixed focal) lenses. And contrary to common belief, adding a ring-USM AF drive would mean very little additional weight and bulk, since movable lens mass is quite small in these lenses. IS would ideally be in-body IS. Viewfinder image on an EVF can be stabilized by purely electronic means. Using a few clever algorithms and ample procesing power, legacy EF (tele) lenses with IS would work in tandem with the in-body IS to give up to 5 or even 6 stops total stabilization effect. 

That would finally yield a really small and light kit for the many occasions when we want to go small and light without sacrificing anything in performance, speed, ergonomcis and IQ compared to a good but big DSLR. The only limitation would be available tele-range in native-mount. Only when we need more tele range will we then pack and carry a simple and cheap-to-build extension tube adapter without optical elements plus any existing EF-lens (tele/zooms). But only then. Not all the time. 

This is what I am waiting for. My current 7D plus EF-S and EF lenses is my last DSLR-based system. I want and will "upgrade" as soon as I get a Canon EOS 5D-M with a mirrorless body only slightly larger than a Sony RX-1 - to accomodate a built in Hi-End EVF. With a new sensor with ultra-fast in-plane phase-AF of course and an image processing pipeline that at least fully matches the current Nikon D800. Along with in-body IS and built-in WiFi, GPS and EX-RT wireless flash radio commander ... these radio components can be had ridiculously cheap and small. Price? Clearly below a 5D III, since it is so much cheaper to make a mirrorlss body without all the hi-precision mechanical cr*p in it - mirror, sub-mirrors, large and expensive glass prism etc. And, Canon - please aslo do away with that mechanical shutter and start using fully electronic shutters with X-sync all the way to 1/8000s. 

And put an "as large as possible" fully FF-capable lens mount up front. Along with a number of "as small as possible" FF pancake AF-lenses (think of the EF 40/2.8) between 20mm and 85mm [20/2.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8). Make them AF-only. Forget about those manul focus rings and gears. I don't ever use 'em. That way, it will be smaller, lighter, easier to fully weather-seal and lower cost. And for conven ience two hi-quality, ultra-compact "folding" zooms: a tiny 17-50/4 kit zoom and a 50-150/2.8 even smaller than the former Sigma 50-150/2.8. And the EF-adapter. That's all I need.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 9, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> re. size/weight advantage of mirrorles vs. DSLRs: yes, tele-lenses and tele-zooms like a 70-200/2.8 L IS will be the same size and weight and their use will almost nullify the size/weight advantage of a compact FF-mirrorless.
> BUT unless totally specialized in photography of certain sports or wildlife, most photographers will not use tele-zooms or long tele lenses ALL the time on their cameras. Actually, many photographers will never use such lenses. Probably 99% of all images are captured using focal lengths between 24 and 100 mm. These lenses especially wide-angle for a FF camera body with a short flange back distance could be considerably smaller than current EF-lenses. Point in case is the Leica M-system and its "surprisingly small" (fixed focal) lenses. And contrary to common belief, adding a ring-USM AF drive would mean very little additional weight and bulk, since movable lens mass is quite small in these lenses. IS would ideally be in-body IS. Viewfinder image on an EVF can be stabilized by purely electronic means. Using a few clever algorithms and ample procesing power, legacy EF (tele) lenses with IS would work in tandem with the in-body IS to give up to 5 or even 6 stops total stabilization effect.
> 
> That would finally yield a really small and light kit for the many occasions when we want to go small and light without sacrificing anything in performance, speed, ergonomcis and IQ compared to a good but big DSLR. The only limitation would be available tele-range in native-mount. Only when we need more tele range will we then pack and carry a simple and cheap-to-build extension tube adapter without optical elements plus any existing EF-lens (tele/zooms). But only then. Not all the time.
> ...



It might happen... in 10 or 20 years.


----------

