# Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless



## dolina (Dec 3, 2014)

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/03/rumor-canon-get-serious-mirrorless-2015-full-frame-milc-works/

Nutshell:

Canon is rumored to be developing a full frame and/or rangefinder mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

Judging by how well Sony & Fuji's forays are this may end being true.

Let's pray that Canon's foray is more impactful than the EOS M.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 3, 2014)

"The news comes from our friends at Canon Watch, who heard nearly identical information from two separate sources saying that there is a new mirrorless cam in the works "

So it is a rumor posted on this site, that came from a rumor posted on Canon Watch that they got from "two guys they know" that Canon is working on a new camera.

Good enough for me. TAKE MY MONEY! ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 3, 2014)

What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.

I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses. Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 3, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.
> 
> I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses. Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.



I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2014)

dolina said:


> Canon is rumored to be developing a full frame and/or rangefinder mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.



Same rumor in an older thread here, but with dumb thread title: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23733.msg469477#msg469477



dolina said:


> Let's pray that Canon's foray is more impactful than the EOS M.



Quoting an interesting and thoughtful insight by a well-known CR member from the other thread:



Marsu42 said:


> _However, I find the rumor believable. Canon cannot compete with its current sensor tech, though the 7d2 isn't much worse than Sony/Nikon aps-c. If they want to make a big splash in the $1000-$2000 market, it has to be ff - combined with their dual pixel af, all in one small package
> 
> As for lenses, I imagine their current ef-m lenses wouldn't fit on a mirrorless ff, so you either have to adapt ef lenses or they release a genuine ff-mirrorless lens lineup. As there aren't that much ef-m lenses around, imho the installed base won't block them from adding yet another mount._


----------



## roskobusby (Dec 3, 2014)

Why would canon develop a FF slr that its still in general the same size as the 5d,6d body size and keep the lens mount and distance to the sensor the same


----------



## 1Zach1 (Dec 3, 2014)

I hope they keep the form factor small still. I know they would need to increase size to get a EVF, but one of the big advantages (to me) is that small size factor of the M. I'm all for, and want, a good EVF and updated sensor and more features but I just hope that doesn't come at the price of too much change in size.


----------



## Johan Eickmeyer (Dec 3, 2014)

Canon is losing quite a few landscape photographers these days, because there is stiff competition to fill all the broad and niche landscape needs. I still use Canon for landscapes because I like their system and I have no complaints with my process. I can still see vast majorities of people wanting to get into landscapes who are not even considering Canon because of lower MP and less DR. I personally stitch and bracket all of my shots (never missed a shot), so I have not much to gain by leaving Canon, but others certainly see the need. 

A specialized FF mirrorless for studio and landscape work might be a solid solution to bringing back the masses of landscape photographers Canon used to supply across the board. Several years ago, everyone had a 5d2 for landscapes, not much else. 

Canon isn't stupid (slow yes, stupid no), so they must be very aware there are many people dropping the brand for other brands, even for lazy and lame reasons at times. Canon would be smart to address the issue soon and not let the other players get into profit making territory with increased market share.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 3, 2014)

roskobusby said:


> Why would canon develop a FF slr that its still in general the same size as the 5d,6d body size and keep the lens mount and distance to the sensor the same


I think the advantages of an advanced EVF and lack of an expensive mirror and its attendant calibration of AF would swing the decision irrespective of size/packaging issues. Marketing pressure adding the rest. They can also make the argument that a pro body needs to have a certain size/heft for handling.

As far as I can see the reduction of body size is a bit overblown especially for FF as the lenses still need to observe physical limitations. Sony's FF lenses are evidence that the masters of miniaturization cannot skin that cat.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 3, 2014)

Johan Eickmeyer said:


> Canon is losing quite a few landscape photographers these days, because there is stiff competition to fill all the broad and niche landscape needs. I still use Canon for landscapes because I like their system and I have no complaints with my process. I can still see vast majorities of people wanting to get into landscapes who are not even considering Canon because of lower MP and less DR. I personally stitch and bracket all of my shots (never missed a shot), so I have not much to gain by leaving Canon, but others certainly see the need.



Respectfully disagree, Johan. Canon isn't really losing folks to _mirrorless_ nearly as much as they are losing folks to _Sony sensors_ -- people are 'switching to mirrorless' just to get their hands on what they think will get them better IQ. 

Consider: one of the Sony a7 bodies with an adaptor is probably the cheapest way to get a "better" sensor for FF work without having to flip all your glass. Landscapers are the ones willing to give this a try first, as they need AF far less than most photographers and LV can get them by.

But we continue to hear of everyone leaving Canon for a host of reasons, principally due to the sensors, and secondarily due to their avoiding any significant commitment to mirrorless. 

Canon will eventually commit large dollars to mirrorless and make a proper go of it -- with APS-C, not FF. (I don't see a 4th mount happening. But they'll pony up an EVF, offer DPAF, and (please) offer a greater variety of small, native EF-M lenses and people will buy it.

The big wild card is _when_. I've heard a thousand forum-dwelling photography enthusiasts that claim that Canon is falling so far behind and that everyone is leaving them, but I haven't seen a speck of sales data that shows that Sony / Fuji / etc. are converting large numbers of DSLR users from them. If that starts to happen, Canon will deploy more competitive products in that segment.

- A


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 3, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.



From my perspective, mirrorless isn't just about size, it's about freedom to do things you couldn't do with a mirror present. For a higher-end (5D-class) and above mirrorless, two important options become available:

1. Interchangeable lens mounts, i.e. more advanced version of Metabones. The camera can then "natively" use anyone's lenses. This is more interesting for body manufacturers other than Canon and Nikon.

2. The ability to replace the mirror apparatus with a tri-chroic prism and triple-sensor system, to finally start shoveling dirt on both Bayer arrays filters and multi-layer RGB sensors, which inherently lose light.

Next time you watch a major sports event, have a look at those huge TV cameras. FF mirrorless should be a scaled-down version of those, not a scaled-up version of P&S.

Edit: I forgot my old hobby-horse: another advantage of large/pro mirrorless is a sensor covering the full image circle, so there is no longer a "portrait" or "landscape" mode -- you can just crop in PP.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 3, 2014)

Normalnorm said:


> roskobusby said:
> 
> 
> > Why would canon develop a FF slr that its still in general the same size as the 5d,6d body size and keep the lens mount and distance to the sensor the same
> ...



This gets to market segmentation. You have multiple users of mirrorless with different needs. Consider just _two_ (of many) groups coming to mirrorless from SLRs:

1) People who love the small form factor for carrying or discretion reasons — street, reportage, travel shooters and such. They *don’t* want big lenses, huge grips and such. They want 90% the IQ/features of a same-sensor-sized-SLR in 50% of the size.

2) People who are migrating to mirrorless from DSLRs simply for the best IQ they can get (i.e. people buying the various a7 Sony models) — a good example would be Canon landscape shooters wanting more MP or more DR. These folks don’t give a damn about form factor and are bolting big L lenses on to these bodies with adaptors. Effectively, they *aren’t* mirrorless devotees so much as fans of wonderful sensors and don’t mind fighting through the limitations (battery life, AF, etc.) of today’s mirrorless rigs. An A7R and an adapter is a much cheaper way to upgrade your sensor than buying a D810 and new lenses.

Normalnorm, it appears to me that Group 1 above really cares about size, and Group 2 couldn't give a damn if it takes the best shot (and, bonus, lets them keep using their old glass).

I think -- just maybe -- that the complexity of the user's needs in mirrorless might scare off Canon and Nikon as (at least for now) being a bit too unpredictable to make a major investment -- i.e. should they aim their mirrorless efforts at fully replacing what DSLRs do, or should they focus on getting the size down? Doing both could be irresponsible w.r.t. time & dollars.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 3, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Johan Eickmeyer said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is losing quite a few landscape photographers these days, because there is stiff competition to fill all the broad and niche landscape needs. I still use Canon for landscapes because I like their system and I have no complaints with my process. I can still see vast majorities of people wanting to get into landscapes who are not even considering Canon because of lower MP and less DR. I personally stitch and bracket all of my shots (never missed a shot), so I have not much to gain by leaving Canon, but others certainly see the need.
> ...


But it's true.....

Everyone has left canon..... Yet somehow they are still number one in sales.....

Nobody likes the 7d2, yet it is a hot seller.....
Perhaps Internet wisdom is flawed.....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 3, 2014)

But what about the mysterious slide they put up at a tradeshow a year or so ago where near the top pyramid it had a mystery spot where FF and EVF coincided on the pyramid?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 3, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.
> ...



it makes it less expensive to drive high fps (of course first they need a way to get top AF in such a scenario)

or lets them go to some super EVF but otherwise as current type camera

?


----------



## eos650 (Dec 3, 2014)

I can see lots of advantages of a Full Frame mirror-less. The downside being current EVF technology and focus speed. The upsides are many. Less mechanical parts to wear out and/or splatter grease and specs all over the insides of your camera; Less noise (audible not image); potentially faster frame rates for high-speed shooting; less camera shake and no need to use mirror lock-up; potential to use EF-S lenses in crop mode on a full frame body; no need for micro focus adjustments; no physical focus screen would be needed, but potentially different focus screens could be superimposed in the EVF, based on your needs. I'm sure there are many more potential benefits.

Take this a step further and look at the potential of an electronic shutter and suddenly you have eliminated virtually all noise the camera makes and most mechanical components that can fail, other than some buttons and doors, etc.

A small mirror-less full frame would appeal in certain circumstances, but not in all. I can't imagine trying to use a small camera on a big white. For kicks I put my wife's EOS-M on my 400mm f2.8L. It looked really silly, but most importantly it was unbalanced and would have been extremely difficult to shoot with. I personally would be interested in a standard sized full frame mirror-less when using larger lenses, if they could solve the EVF and focus speed issues, but would find a smaller one appealing, when using a small lens and wanting to travel light. They would certainly have different uses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 3, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.
> ...


 
For me, it would be the elimination of the mirror assembly, which is a source of potential failure, and should improve reliability. I'd also like the increased autofocus accuracy that comes with DPAF.

However, if a mirrorless can't offer DSLR AF speed, then its not useful to me either. 

I'm thinking that the technology to do this is near, but not here yet.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.



All the goodies you get from mirrorless (apart from a lower price b/c of less parts required). 

Most prominently, with the sensor seeing the scene all the time you can get no ends of advanced metering and image processing that isn't possible with a mirror in between ("track the bird with the red feathers"). The 1dx has facial recognition at a very high price, mirrorless could be cheaper and better. Last not least the evf can display many more functions anywhere, including focus peaking for mf with thin dof.


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 3, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> I forgot my old hobby-horse: another advantage of large/pro mirrorless is a sensor covering the full image circle, so there is no longer a "portrait" or "landscape" mode -- you can just crop in PP.



Presuming that the lens will support it. At least one of my lenses (24-105L) has a rectangular baffle near the rear element, "presumably to reduce any reflections from the parts of the rear element which are not used to form the 24 by 36 mm rectangular image."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

(Don't ask me why the link to the cited review is labeled "28-105" instead of "24-105")


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 3, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I forgot my old hobby-horse: another advantage of large/pro mirrorless is a sensor covering the full image circle, so there is no longer a "portrait" or "landscape" mode -- you can just crop in PP.
> ...



Yup, some are like that.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 3, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Johan Eickmeyer said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is losing quite a few landscape photographers these days, because there is stiff competition to fill all the broad and niche landscape needs. I still use Canon for landscapes because I like their system and I have no complaints with my process. I can still see vast majorities of people wanting to get into landscapes who are not even considering Canon because of lower MP and less DR. I personally stitch and bracket all of my shots (never missed a shot), so I have not much to gain by leaving Canon, but others certainly see the need.
> ...



+1

Really agree with this. I do not see a FF mirrorless with a new mount from Canon any time soon. They will develop the M platform. Fuji and Olympus are showing you don't need a FF sensor to do mirrorless/compact systems right.

And if others recall earlier rumors about a possible Mirrorless Rebel. I picture the Rebel ergonomics, look and feel to stay the same, aka take out mirrorbox, etc and go to a EVF and maintain the current EF-S/EF mount. This seems like a strategy a conservative company like Canon would go for.


----------



## dolina (Dec 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> But it's true.....
> 
> Everyone has left canon..... Yet somehow they are still number one in sales.....
> 
> ...


A more correct interpretation is "early adaptors have left Canon".

The Internet does not like the 7D2 but dolina loves it nonetheless.

Although my wisdom has me endorsing Sony E-mount & Fujifilm X-mount cameras to new camera buyers who have no interest in wildlife/sports and other applications that needs a very competent AF system.

Chances are these new camera buyers will never get lenses/accessories that are Nikon/Canon specific. Not to mention the smaller dimension and lesser weight will encourage them to take their camera with them more often. That's one reason why I got my Canon pancake lens.


----------



## dolina (Dec 3, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.
> 
> I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses. Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.


If the rumor is proven true then Canon did a Sony by making a transition to smaller cameras in weight & dimension.

It would be a mistake on Canon's part to allow other companies to make obsolete their products.

I meant full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and/or rangerfinder-like camera. 

Marsu42, it is possible for Canon to produce/market in parallel a full frame mirroless lens mount system as a transition period.

I am sure TLR and RF users in the 60s and 70s dissed SLR technology because it was not in the mainstream but look at where they are right now?


----------



## deleteme (Dec 3, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > roskobusby said:
> ...


I agree completely. It seems that most seem to focus on the size thus Canon hears a lot about small bodies and gives us the M to see if that will suffice.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 3, 2014)

Luds34 said:


> And if others recall earlier rumors about a possible Mirrorless Rebel. I picture the Rebel ergonomics, look and feel to stay the same, aka take out mirrorbox, etc and go to a EVF and maintain the current EF-S/EF mount. This seems like a strategy a conservative company like Canon would go for.



I'm torn here. 

To simply pull the mirror assembly out of the body is a nice science project for Canon, but it won't reduce the size. For all the great comments we've seen on this thread about EVFs with more useful information / focus peaking, more reliability without a mirror mechanism, etc. the basic draw of mirrorless is to make it smaller, so a good chunk of folks who *did* like the EOS-M's small form factor would find such a body a step in the wrong direction.

So my gut is telling me that Canon will stay conservative (for now) and do the following things with the next EOS-M:


A more modern sensor, DPAF, etc. = 90% likelihood (fair amount of speculation that it will be the 70D sensor itself)
Improve AF speed = 100% likelihood (one would assume the prior bullet point would greatly assist this)
Offer some form of an EVF -- either a modular one (Canon loves it's grip and wireless transmitter upcharges...) or possibly a split into a non-EVF body and a better body with an integral EVF = 75% likelihood
More native EF-M lenses (for smallest possible size) = No idea. (They've been so slow on pushing out EF-M glass.)

Canon really has to do the first three things or I think it will remain DOA to enthusiasts or pros looking for a second body. Some folks love their EOS-M bodies, but I will not touch one without a viewfinder.

- A


----------



## dolina (Dec 3, 2014)

Craig, you have my blessing to rename the subject title. I find the honor of my thread as a CR post a bit amusing. 8)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 3, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.
> ...


This could be a transition body...
1) The body could offer better weather sealing by eliminating the need for an adapter.
2) Existing customers could be serviced without Canon immediately having to commit to a new full frame mirrorless mount and the customers wouldn't need to immediately invest in new lenses.
3) Mirrorless is probably cheaper to produce and sell so there would be more leeway for pricing.

If the 6D-II moves upmarket to replace the 5D-III (and the 5D-IV takes on the D810) and the 6D is discontinued, then there would be a gap for entry-level full-frame. A FF-Mirrorless with basic AF capability could then fill that entry tier position in the product lineup as it would be suitable for casual travel, landscape photography.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 3, 2014)

dolina said:


> Marsu42, it is possible for Canon to produce/market in parallel a full frame mirroless lens mount system as a transition period.



Dolina, this is a dream scenario for Canon folks who want mirrorless. For a transition period of 3-7 years (who knows how long is needed), every time Canon offers a new FF sensor, there are separate mirrorless _and_ DSLR bodies offered that uses it. Folks would not have to choose between format (SLR vs. Mirrorless) and the best sensor, and Canon could ramp up in Mirrorless users while they ramp down in DSLR users without there being a huge cliff to transition from. As DSLR popularity slowly erodes in favor of Mirrorless over time (as tech improves), Canon will simply stop offering DSLRs in specific price points -- one would imagine that Rebels would go first, XXD models would go second, and 1/5/7D models would be the last to go (if they do at all).

The rub, of course, _is that blasted FF mirrorless mount_. If they keep the same EF setup (i.e just pull the mirror with no size reduction), interest in those bodies will be limited to the most keen enthusiasts and pros who want a very specific mirrorless advantage (fancy EVF, peaking, burst, etc.). Or, Canon could make a standalone FF mirrorless mount that requires new glass and/or an adapter to walk back to the EF flange distance. The latter is undoubtedly a more attractive smaller product, but it would also be a financial back-breaker in the near and mid term.
*
Now replace the word "full-frame" in your question and in everything I wrote above with "Crop".* That's exactly what Canon could have done when EOS-M launched: Rebels and EOS-Ms being sold side by side. But with a far far greater financial commitment in SLRs, lenses, etc. Canon has made the EOS-M effectively a stillborn while Rebels continue to sell relatively well. 

So the transition you refer to is not happening... not at Canon, at least. 

- A


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42, it is possible for Canon to produce/market in parallel a full frame mirroless lens mount system as a transition period.
> ...



+1



ahsanford said:


> So the transition you refer to is not happening... not at Canon, at least.



But probably they've learned from the aps-c mirrorless, or even never intended it to really succeeed (and that's why the m2 isn't available outside Asia)?

Probably the upcoming introduction of a mirrorless ff mount is also the reason for Canon not updating the old primes - they are planning to release ef-m-ff mount versions of these?


----------



## dolina (Dec 3, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> So the transition you refer to is not happening... not at Canon, at least.
> 
> - A


Execution does need work but it is happening. ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 3, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > So the transition you refer to is not happening... not at Canon, at least.
> ...



One has to wonder. EOS M has been out (roughly?) 2.5 years and there are presently *two* first party EF-M lenses for sale at B&H.

Two. 

And no, adaptors do not count. See attached picture, giggle.... _annnnnnd resume waiting for more EF-M glass._

I still think Canon is going to ride out the crop format (not a bad call sensor-wise -- it's a great call for IQ / size for mirrorless), but yes, Marsu, they haven't exactly spent billions on supporting the EF-M mount. So an awkward retraction that they got it wrong and a follow up with an FF mirrorless mount is not Canon's style at all, but it is _possible_ given how little they've spent on EF-M to date.

- A


----------



## TAF (Dec 4, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > And if others recall earlier rumors about a possible Mirrorless Rebel. I picture the Rebel ergonomics, look and feel to stay the same, aka take out mirrorbox, etc and go to a EVF and maintain the current EF-S/EF mount. This seems like a strategy a conservative company like Canon would go for.
> ...



I must respectfully disagree with you that the primary objective to getting rid of the mirror is to make the camera smaller. It is my contention that the reason the EOS-M was a failure was that it lacked a viewfinder, undoubtedly because they were aiming for minimum size.

Size drove the design, right into the ground.

The only way to use the camera is to "chimp", so what is otherwise a superb piece of equipment is reduced to a P+S for a great deal more money. I bought mine during the great blowout sale, and enjoy it, but I understand the limitations.

Take DSLR, remove the mirror and prism, and put on a rangefinder (optical or EVF), and you've got a much better form factor for taking pictures, with all of the additional benefits mentioned above.

As for pros looking for a second unit, which is more likely to sell, something that can use all the same lenses, or something that needs a different series or an adapter?

I'd be interested in a nice FF rangefinder (EF) with removable viewfinder in the size of a classic full size to I have something to hold on to.

I'd "pull out the plastic" for a FF model using EF lenses in the form factor of the Rollei SL3000 (for those of you not familiar, think 35mm Hasselblad 500) using an EVF on the top. That could be a game changer for Canon.


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 4, 2014)

Luds34 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Johan Eickmeyer said:
> ...



Personally I think if they were going to do a Mirrorless Rebel I think it would be better to keep the grip and the back about the same. Add a EVF where the OVF is. Then make the main body thinner put a M mount on it. It would be about the same size as current Rebels use EOS M lens. If they create a packages with the converter to the EF-S/EF mount.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera? That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.
> 
> I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses. Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.


That is Leica M9 or ME. It is a mechanical monster. The gearing in the lens and the linkage in the camera alone will need to be precision mechining ( read it as expensive). To be fair, Canon was in that business untill the 1960's. It's camera is only 10 to 15% cheaper than similar Leica at that time.


----------



## DigitalSteve (Dec 4, 2014)

*Re: what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses?*



Orangutan said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 4, 2014)

I'm probably in the minority by wanting a large mirrorless camera. Canon has certainly said that the majority of buyers want smaller cameras, so there is every possibility that will prevail.

Canon did patent a new lens mount that may have been targeted at a mirrorless.

So, while I'd like a Mirrorless that used EF lenses native, its unlikely to actually happen. Canon will come out with a new lens series, and a adaptor for EF lenses, then trickle out some of the new ones each year.


----------



## weixing (Dec 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm probably in the minority by wanting a large mirrorless camera. Canon has certainly said that the majority of buyers want smaller cameras, so there is every possibility that will prevail.
> 
> Canon did patent a new lens mount that may have been targeted at a mirrorless.
> 
> So, while I'd like a Mirrorless that used EF lenses native, its unlikely to actually happen. Canon will come out with a new lens series, and a adaptor for EF lenses, then trickle out some of the new ones each year.


Hi,
IMHO, if Canon going to replace some of their DSLR with mirrorless, they can just use EF mount:
1) All current lens will be compatible with it... don't need to spend $$ to create another new mount and new lens.
2) Handling and ergonomics - not everyone want a small camera due to handling. Also, with a small camera body, you can only put so much buttons and dials on it and ergonomics will suffer... a lots of people want fast operation... most don't want to go into the menu every time they want to change something and current Canon DSLR design had very good ergonomics.
3) If you want good IQ with high resolution image, large lens with large diameter lens element is needed and large lens don't go well with small camera body.
4) Mirrorless need more power than DSLR, if you decrease the camera size, battery life will suffer and also to drive the lens for faster AF, you need more power.

Canon can just maintain 2 mirrorless lines:
1) DSLR size mirrorless - for people who don't mind or want a bigger camera body for better handling and ergonomics. 
2) EOS M style small mirrorless - for those who want small camera.

Anyway, Canon can just use one of their DSLR design... remove the mirror box and replace the prism with an EVF and they got a DSLR size mirrorless camera... ;D 

By the way, I hope Canon can install a some sort of sensor curtain to cover the sensor when not in use (power off or during power saving mode) or during changing lens. An exposing sensor is not a good thing especially when changing lens in the field. Also, imaging a super telephoto lens on a mirrorless during transportation and accidentally point at the Sun... you'll end up a burning sensor.

Have a nice day.


----------



## infared (Dec 4, 2014)

"It’s pretty obvious a new EOS M camera is coming, but I suspect it’s going to be the 70D sensor in a camera that will have a new design philosophy."

That sounds like a sensible guess....Time will tell.


----------



## eos650 (Dec 4, 2014)

Small is not always desired...

EF 400mm f2.8L IS II
EF 2.0X II Extender
Voltrox EF to M Adapter
EOS M


----------



## Rocky (Dec 4, 2014)

eos650 said:


> Small is not always desired...
> 
> EF 400mm f2.8L IS II
> EF 2.0X II Extender
> ...


That is an EXTREME case. May I ask how many of you have put the EOS-M with 22mm lens in your own pocket or your wife's purse? That is what the EOS-M is for. If it is done right, we can still put a FF mirrorless with a 35mm lens in the wind breaker jacket easily.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 4, 2014)

Looks pretty straightforward to me what's going to happen:

*1. EOS M3* MILC
based on and as tiny as EOS M2 (wifi!) but with 70D sensor and improved AF speed (DPAF), hopefully at Sony A6000 levels. 
For the "make it as small as possible crowd" = second camera users looking for wlkaraound or ultracompact back-up cam and P&S upgraders 

*2. EOS "M PRO1"* MILC
Body size and style and imaging capabilities similar to Samsung NX1. 7D II sensor and DPAF-system hopefully driven to the max. Grip size similar to 7D II, LP-E6N battery, 500+ shots. EF-M/EF adapter included with body, "free of charge" 
For the "we want it with a viewfinder and we don't want it too small" crowd. Non-conservative enthusiasts looking for performance, reach and stealth [less noise!] happy ... e.g. birders]

3. to support 1. + 2. and flesh out the EOS-M system: a few more extremely compact, optically very decent, good value EF-M lenses: both fixed focal ... portrait, macro ... and zooms ... 16-85ish, and the inevitable 18-200 etc. 

*3. "EOS X" - FF sensor.*
The big one. Stunning, new, 50MP hi-rez sensor with DP-AF, good for fully-tracking capable AF, at about 6 fps ... basically a mirrorless hi-res 5D IV. Plus 4k Video, of course.  
Rangefinderesque body style, not DSLR-shape. Might look similar to an (upcoming?) FF Fuji X-Pro2, but without the nasty retro look - or like a Leica M, but more "sleek and 21st century". 
Stunning, extremely hi-end hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder [again, along the lines of Fuji X-Pro]. Overall size and weight somewhere in the A7 II to 6D ballpark ... around 600 grams. Large enough, comfortable grip, large enough for LP-E6N 13Wh battery to yield 500+ shots. 
New, native EF-X mount. Initial lens supply EF-X 24-70/2.8 L *IS*  ... EF-X16-35/2.8 L *IS*, not very compact, but about 1/3 smaller/lighter than EF; plus very compact EF-X 20mm/4.0 IS, 50mm/1.8 IS and 85/2.4 IS. EF-X/EF adapter included in box, 100% fully functional AF, IS ... "free of charge". 
Extremely rigid body chassis w/grip just large enough to support use white EF L tele lenses [via adapter] including and up to 300mm/2.8 = anything anybody might use handheld for an extended period of time or on a regular basis. Larger lenses require monopods and tripods anyway, even with big DSLRs.
Pricing: stunning USD/€ 2990,- 8)
For non-conservative enthusiasts and pros (if there are any). And for the video crowd. 

*4. 1D-Xs* DSLR
Same sensor (as in 3. EOS-X) will in parallel be released in 1D-Xs DSLR - good for 10 fps thanks to still slightly more capable Phase-AF. Will of course come with all other 1-series goodies and at 1D pricing. 
Targeted at conservative, "prefer OVF and big fat mirrorslapper" users with lots of money to burn.  

*5. 5D Mk. IV* DSLR
Same 50 MP FF sensor wil be released 9 months later in 5D IV DSLR, running @ 8 fps. w/o 4k video. For conservative "I want OVF, I want big fat DSLR in hands types, with less money to burn than 1D-Xs buyers. ;D

My strategy fits on a paper napkin and does it all: 
A) Get Canon to market leadership quickly in mirrorless - APS-C and FF. 
B) Protect EF lenses and DSLRs for some time to come. 
C) Allow phase-out of rebel DSLRs, but still allow for one more iteration of xxD (80D) and to keep 7D II [as last iteration]. Then drop APS-C DSLRs and EF-S for good by end of 2016. Of course, existing EF-S lenses can be used fully-functional without any compromises on all APS-C mirrorless bodies [EOS-M] and also on FF mirrorless [EF-X] in crop mode. So no wrath from EF-S owners. 
D) Protect FF DSLRs even longer. Bring hi-res 1D-Xs and 5D IV. Bring 1D-X II [less res, faster -in line with 1D series genes]. Bring any new white tele L-lenses in EF mount. Don't bring any new lenses below 135mm in EF mount, only in EF-X for mirrorless. 
E) yes, for a transitional period, Canon would have 4 different mounts: 2x APS-C [already there] and 2x FF [EF + EF-X] ... just like SOny.  But who cares? All EF and EF-S lenses ever made stay fully functional by using simple, small "free of charge" EF-X/EF or EF-M/EF adapter. No wrath from EF/EF-S lens owners.

So where's the problem, Canon? Go, execute strategy. 8)


----------



## eos650 (Dec 4, 2014)

Rocky said:


> That is an EXTREME case. May I ask how many of you have put the EOS-M with 22mm lens in your own pocket or your wife's purse? That is what the EOS-M is for. If it is done right, we can still put a FF mirrorless with a 35mm lens in the wind breaker jacket easily.



My point being that there is a place for both large and small cameras. At some point, somewhere down the road I think it's likely that all cameras will be mirror-less, but just because you can make them smaller, doesn't mean there won't be a market for larger cameras as well.


----------



## nda (Dec 4, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.



??? Which part of the 6d "isn't that much bigger" ?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2014)

nda said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.
> ...



Compared to a real camera like the 1d, all other dslrs are just tiny gadgets ... we Canon folk generally don't let facts stand in the way of defending out favorite brand :->


----------



## WorkonSunday (Dec 4, 2014)

these days companies spent so much on marketing... really need to learn how to read whats missing rather than what's being stated... 

remember when nikon Df was rumored? oh yea, it's retro, oh yea, it's has all the tech from nikon history, oh yea, it's FF, oh yea, it's going back to basic.... 

yea..alright...

probably end up with something like a samsung NX1 or A77 but without a mirror. so full size body, full performance, just without a mirror...


----------



## lintoni (Dec 4, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Looks pretty straightforward to me what's going to happen:
> 
> *1. EOS M3* MILC
> based on and as tiny as EOS M2 (wifi!) but with 70D sensor and improved AF speed (DPAF), hopefully at Sony A6000 levels.
> ...


No.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Dec 4, 2014)

nda said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.
> ...



The 6D is not fitting in anyone's "pocketbook" or "man purse".


----------



## jameskatt (Dec 4, 2014)

dolina said:


> http://petapixel.com/2014/12/03/rumor-canon-get-serious-mirrorless-2015-full-frame-milc-works/
> 
> Nutshell:
> 
> ...



Note that in Japan, the EOS M2 is sold. It already has a 70D sensor. And it has the rapid focus capability of using focus sensors.

It sure would be disappointing for Canon to simply sell the EOS M2 in the US unchanged. After all, the EOS M2 is already available to US customers via eBay. The EOS M2 with 18-55, 55-200mm zooms is available for only $640.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 4, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


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



I don't know if I agree or disagree if that would be necessarily be better. I think I could go either way personally. Although if you keep the same decent size grip (which is still too tiny for my hands on a Rebel) does it really matter if the mount is recessed a bit farther back as an M mount? What is the difference in flange distance, I believe it's less then an inch. Assuming the same height/length, is that slightly narrower depth really going to seem that significant on the camera body as whole? Probably if you are mounting small enough lenses. 

Like I said, I could probably take it either way. But it's a moot point whether it's better or not as I still think it comes down to that Canon will not do that. They are too conservative. I think just tossing in an EVF in a Rebel body is already pretty bold for them and is probably the first step in testing the waters.

Besides, the new M series camera fits the bill for a compact mirrorless already. I really don't see Canon abandoning their DSLR sizes models, especially at the pro level, ever. They will eventually all move to a mirrorless system (even at the top Pro level but possibly 10 years out), but they will continue to offer a decent size "DSLR style" body for those who want/need it. Instead they will just supplement their line up with M style cameras to fill the market need for those who want a smaller, more compact system.

As an enthusiast, I love both. Was out in NYC couple weekends ago and I had zero excuse not to have the M + 22mm pancake with me. It fit nicely in my jacket pocket. On the other hand, I can't imagine mounting a 70-200 or super tele lens on any camera body smaller then a xxD series. I've mounted the EF-S 15-85mm on the M and even that was ridiculous. Mirrorless does not automatically equal small/compact size camera. It certainly can be one of the advantages, but does not have to be.

So again, *my pure speculation* is Canon will continue to invest in the EOS-M, as to have a player in the MILC. And they will slowly test the waters with mirrorless, DSLR size bodies as well, maintaining the EF/EF-S mount for now. I'd be pretty surprised (i.e totally shocked) if they come out with a FF mirrorless on a brand new camera mount next year. But hey, if they do it will be pretty interesting!


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 4, 2014)

jameskatt said:


> Note that in Japan, the EOS M2 is sold. It already has a 70D sensor. And it has the rapid focus capability of using focus sensors.



No. The EOS-M2 has NOT 70D sensor and NOT 70D / DPAF AF system. 

EOS-M2 has same sensor and (hybrid) on-sensor AF-system as the Rebel SL1/EOS 100D. AF-system is called Canon Hybrid CMOS AF II. 

Improvement over earlier Hybrid CMOS AF system in EOS-M and Rebel T4i/650D and T5i/700D: it covers a larger area of the sensor surface [approx. 80%] http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-sl1/ZHYBRIDAF2-400.GIF

EOS M has same sensor and same (hybrid CMOS) AF system as Rebel T4i / EOS 650D / T5i/700D.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 4, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.



How about a successor to the 1Dx (or 7D2) capable of getting 24 full resolution still images per second? The Sony A6000 does 11FPS, faster than the 7D2. Imagine how good it could be if it was engineered to sell for $1800 or $6000, not $450. Also, a mirrorless FF camera, _with a shortened sensor-to-flange distance_ and using EF lenses, would allow Canon to introduce native lenses at a more reasonable pace.

My guess is that a FF Mirrorless Canon camera could be about the same size as the Sony A6000, except a little taller to accommodate the larger diameter of the EF mount.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 4, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> My guess is that a FF Mirrorless Canon camera could be about the same size as the Sony A6000, except a little taller to accommodate the larger diameter of the EF mount.



I don't think a Canon FF mirrorless cam [with built-in EVF] could be made as small as Sony A6000. 

I'd expect the now vaguley rumored "rangefinder-style" Canon FF MILC ... "EOS X1"  ... to be sized between Sony A7 II [in terms of handgrip size] and Leica M / Fujifilm X-Pro1. 
http://camerasize.com/compact/#535,579,389,258,380,ha,f 
http://camerasize.com/compact/#535,579,389,258,380,ha,t

A solidly constructed and built body of this size, coming in at 600 grams [thanks to MgAl alloys] - with handgrip about the size of Sony A7 II - would give enough support to shoot handheld with adapted Canon L teles up to and including EF 300/2.8 II ... "in a pinch". It would not be as comfortable however, as a 300/2.8 II on a 1D-X sized DSLR body. [Lenses longer/larger/heavier typically are not operated handheld , certainly not over extended periods of time.]


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 4, 2014)

Bob Howland said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.
> ...



There's that damn new FF mirrorless mount again. As much as it's a clear opportunity in the long term, it's categorically crippling in the near term. We either have to like adapters or we have to like _waiting_. I keep hearing folks say a mount transition would not be that bad -- "we just need a few key lenses" -- but in reality the key lenses each of us want is different and Canon would take 3-5 years to deploy those.

Don't get me wrong -- I want a great mirrorless ecosystem to climb into -- but 'great' is compared to _what I have today_. And the options I have today in EF are staggering.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 4, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> There's that damn new FF mirrorless mount again. As much as it's a clear opportunity in the long term, it's categorically crippling in the near term. We either have to like adapters or we have to like _waiting_. I keep hearing folks say a mount transition would not be that bad -- "we just need a few key lenses" -- but in reality the key lenses each of us want is different and Canon would take 3-5 years to deploy those.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- I want a great mirrorless ecosystem to climb into -- but 'great' is compared to _what I have today_. And the options I have today in EF are staggering.



Yes, it will take many years until a full native mirrorless lens range is established.
And yes, using an adaptor is usually less than ideal. BUT - if the adapter comes from Canon and has no optical elements and is included with the FF MILC body, the pain would be eased considerably. It would not have any negative impact on IQ, AF precision, IS functionality, or lens-mount protocol data exchange. 

Of course AF-speed might be affected, when non-STM EF lenses, designed for DSLR phase-AF are used via adaptor. But that will provide additional incentive to buy those new, smaller, faster AF, native mirrorless lenses. Good for Canon at least.  

I do not really mind using the clever little Canon EF/EF-M adapter to put EF-S and EF lenses with STM AF drive onto my EOS M. I especially like the design of the tripod foot on it. It allows mounting of the camera with any lens to a tripod head/clamp - not only lenses with tripod collar. And it can easily be removed and the foot is very small, but still solid.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 4, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> The rub, of course, _is that blasted FF mirrorless mount_. If they keep the same EF setup (i.e just pull the mirror with no size reduction), interest in those bodies will be limited to the most keen enthusiasts and pros who want a very specific mirrorless advantage (fancy EVF, peaking, burst, etc.). Or, Canon could make a standalone FF mirrorless mount that requires new glass and/or an adapter to walk back to the EF flange distance. The latter is undoubtedly a more attractive smaller product, but it would also be a financial back-breaker in the near and mid term.



One advantage of that design is the ability to use EF-S lenses. So as a replacement for the Rebel line, an EF-mount full-frame mirrorless could ostensibly make sense. On the other hand, one big disadvantage to such a design is the inability to take advantage of the shorter flange focal distance to build smaller wide-angle lenses. And a full-frame camera is where you'd most like to do so. And you'd lose the ability to use the existing, smaller EF-M lenses, which ideally should make the use of EF-S lenses mostly moot. So I'm not sure that's a good trade.

What Canon really ought to do is provide a service in which you can send in your EF lenses along with $50 and have them converted to an EF-M mount (with the ability to reverse the process if you change your mind later). That way, you have the solidity of a real mount instead of an adapter, you don't have to keep moving the adapter back and forth between lenses, etc., but you still keep the advantage of supporting wide-angle EF-M lenses with their smaller size. That would greatly ease the transition to the EF-M mount.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 4, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The rub, of course, _is that blasted FF mirrorless mount_. If they keep the same EF setup (i.e just pull the mirror with no size reduction), interest in those bodies will be limited to the most keen enthusiasts and pros who want a very specific mirrorless advantage (fancy EVF, peaking, burst, etc.). Or, Canon could make a standalone FF mirrorless mount that requires new glass and/or an adapter to walk back to the EF flange distance. The latter is undoubtedly a more attractive smaller product, but it would also be a financial back-breaker in the near and mid term.
> ...



Agree. One upside to having to make a new mount for FF mirrorless (if they did it) would be that you wouldn't have to make _every_ popular EF lens in the new format. Native mirrorless glass would only retain a small body+lens footprint in shorter FLs -- i.e. the upside of the 'tiny' body is wasted on a 300 prime.

So Canon could make some new mount for FF mirrorless with lens options ranging from, say, 14mm - 135mm, and then everything else above that length is not offered. Canon would then force you back to the EF fold through an adapter for those lengths.

If that is palatable (and for someone who wants a smaller rig like myself, it is), you could conceivably get by with a relatively reasonable splash of high quality smallers lenses for the new mount:

14-24 f/4
24-70 f/2.8 (likely include a smaller f/4 option)
24 or 35 f/1.4 (or smaller f/2 IS option)
50 f/1.4 / 1.2
85 f/1.2
100 macro
135 f/2
+ sprinkle in some non-L starter lenses: an f/3.5-5.6 standard zoom perhaps.

I have no delusions that this -- from Canon -- wouldn't take a very long time, but it could work. But it's a heck of lot less lift than trying to recreate the best of all of EF's reach in another format.

The tricky bit, of course, is saying goodbye to regular 70-200 use (which would sit right around that 135mm inflection point I previously mentioned), which I love on my 5D3. I just don't see a compact mirrorless version of that being practical to hold _in FF_. (In smaller formats like m43 there are reasonably holdable 70-200 equivalents, but not in FF with a small body.)

- A


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 4, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Agree. One upside to having to make a new mount for FF mirrorless (if they did it) would be that you wouldn't have to make _every_ popular EF lens in the new format. Native mirrorless glass would only retain a small body+lens footprint in shorter FLs -- i.e. the upside of the 'tiny' body is wasted on a 300 prime.



That's assuming they even need to change the mount at all. Assuming the EF-M mount is wide enough to not vignette existing EF lenses with a full-frame sensor (I'm not sure about that), then there's no practical reason why they couldn't use the existing EF-M mount. Existing crop-body EF-M hardware would use the center part of a full-frame EF-M lens just like it does for EF lenses. And for full-frame EF-M cameras, the camera would just need to know whether to crop the image or not. This is, of course, fairly trivial:

1. Add a new lens command to query whether future lenses are designed for crop sensors.
2. Create an exception list containing all the existing crop lenses (both EF-M and EF-S).

And they'd already have to do both of those things anyway to support EF-S lenses on full-frame EF-M bodies, so it's not like they'd be expending any extra effort.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 4, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Agree. One upside to having to make a new mount for FF mirrorless (if they did it) would be that you wouldn't have to make _every_ popular EF lens in the new format. Native mirrorless glass would only retain a small body+lens footprint in shorter FLs -- i.e. the upside of the 'tiny' body is wasted on a 300 prime.
> ...



This is the part where I get lost. Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 4, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> This is the part where I get lost. Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?



Canon has said clearly no. Don't have the link right now, but you can google the interview with a canon exec, i believe it was masaso maeda. It has also been discussed in cr forum a number of times in different threads. 

There is no denying, that at the end of the day there will be 3 canon mounts left: 
1. ef-m 
2. ef-? for ff mirrorless (short flange distance) up to around 100mm focal lengths
3. ef for focal lentghs from about 100mm or 135mm and up - with adapter for mirrorless


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 4, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > This is the part where I get lost. Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?
> ...



Only if you are delusional and completely ignore where the vast majority of the sales, and income, actually come from, EF-s. 

You have such blinkers on that you don't see anything but getting rid of 'mirrorslapers' as the answer to any and every question, 'what would you like for dinner?', 'Get ride of mirrorslappers.' 'What time is sunrise?', 'I need a mirrorless.'

Getting rid of the mirror is not the answer to everything, it isn't even the answer to every photography question and there is some doubt that it ever will be.

Some markets may never adopt mirrorless cameras, other emerging markets may never embrace SLR's to the extent they are in the USA. It seems more variation to suit different market is the future,not one or the other.

Steve Jobs said the best iPod Apple ever made was the iPhone, they were happy to cannibalize their own product line because the new model made more per unit, the functionality was dramatically increased but the iPhone included all the functionality and form factor as the iPod Touch. Subsequently people have demanded bigger phones, not smaller. So, what additional functionality does a mirrorless offer other than an EVF and size? Because the SLi is pretty small and people seem to want bigger anyway as can be evidenced by the increase in size of the newer mirrorless models; and including the functionality of the EVF in a hybrid OVF seems eminently doable, as per the X100T.

EF-m is comparatively new, any mirrorless form factor is going to use that mount, it is a clear indication that Canon see their mirrorless involvement to be squarely set in the APS sensor size, and with sensor improvements we will be achieving current 135 format IQ from APS sensors in a few years. 

EF-s is the current cash cow and won't be abandoned because there is no need to until such time, if it ever comes, that EF-m completely takes over from EF-s, Canon did a very smart thing in hedging their bets there!

EF is Canon's legacy, it will be the core part of their camera imaging system until such time as entirely different tech is commonplace and the resolution is not up to the job *and* people are convinced they need much more in the way of capability, which given the current capabilities and camera tech maturity would seem to me to be a very hard sell.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 4, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Respectfully disagree, Johan. Canon isn't really losing folks to _mirrorless_ nearly as much as they are losing folks to _Sony sensors_ -- people are 'switching to mirrorless' just to get their hands on what they think will get them better IQ.



+1

If they just go for some FF mirrorless with the same old sensors. Heck, I'd want that even far less than what they have out now. At least the ones now handle everything but the low ISO DR well. A mirrorless, slow AF FF with an old sensor would handle what well??

Unless of course it went far behind what we think of as mirrorless today. And it was basically like a current DSLR only with a super advanved EVF and keeping and even expanding all general fast action functions and abilities.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


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


Nailed it.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


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


Well said.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2014)

Hehe, over the next few years you will think a lot about my prediction on how the transition to mirrorless cams will happen at Canon.
It is now so clear to see how things evolve ... but obviously not for everyone.

Well, have fun with mirrorslappers, while it lasts. I don't mind, as long as i get cameras that are a lot smaller, a lot lighter and a lot more capable than anything that could be possibly achieved woth a flapping mirror inside.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2014)

Hehe, over the next few years you will think a lot about my prediction on how the transition to mirrorless cams will happen at Canon.
It is now so clear to see how things evolve ... but obviously not for everyone.

Well, have fun with mirrorslappers, while it lasts. I don't mind, as long as i get cameras that are a lot smaller, a lot lighter and a lot more capable than anything that could be possibly achieved woth a flapping mirror inside. 

DSLRs are today where mechanical typewriters were when personal computers moved from IBM XT [APS-C mirrorles] to IBM AT [Sony A7] emerged in the 1980s. ;D


----------



## lintoni (Dec 5, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Hehe, over the next few years you will think a lot about my prediction on how the transition to mirrorless cams will happen at Canon.
> It is now so clear to see how things evolve ... but obviously not for everyone.
> 
> Well, have fun with mirrorslappers, while it lasts. I don't mind, as long as i get cameras that are a lot smaller, a lot lighter and a lot more capable than anything that could be possibly achieved woth a flapping mirror inside.


Nobody will be wasting any time thinking about how _you want_ Canon's cameras to evolve to provide you with the camera that _you think you want_, because it isn't going to happen. My prediction? A lot of forum whinging from you about how Canon hasn't made the camera you want, despite you writing a detailed road map of how they should go about doing so.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


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


Could you please share link(s) to market data regarding EF vs EF-S lens sales? I haven't found anything useful yet and I'm keen to learn more.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 5, 2014)

^^^
You don't need it, there are plenty of places giving data for the Canon body sales, you can compare EF to EF-S bodies (and EF-M). It's reasonable to use that as a yardstick of where Canon is making money from with the mounts


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 5, 2014)

lintoni said:


> ^^^
> You don't need it, there are plenty of places giving data for the Canon body sales, you can compare EF to EF-S bodies (and EF-M). It's reasonable to use that as a yardstick of where Canon is making money from with the mounts


It depends. Do kit lenses count as lens sales? Typically a "kit lens" if sold separately would be more expensive so I would assume there is a higher markup if sold separately. They are also quite freely available second hand. A second hand lens purchase transaction doesn't add to Canon's profits. Also some users may only ever use a kit lens but others might have $40K in glass. How many EF-S lens sales would be equivalent to the sale of one $2,000 EF lens?

I'm not sure if looking at body sales alone is a reliable indication of where the cash-cow grazes. That is why I asked for more data.


----------



## WorkonSunday (Dec 5, 2014)

someone close to one of the uk camera shop just told me he saw a spec sheet being passed around in the shop. target Q1 2015. looks like it can be real.... interestingly.... the shop owner said nikon hinted something similar in 2015.... exciting time ahead.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 5, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^
> ...


You make some interesting points, but I think they pale into insignificance when you consider the volume of sales of the crop cameras and their lenses when considering which _mount_, not ljust lenses, is generating the most iprofits for Canon.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 5, 2014)

lintoni said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...


APS-C cameras are not EF-S mount only, but also EF mount. So for example someone buying the 7D Mark-II might only every use multiple EF lenses on it and no EF-S lenses at all... Of course beginners buying "entry-level" cameras might get an EF-S lens in the kit but a fair portion of those kits also include an EF 75-300 kit lens (Some popular lenses I recommend to friends are 40pancake, 100macro, 85/1.8, 50/1.4 ... this is obviously excluding any L lenses) My point is that by generalizing that APS-C equals EF-S lenses only, is discounting a major advantage that APS-C cameras offer: the ability to use high quality EF lenses.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 5, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


Indeed, and given the nature of the 7D2, I expect that there will be a few users who only use long telephoto lenses on it, whether that's a 100-400 zoom or the really expensive telephoto primes. But going back to the xxD and xxxD bodies that will sell substantially more units than a 7D2, if users want a genuinely wide lens, they will be buying EF-S lenses, whether that's in a kit with the body or lens only. And as for eg a 75-300, how many of those do you think are bought by users of Canon's full frame bodies? It's the EF-S mount cameras that are driving sales of that lens, whether in a kit or as a later purchase


----------



## Monchoon (Dec 5, 2014)

lintoni said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...



I think I remember reading here that the EF 50 1.8 was Canon's biggest in sales, and that the largest for an EF-S was the EF-S 55-250


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 5, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Could you please share link(s) to market data regarding EF vs EF-S lens sales? I haven't found anything useful yet and I'm keen to learn more.



No, I don't have the time or inclination, but sales figures have been discussed here recently. 

I forget the outcome but seem to remember, though forgive me if I am wrong, only 3% of EOS owners buy a lens outside of the kit they buy new, they have sold over 90,000,000 EF/EF-s/EF-m, TS-E, and MP-E lenses, or is it 100,000,000 now? Something like 7% of interchangeable lens camera sales are FF (as mentioned by Thom Hogan). By simple maths it is obvious that there are close to 93,000,000 Canon APS cameras out there and there are close to 7,000,000 Canon FF cameras out there. Though these figures don't take into account the much lower earlier EOS film camera figures any adjustment would be small to allow for the discrepancy due to the much lower sales volumes at that time.

93,000,000/7,000,000 = 13.3.

If you take an average price of $2,500 for a FF camera and an $800 average for a crop camera they'd need to sell 3 times as many crop cameras as ff cameras to make the same income, now even if my figures and guestimates are well off it is clear Canon sells vastly more crop cameras to ff cameras than that, probably close to 10 times as many. EF-s is the cash cow, it is losing weight, but it is still where all the money comes from.


----------



## moreorless (Dec 5, 2014)

Personally I think looking at Canon's releases in recent years something that notable is how little effort they have made to chase the "gadget" dollar. You could I spose argue the G1X's were somewhat going that direction although little effort was made to sex them up but generally they seem to have paid little attention to those wanting "cool new tech". Even the EOS M didn't really target this market(much to its chagrin) and instead looked to go after the more basic ultra compact mirrorless market that EF-S couldn't service which makes up the majority of sales in the far east(and I'd imagine by default overall). I suspect part of the reason is that whilst people who buy such gear tend to be very active/vocal on the net(and so much of the net media actively target them) the market they represent isn't actually very profitable as its both very demanding(limited shelf life until the next cool product is released by a rival) but also quite price sensitive.

Honestly if Canon was looking around at the business performance of rivals I'm guessing it wouldn't be Sony or Fuji they would be interested in but Leica. Unlike all the loss making mirrorless manufacturers they actually seem to be making a profit aiming at the higher end of the market rather than the gadget market. Maybe a "rangefinder" rumour isn't that strange in that respect? Something akin to the Leica M sold at a hefty premium could have the potential to bring in serious cash.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 6, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > This is the part where I get lost. Could the EF-M mount / flange distance / diameter actually support a FF sensor?
> ...



Yes, upon digging further, the EF-M mount is really only about 43mm interior diameter, compared with EF's 54mm. Because of that shortsighted design decision, it is impossible for Canon to ever build a full-frame mirrorless camera that is compatible with their existing crop-body mirrorless lenses, unless they do so with yet another adapter and an even shorter flange focal distance.

You'd think Canon would have learned from past mistakes, but no.... They just keep making the same mistakes over and over again. 

Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the entire EF-M format is an evolutionary dead end, and that there's basically no advantage to Canon ever building a full-frame mirrorless camera.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2014)

No mistake. There will be a complete transition. Ef-s is the dead end. ;-)

Ef-m = sole surviving aps-c mount
Ef = surviving mount for tele > 100mm
Ef-x = new, dominant mount for mirrorless ff < 100mm.

Advantage for canon: mirrorless ff buyers have to purchase body and new lenses. Bodies cheap, lenses expensive. See sony A7 series plus FE lenses. ;-)


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2014)

moreorless said:


> Honestly if Canon was looking around at the business performance of rivals I'm guessing it wouldn't be Sony or Fuji they would be interested in but Leica. Unlike all the loss making mirrorless manufacturers they actually seem to be making a profit aiming at the higher end of the market rather than the gadget market. Maybe a "rangefinder" rumour isn't that strange in that respect? Something akin to the Leica M sold at a hefty premium could have the potential to bring in serious cash.



I think that's what Sony was gunning for with the RX1. I know it lacked a proper rangefinder OVF, but a $2,800 (at release) fixed lens camera was nothing if not a luxury item. 

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I think that's what Sony was gunning for with the RX1. I know it lacked a proper rangefinder OVF, but a $2,800 (at release) fixed lens camera was nothing if not a luxury item.



Exactly. Epic fail. Deservedly so. Even nouveau-riche russians and saudis want a zoom lens on their premium pocket cam.


----------



## weixing (Dec 6, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> No mistake. There will be a complete transition. Ef-s is the dead end. ;-)
> 
> Ef-m = sole surviving aps-c mount
> Ef = surviving mount for tele > 100mm
> ...


Hi,
EF-S = low cost lens for crop camera.
EF-M = lens for compact mirrorless camera.
EF = main lens mount for all the rest.

IMHO, Canon will maintain the EF mount as the main mount since they are still coming out new lens for EF mount. If Canon going to FF mirrorless, it'll still be an EF mount... if they want to come out with a small FF mirrorless, they can use EOS 100D (Rebel SL1 ) as a model for it.... small enough, but still can install a larger battery for the power hungry mirrorless camera.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Monchoon (Dec 6, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's what Sony was gunning for with the RX1. I know it lacked a proper rangefinder OVF, but a $2,800 (at release) fixed lens camera was nothing if not a luxury item.
> ...



No not at all, they want it encrusted in diamonds and made out of gold, why would they want a zoom?


----------



## Rocky (Dec 6, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the entire EF-M format is an evolutionary dead end, and that there's basically no advantage to Canon ever building a full-frame mirrorless camera.


I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless. Just remember that Canon was in competition with Leica in the film range finder camera until the late 60's. In fact 18mm lens flange is too short to do a good job for FF digital camera. Sensor like to have as close to vertical light ray angle as possible. Even the Leica M9 or ME with a lens flange of 28mm still needs the microlens to be offset to get a more even exposure. After that they still needs software correction.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2014)

Rocky said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Based on that, I think it's safe to say that the entire EF-M format is an evolutionary dead end, and that there's basically no advantage to Canon ever building a full-frame mirrorless camera.
> ...



Remember all the prior commentary that EF-S is the cash cow for Canon? If mirrorless is the inevitable future, perhaps the EF-M is the _future_ cash cow mount for Canon. I wouldn't write it off just yet.

The question is -- if a new standalone FF mirrorless mount is _also_ coming -- how well will Canon support all four mounts during the 'great industry migration to mirrorless'? Given how poorly they've supported EF-M since it's launch (again: only two Canon EF-M lenses are for sale at B&H right now), I have concerns that Canon will water down any transition period with adapters until they _have_ to deliver lenses or lost customers.

- A


----------



## e17paul (Dec 6, 2014)

dgatwood said:


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


The full frame Leica M mount has an external diameter of 44mm, yet somehow supports the almost 43mm image circle. It's logical to assume that the small diameter is easier to design for close to the sensor. It is very tight though. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M_mount


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 6, 2014)

Rocky said:


> I respectfully disagree. Canon may be using EOS-M as a learning tool for the mirrorless. It is doing well in the Asian market. There is no reason why Canon cannot have a new mount for the FF mirrorless.



Here's the problem: Because of their shortsighted EF-M design, it is physically impossible for Canon to design any EF system in which lenses are interchangeable between crop bodies and full-frame cameras. The reason EF-S kind of worked was that they used the same mount diameter. Without that, compatibility between EF-M and this theoretical mirrorless full-frame mount is basically impossible.

If they build it so that crop body lenses can work with full-frame, that will mean that they would have to use a shorter flange focal distance on full-frame bodies to accommodate the adapter, which means the full-frame lenses won't work on EF-M crop (short of a wide converter, with a significant loss in IQ).

Alternatively, if they build it so that full-frame lenses can work with crop bodies, then they've stupidly limited the smallest lenses (the crop lenses) to only crop bodies for no good reason, and worse, they'll have to use a longer flange focal distance for the full-frame bodies, which eliminates a lot of the fun advantages of mirrorless designs in the first place, because you'll have to have room for an adapter if you ever want to use those new full-frame lenses on the mirrorless crop bodies. Either approach is a *terrible* design decision. At that point, they'll basically be using EF, so they might as well just use EF. And if you're using EF anyway, the full-frame mirrorless cameras have very little to no advantage over existing DSLRs, so there's basically no reason to ever build them. (Okay, so I suppose they could shove the back element farther back and gain a little advantage within a narrow range of focal lengths, but....)

I mean, ostensibly they could build a camera with an interchangeable mount, or maybe use a slightly longer flange focal distance for the full-frame version, make the EF-M mount slide in from the side in two pieces, and provide a very thin adapter ring with contacts for EF-M users who want to use full-frame, but... every option is a hack.

IMO, Canon will be *much* better off if they switch their existing mirrorless crop bodies to the new mount, and shoot EF-M in the head. Completely. Sell replacement mounting plates for the existing lenses so you can upgrade them with two screws, then write it off the EF-M mount as a serious design mistake and move on.


----------



## kphoto99 (Dec 6, 2014)

Crazy idea.

Why not put the sensor on the bottom of the camera facing up and have a mirror reflecting the image onto the sensor. 
Here is the crazy part: move the sensor up and down to adjust the flange distance based on what type (EF, EF-S, EF-M, new EF) lens is mounted.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...


The EOM-M and Canon FF mirrorless are two totally different situation from my point of view. The EOS_M is a test case for Canon. Canon built it small and relative light. Therefore a smaller lens mount. It will fit into the pocket and the purse. It was never mean to be a full system camera. The real mistake that Canon made are the slow AF in the original EOS-M, did not import the 11-22mm lens and the M2 to the US.
If Canon ever get into the FF mirrorless, it will be a serious system camera. It should have everything plus the kitchen sink with a much larger body and lens mount.
Canon has done multiple mounts on the same body before. On its rangefinder film camera in the 60's, it has both the standard L39 screw mount for its regular lenses and the bayonet mount for its 50mm f0.95 lens only.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 6, 2014)

Less than *NO INTEREST* in a full-frame camera. But I would buy a Canon Mirrorless APS-C camera that was ergonomic like a Sony NEX 7 or A6000, i.e. small size but with a *LARGE GRIP*.

A Digital camera like the EOS IX APS-C film camera (maybe EOS IX-D). For those not familiar with the EOS IX http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1996-2000/1996_eos-ix-e.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=eos it was a small/light (485 grams/17.1 oz) that used *standard EF lenses*. It used an optical viewfinder, but a Mirrorless would need an EVF.

Whatever they do please, please, please no 18-Ad infinitum zoomz.


----------



## lintoni (Dec 6, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Less than *NO INTEREST* in a full-frame camera. But I would buy a Canon Mirrorless APS-C camera that was ergonomic like a Sony NEX 7 or A6000, i.e. small size but with a *LARGE GRIP*.
> 
> A Digital camera like the EOS IX APS-C film camera (maybe EOS IX-D). For those not familiar with the EOS IX http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1996-2000/1996_eos-ix-e.html?lang=us&categ=srs&page=eos it was a small/light (485 grams/17.1 oz) that used *standard EF lenses*. It used an optical viewfinder, but a Mirrorless would need an EVF.
> 
> Whatever they do please, please, please no 18-Ad infinitum zoomz.


I'd forgotten all about that camera. I wonder how many they sold? I can't recall seeing one in the flesh, even in a camera shop.


----------

