# More Than One Active Full Frame Mirrorless Project at Canon? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 5, 2017)

```
We received some interesting information about Canon’s full frame mirrorless project, or should we say projects?</p>
<p>We’re told that there are three active full frame mirrorless cameras currently in different stages of development and that we should be seeing at least one come to fruition before the end of 2018. Photokina in September of 2018 would make the most sense for at least one of the following cameras.</p>
<p>The first project is a full frame mirrorless camera with a native EF mount. This is something we have said has to happen for Canon to enter the world of full frame mirrorless cameras. They cannot abandon the hundred million+ EF lenses out there.</p>

<p>The second project, and this is the first we’ve heard of it, is a smaller full frame mirrorless camera with a new mount. We weren’t told if it’s a modified EF-M mount or something else. I don’t think this is too far fetched, as Canon hasn’t seemed all that interested in developing a wide range of EF-M lenses for APS-C mirrorless cameras.</p>
<p>The third project is a fixed lens full frame camera that is in very early stages of development and won’t be coming in 2018, if at all.</p>
<p>All of this is believable and that’s why we’re posting it. For the moment, please remember this is a [CR1] post and to treat it accordingly.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2017)

Its very believable to me, Canon is wanting to get a enthusiast level mirrorless camera right the first time. As far as a fixed FF, I'd speculate that a curved sensor might also be on trial, it would certainly allow for size and weight reduction.

I'd vote for a EF lens mount with my pocketbook.


----------



## WeekendWarrior (Oct 5, 2017)

Canon just running behind as usual.


----------



## deadwrong (Oct 5, 2017)

;D say 2019..........Sony will have released like 10 full frame models by then.....

CAnon soooo behind, ugh.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 5, 2017)

WeekendWarrior said:


> Canon just running behind as usual.



I don't mind. I rather Canon get it right for professional use than having their user be guinea pigs on paid assignments. 

The first two options intrigue me: native EF lens, and new mount. If the new mount have adapter with good EF compatibility I don't mind. When the Sony A7III and new Canon mirrorless camera release next year, consumers will have alot of choices on FF mirrorless.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 5, 2017)

deadwrong said:


> ;D say 2019..........Sony will have released like 10 full frame models by then.....
> 
> CAnon soooo behind, ugh.



Yes, Sony will have released 10 models by then, and they will still all be crap. What does that tell you?


----------



## unfocused (Oct 5, 2017)

deadwrong said:


> ;D say 2019..........Sony will have released like 10 full frame models by then.....
> 
> CAnon soooo behind, ugh.



Glad to see your avatar remains 100% accurate.


----------



## james75 (Oct 5, 2017)

As much as it would be nice to see canon releasing something this year, it's good to know another full frame option is coming within a year. I don't really care if it's a mirrorless or whatever , just as long as it'll fit somewhere nicely between a 6d2 and a 5d4. And please don't hold back on giving us the best sensor you can create . I remember reading the 6d2 was getting its own dedicated sensor and how excited I was only to find out later it was no better than the original.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 5, 2017)

Well, if it's EF mount and DSLR sized it better be pretty damn impressive in other ways if they have any chance of selling.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

Feels like one of us wrote this rumor. :

All three of these things were predicted by the forum to some extent. I've been beating the 'don't be surprised if the first go in FF mirrorless is a fixed lens rig' drums, while the 'they might build both mounts' approach is the easiest way to appease everyone while not having people freak out with what doesn't get launched on day one. 

(The above paragraph is not a victory lap by any stretch, as this proposed rumor feels like Canon testing all waters and trying to please everyone -- something they never do right out of the gate. So again, see the first line of my post, and understand that I am taking this rumor very lightly.)

But can we _*please *_stop equating 'mirrorless with a (full) native EF mount' to being the only way to not 'abandon the hundred million+ EF lenses' out there? _A well made adaptor doesn't leave 100 million lenses behind. _

There are drawbacks to adaptors, certainly -- questions of robustness, what happens when you accidentally leave it at home, etc. -- but it's not like a skinny mount + Canon made EF adaptor will ruin AF performance or lens IQ. It would be (effectively) a modular EF mount, not some 3rd party metabones nonsense.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, if it's EF mount and DSLR sized it better be pretty damn impressive in other ways if they have any chance of selling.



This sounds impressive to me:


Mirror slap = RIP
Comfortably enjoy mirrorless with high-end pro glass -- with a lovely chunky grip.
Handles identically to the 5D4 or 6D2 on your other shoulder.
Has a comically wide AF point spread since you can poll the majority of the sensor
Amplifies light in dark rooms, which pairs well with MF tools for instances when the light is too low to AF
Breathes new life into Zeiss or (dubiously AF'd) Sigma Art lenses -- gives Canonites an on-demand manual focusing screen for under $6k

Trust me, that will sell just fine, just not to mirrorless enthusiast spec-sheet adoring fanboys. _It will sell well to current Canon photographers._

- A


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 5, 2017)

I'd never buy a Canon FF mirrorless that requires an adaptor for EF lenses.


----------



## leadin2 (Oct 5, 2017)

By reading the title, I thought to myself are they the M7, M7r and M7s. Glad I was wrong.

Hope the Canon fixed lens is 35mm with f/2 or larger, I can then strike off my item in the wish list thread.


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 5, 2017)

Might explain why the 6d mkii seemed like a mediocre release. Resources might have been pulled elsewhere.

Before I get jumped on, its not that bad, but a bit dated/underwhelming from what I keep seeing in comments and reviews. Just not enough to get me to jump from my 80d.. .still want full frame though!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'd never buy a Canon FF mirrorless that requires an adaptor for EF lenses.



Sure, and that's a fair opinion, but that is not remotely what you said in the opening. 

Implying that an adaptor is the equivalent of leaving EF behind is (IMHO) irresponsible without substantiation. It _could be a pain_, sure, but EF will still work!

- A


----------



## BillB (Oct 5, 2017)

I have been wondering about a fixed lens mirrorless since the RX1R II came out. If you want the smallest, lightest full frame option, this could be it, especially if the sensor has enough mp's so you can zoom by cropping, as well as by zooming with your feet. You give up being able to change lenses, but if you put a lens on it that is significantly different than a 35mm prime (for example) you start picking up weight and size. A fixed lens design may have some advantages in terms of lighter weight and greater strength. The older fixed frame cameras had leaf shutters integrated into the lens, rather than the focal plane shutters in interchangeable lens cameras, but I don't know whether that is a consideration anymore.

A small light fixed lens mirrorless certainly wouldn't be a swiss army knife, but it might a handy little tool that would complement a bigger, more flexible DSLR setup. On the other hand, I am not willing to pay Sony RX1R II or Leica Q prices for a small fixed lens lightweight, even if the lens comes with the price of the camera. Then again, you can always put a 40mm pancake on the lightest full frame Canon you can get your hands on.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

BillB said:


> The older fixed frame cameras had leaf shutters integrated into the lens, rather than the focal plane shutters in interchangeable lens cameras, but I don't know whether that is a consideration anymore.



I want to say a few of the RX1, RX1R, RX1R II and Leica Q designs indeed put leaf-shutters in those embedded fixed lens designs -- they enjoy a screamingly fast sync speed as a result, like 1/2000s or so.

Then there's the whole 'never need AFMA' as (presumably) that can completely be dialed in at the factory. :

Again, fixed lens won't set the world alight, but (a) it's awesome FF batting practice for Canon to dial in a future FF ILC platform, and (b) a way to offer a pricey / bougie $3k+ prestige item with high margins if Canon wants to.

- A


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2017)

1. FF mirrorless with EF mount = modern body style

2. FF mirrorless with new mount = range body style 

3. RX1 style


----------



## BillB (Oct 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I'd never buy a Canon FF mirrorless that requires an adaptor for EF lenses.
> ...



What about a lens mount comparable to the EF-S approach. Fully compatable with EF lenses without an adapter, but with a lockout feature, so that lenses could be designed to only fit into a mirrorless camera that allowed the lens to intrude further into the camera body?


----------



## leadin2 (Oct 5, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> 1. FF mirrorless with EF mount = modern body style
> 
> 2. FF mirrorless with new mount = range body style
> 
> 3. RX1 style



The Ef mount might be a Canon A9 perhaps.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 5, 2017)

Why such a line in the sand for an EF mount? If they build an EF mount into a mirrorless body, they're building in that mirror-box space even though it's not needed--no mirror! Compactness is one of the best reasons to go mirrorless, but if you build in dead space, you're stuck with it. Small flange distance is the other best reason for mirrorless, small space behind the inner-most element is possible. Sure you can poke your glass out the back of the lens, but tiny pancake styles are designed out or the picture at the get go! And then there's that glass sticking out the back of your lens!

Just include an EF to M (or whatever) adapter and everybody's happy!

A


----------



## BillB (Oct 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > The older fixed frame cameras had leaf shutters integrated into the lens, rather than the focal plane shutters in interchangeable lens cameras, but I don't know whether that is a consideration anymore.
> ...



Why do you need AFMA with a mirrorless camera? If the lens is worth $500 or so (35mm F2.0), that would put the price of the body around $2500.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 5, 2017)

Aaron D said:


> Just include an EF to M (or whatever) adapter and everybody's happy!



Nice that you can speak for 'everybody'. 'Round here, we call that hubris. Personally, I would *not* be happy. If you look back a page, you'll see that CRguy would also not be happy.

Look down on a camera that's considered 'comfortable' to hold, from something large like a 1- or 5-series, down to something small like the SL2. Notice that the hand grip actually sticks out further than the lens mount, and that lens mount has the EF flange focal distance. Try holding a compact MILC all day, I don't know about you but my hand hurts after that...whereas after a day holding a 1D X, no hand issues at all. Ergonomics matter, the 'professional' dSLR shape has evolved for a reason.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

Aaron D said:


> Just include an EF to M (or whatever) adapter and everybody's happy!
> 
> A



We've been down this road a hundred times. See chart -- it's not perfect, but you get the idea. If only one of 'keep it small' or 'keep it seamless' is chosen, half of us will meltdown and scream "WHY?!"

Some of us see mirrorless as a *chance to do things better than SLRs* -- using the EVF to get MF focus assistance, dark room illumination, realtime histo in the VF, etc. This appeals best to big and stout f/1.4 prime and f/2.8 zoom toting professionals, wildlifers/birders, concert/wedding photogs working low light events, and folks who love their big/comprehensive ergonomic setup and grips of the 5D and 1D line. This also is the right move for a second body to be shot alongside a first body SLR -- the transition between the two bodies in realtime could be seamless.

Other see mirrorless as a *chance to do things smaller than SLRs* or to repurpose the mirror space with adapters of (say) FD, Nikkor, or old-timey vintage lenses. If you want a dream compact travel setup, if you hike, if you shoot street, if you just want less stuff to pack in your bag to do a similar IQ-level job as a larger SLR, this pathway is probably your choice.

There is no 'best for everyone' answer other than Canon doing both, and I just don't see them doing that with their first go at FF mirrorless. I believe they will choose one and course-correct to offer the second laterif the overall demand is there.

- A


----------



## Rocky (Oct 5, 2017)

EF mount on the FF mirrorless is a baggage carry over from the SLR. EF mount (44mm) flange distance will force the lenses that are shorter than 50mm to be bigger than what they should be due to the necessity of the inverted telephoto design of the lenses at these focal lengthes. However. the inverted telephoto will also force the incident angle of the light rays to be closer to vertical to improve the corner illumination. The best of both world will be off-set micro lens at the corner ( Canon might need to talk to Leica about this) and a shorter flange distance than EF mount.


----------



## Cory (Oct 5, 2017)

I'd pre-order the fixed lens one right now.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 5, 2017)

OK CR Geek you gotta know I'm being facetious--nobody's going to be happy, right?

And why does short flange distance preclude a comfortable grip? Besides which, who carries a camera around all day by the grip? I'm a professional photographer and I don't. (not part-time or semi-professional, mind you). Not speaking for everyone of course, but I personally use a neck strap. I myself would love to have all the same IQ as my 5D's in a lighter camera.

And how about Canon gives us the option to screw the adapter down permanently (or for the literal-ists: semi-permanently because of course you can un-screw it) Then it's a "native" EF mount and you never have to buy a non-EF lens!

Sorry if it sounds like I'm jumping on CR's case. I just drink a lot of coffee so it sounds that way in print.

A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

Cory said:


> I'd pre-order the fixed lens one right now.



'5D4-quality' sensor (30 MP not a must) 
+ fixed 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/2 lens (IS nice but not a must)
+ sealed design
+ decent EVF with MF peaking (or other MF assistance)
+ DPAF + touch LCD to select AF point while my eye was at the EVF 
+ nice diminutive build (fixed lens = jettison any full EF discussion, the body will 100% be thin)
+ sensibly not tiny grip + Canon ergonomic/control DNA (+ thumb wheel?)

= a perfect travel camera for me. (I do love me a 28-35mm FF FOV and wouldn't feel handcuffed with that choice.) 

It would effectively be an RX1-like rig with Canon control DNA, a better grip, better color, and DPAF.

I'd honestly consider buying one provided Canon doesn't go insane and ask $4k for it. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

Aaron D said:


> And why does short flange distance preclude a comfortable grip?



..._Ask Sony_, b/c I can't figure out why they continue to propagate a dainty little grip on a platform now sporting huge pickle jar lenses.

In truth, it doesn't, but there's a notion that 'going small' with a thin new mount means everything needs to be shrunk down to look smaller/sleeker in comparison to the competition, to the SLR, etc. See the first EOS-M for what I mean, that thing was about as big as a deck of cards.

And when I say it doesn't need to be uncomfortable, I mean it. You can have even a thin-mount FF mirrorless ride shotgun to a proper SLR grip. See graphic. The idea that you might leave a pancake on it warranting_ designing the body to look smallest with a pancake on it_ is idiotic. FF lenses have weight, even modest f/2 primes and f/4 zooms, and you need a grip to wield those.

The only space savings you'll enjoy with a gripless disaster of a rig is _if you pack that rig in your bag without a lens attached_. I can't speak for everyone here, but I almost never do that. So why not avail yourself of a grip that takes up no more space than a mundane kit lens? If you do that, you get a top LCD, great Canon ergonomics, and possibly more battery jammed in there. The rig remains thin and small if you want it to be, but it seamlessly can wield bigger lenses without a huge delta in hand discomfort.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2017)

Aaron D said:


> Just include an EF to M (or whatever) adapter and everybody's happy!
> 
> A



Not me. I have no interest in such a camera, one reason for not buying a Sony. A adapter is a pain for professional users which is why Canon has already admitted that their surveys have shown pro users with a strong preference for a EF mount.

Putting a lens closer to the sensor introduces IQ issues at the edges of the sensor, the light strikes the outer pixels at a shallow angle, so all kinds of semi klutzy inventions have to be put in place just to make the image usable. Even then, the gain of the outer pixels is cranked up even more than with a EF mount to accommodate the light loss.

That does not mean that such a mount would not sell, it just means a compromise in IQ along with a entire new series of lenses.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 5, 2017)

Now we're talking AH!

If I were designing a mirrorless camera, I'd find some middle ground between a FF DSLR body and an M body. When I look at a 5D, I see a bulge directly behind the mount--if that bulge were to go away, meaning put the mount surface just above the body at it's thinnest, you've already made the camera thinner. Sure the grip is still as big, but the thing slips into a case easier now! But go a step further--remove that bulge AND keep the grip's forward protrusion BUT make the body a little thinner and now you've IMPROVED the fingernail against body clearance! OR protrude the grip behind the thinner body Ala Hasselblad XD-1 and voila!

And then put the eyepiece in the corner like a Fuji SE so that top bump is gone. I don't think I'd loose any sleep over an off center eye-piece--but I don't to speak for anyone else.

OK now I need to do something useful. Not that this isn't of course.

A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

So why not this scheme? 
(Brand names 100% negotiable, don't get wrapped around that axle)

6DM = Thin Mount / Adaptor for the 'keep it small' / non EF adapting lens types / mirrorless enthusiasts -- this will get the obligatory 3-5 smaller lenses just for that mount: 

24 f/2 or 35 f/2
50 f/1.8
24-50 f/4
16-35 f/4
Perhaps a macro like the crop illuminated ones -- not a 100, but something 35-50-ish

+ adapt all of EF
+ adapt Nikkor (third party adaptor required)
+ adapt vintage stuff (third party adaptor required)
+ speedboost 

5DM (or 5DSM if you like) = Full EF Mount / No adaptor for professionals, wedding folks, enthusiast wildlifers/birders, etc. Those folks get the big bodies with larger batteries, top LCD, thumb wheel, big grip, etc.

1DXM = waaaaaaay down the road if this strategy takes off. I appreciate this is the class of camera likely to require you to pry their OVF out of their cold, dead hands, but pitching the mirror is one way to help up the fps...

Would that work?

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2017)

Canon does have a patent for EF / EFs adapter to a new undisclosed FF mirrorless lens mount.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26883.0



There is another patent for helping with shallow light ray angles to the edges of a sensor.
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09601534

Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to a solid state image sensor, 
a method of manufacturing a solid state image sensor, and an
image capturing system.

Description of the Related Art

Solid state image sensors and display apparatuses use
optical elements such a microlens array as disclosed in
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2007-335723. Japanese Patent
Laid-Open No. 2007-335723 discloses a technique of
providing microlenses, each having a shape called a teardrop,
in a solid state image sensor to efficiently focus light
entering from oblique directions onto light-receiving units. 
Such a microlens is shaped to have a curved shape tapering
to the outside of the solid state image sensor and having a
vertex at an outside end portion when viewed in a planar
view.


----------



## BillB (Oct 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > I'd pre-order the fixed lens one right now.
> ...



A fixed lens design might be an easier way to role out a curved sensor.


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 5, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'd never buy a Canon FF mirrorless that requires an adaptor for EF lenses.



I'd be willing to bet that a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera will follow the general path that Sigma took with their sd Quattro cameras as far as sensor flange distance is concerned. 

There is no business reason for Canon to market a mirrorless camera designed to work with adapted lenses (unlike Sony). Nor does it make sense for Canon to create and release a whole new type of lens mount for a "full frame" product.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2017)

In this 2014 Photokina interview, Mr. Masaya Shinoda of Canon says that they are considering a new lens mount. Considering the time it takes to develop a new mount and turn it into a new system, a 2018 introduction seems reasonable. A adapter patent was also released around the same time.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Fnews%2Finterview%2F20140918_667456.html&edit-text=


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> I'd be willing to bet that a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera will follow the general path that Sigma took with their sd Quattro cameras as far as sensor flange distance is concerned.
> 
> There is no business reason for Canon to market a mirrorless camera designed to work with adapted lenses (unlike Sony). Nor does it make sense for Canon to create and release a whole new type of lens mount for a "full frame" product.



Regarding Sigma Quattro H and the 'lens tube' approach to maintain a 'full' mount with svelte overall body (in fairness that one is APS-H, not true FF), sure, that could work. 

But I disagree on the other bits. Being able to use the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8, 28 f/1.4, 24-70 f/2.8 VR, 105 f/1.4 without having to change systems *is*, in a small way, in Canon's best interests. Consider: how many landscapers left Canon for that Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8? _Now they wouldn't feel compelled to leave. _ And they don't need to pave the way for this compatibility and design an adaptor for Nikkor glass. Just offer a thin mount and I guarantee the metabones' of the world will swoop in to fill that need. Easy.

And _of course _there's value in a new thinner mount:

[list type=decimal]
[*]With reasonable lens FL / speed expectations, a thinner mount rig allows someone to build a considerably smaller overall lens + body combination. It's obviously a limited slice of the lens portfolio, but see an A7RII + a 35mm f/2.8 and you'll see what I mean. To many, _this is the #1 draw of mirrorless._


[*]Offering a new mount + adaptor does not mean _EF is RIP_. There will be an adaptor, and possibly a full EF mount body offering alongside this skinny mount one someday.


[*]Offering a new mount + adaptor does not mean _all of EF must be redesigned in the new mount_. They just need 3-5 staple lenses that make the space savings pop (see my prior list above).

[/list]

When I say all this, I am not pro-[thin new mount + adaptor] vs. full mount, but to declare thin new mount + adaptor as being pointless is putting blinders on to the entire current market. Canon and Nikon don't see an A7 rig and say "Well, Sony _had _to do that to adapt our lenses..." -- they say "Wow! That is small. And there's a great FF sensor in there?".

There are two distinct camps here. To presume one is not legitimate / not a major consideration is a very myopic view of things, IMHO.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Oct 5, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> The first project is a full frame mirrorless camera with a native EF mount.



Craig, you just made my day. Thank you!


----------



## Jopa (Oct 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Would that work?



It would. But I need this miraculous 1dxm now lol.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 5, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'd never buy a Canon FF mirrorless that requires an adaptor for EF lenses.



Interesting that some people totally reject using a simple and inexpensive mount adaptor to keep legacy EF glass usable. Works perfectly well and is solid and stable. It can easily be made weatherproof and may even add a removable tripod foot to any lens ... just like the Canon EF-/EF-M adaptor does. 

"Adaptor refusal" is even more puzzling, when considering that all EF lenses are optimized for DSLR Phase-AF operation. EF glass will suffer some AF speed/performance penalty on any mirrorless camera body - just as they do in live view mode on a DSLR. 

Lenses with STM and even more so Nano-USM drive can and will improve this, but currently there are only 3 "low-end" STM lenses for EF mount - 50/1.8, 40/2.8, 24-105/3.5-5.6 STM and no EF lens with Nano USM (only EF-S). 

New native mirrorless glass with AF drive optimized for mirrorless bodies' AF system [= Canon DPAF sensors] will have improved AF performance compared to using EF glass - with or without adaptor. 

If Canon indeed brings a MILC with EF mount first, people buying it may come to regret it soon, when the second MILC body/system with shorter FFD mount is released ... along with new mount native glass ... with better AF performance. Maybe crafty Canon is even counting on this to happen.


----------



## preppyak (Oct 5, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Yes, Sony will have released 10 models by then, and they will still all be crap. *What does that tell you? *


That you've never used one of them. If Sony fills in a few more budget prices lenses (plus Sigma doing FE mount) before Canon nails mirrorless, it'll be over in that space for Canon.


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be willing to bet that a Canon EF mount mirrorless camera will follow the general path that Sigma took with their sd Quattro cameras as far as sensor flange distance is concerned.
> ...



As far as the Sigma sd Quattro goes, the camera body is physically capable of supporting a full frame sensor. Sigma (presumably) did not make a "thin body" because of the processing requirements of the Foveon sensors- non-Sigma adapted lenses are known to cause varying degrees of color casts to the image. The Quattro sensor is supposedly better in this regard.

I have used a Sony A7RII and a Metabones EF adapter and the Sigma MC-11 adapter that allows the use of Sigma SA lenses.

The Sony + Metabones +Canon lens combo was quirky at best.

The Sony + Sigma MC-11 + Sigma SA lens seemed to be no different from using "native lenses"... or at least as good as Sigma lenses on a Sigma camera.

I really didn't like the "small body" though and would have preferred it to be larger.

Given the touchscreen implementation on the 1DXII (as just one example), I would not expect Canon to give photo enthusiasts what they want- a Canon mirrorless that can be adapted to many different lenses ala Sony. 

However, if Canon is really behind the product this time around, I'm sure that it will be a solid performer and simply work. If the release is well executed, I would strongly consider it.

For me, it may be a moot point if the A7RIII addresses some issues and delivers on the megapixel front... and if I can swing it. I can use my Canon and Sigma lenses on a Sony- something that I would never be able to do with Canon.


----------



## Aaron D (Oct 5, 2017)

I am actually in a third camp, AH: a professional who wants a small camera. But I do architectural, so I'm a minority. Still though, I will always keep a DSLR for the odd times I need to follow moving objects. The beauty of a mirrorless is that I could get all the same quality as a 5D in a more compact package.

The adapter would only be required for the very few, occasional lenses that I don't use enough to justify a mirror-less specific lens. And I'll try not to leave it at home--like everything else I shouldn't forget. Like memory cards which also are not permanently fixed to the camera.

But I see the closer flange distance as a means to a smaller set of TS lenses. As Mt Spokane said, they've got the angle of incidence thing figured out, now they can go the route of Rodenstock W lenses (or pick your manufacturer) with a symmetrical design that hovers the inside element right over the sensor. And no bulging front element (17 mm TS) so you can use filters! And, yeah maybe only a handful of lenses would benefit from a mirrorless specific design, but that's all I use is a handful of wide angle lenses. Mostly.

In my own personal humble opinion the fixed EF-on-mirrorless argument is nonsense. If you want seamless, stick to DSLRs. Mirrorless serves a different purpose, it won't replace DSLRs. Immediately anyway.

A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 5, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Lenses with STM and even more so Nano-USM drive can and will improve this, but currently there are only 3 "low-end" STM lenses for EF mount - 50/1.8, 40/2.8, 24-105/3.5-5.6 STM and no EF lens with Nano USM (only EF-S).



Not true. EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM is a nano lens.

- A


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 5, 2017)

My interest is definitely piqued. But my gut tells me (based on company track record) that it will not be something that is compelling enough to bring me back to a Canon body. 

There are three things that I can already be pretty certain of:

1. Canon will dumb down or omit a to be determined number of features so as to not cannibalize their other high end lines
2. IBIS, if present, will only be for video
3. At present, the Sony ecosystem is blown wide open since it has had some time for third party companies to work on accessories and other components to play within the system. Canon will not be seeing any of this in any expeditious fashion. 

I know I don't speak for the average user. But I am a hobbyist/enthusiast who loves photography as well as tinkering with things. Sony allows me infinite possibilities to tinker with what already exists for their FE mount.

With the A9, I've now got something that I am happy with in all the categories that matter to me in a mirrorless body. Battery life is insanely good, ergonomics are great, AF is the best I have ever used to include eye-AF with adapted lenses as well as with my old m42 screw mount lenses now with the Techart Pro adapter, buffer is massive and general speed of operation is insanely good, amongst other things. In a nutshell, Sony gave us the whole enchilada that a mirrorless camera could provide with the tech that is currently available to the consumer market.

I know there are plenty of users that don't want to fiddle with adapters. But the market has shown that there are plenty of people that are more than happy to do it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing more and more companies producing them along with the development of new types.

People will ultimately vote with their wallets. Personally, it would just take an exorbitantly huge effort and change of philosophy from Canon to convince me to drop several thousand on a Canon body moving forward.

For the record, I was a Canon body shooter for a long time and continue to respect their business model as it is clearly very successful. However, their body offerings no longer pique my interest enough to get me out of my seat with credit card in hand.

Side note, I still own and love many EF lenses and would be happy to buy a revolutionary Canon mirrorless body for them to play together natively. Keyword being revolutionary. lol.


----------



## Woody (Oct 5, 2017)

WeekendWarrior said:


> Canon just running behind as usual.



But who's leading the race for market shares by a W--I--D--E margin?



Ooops.... it's Canon... as usual.


----------



## Woody (Oct 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Consider: how many landscapers left Canon for that Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8?



They left because they wanted the wide DR at base ISO offered by Sony sensors. Fred Miranda is an example.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 5, 2017)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> My interest is definitely piqued. But my gut tells me (based on company track record) that it will not be something that is compelling enough to bring me back to a Canon body...
> 
> ...Personally, it would just take an exorbitantly huge effort and change of philosophy from Canon to convince me to drop several thousand on a Canon body moving forward...
> 
> ...continue to respect their business model as it is clearly very successful. However, their body offerings no longer pique my interest enough to get me out of my seat with credit card in hand.



Nothing really wrong with that. No manufacturer can be expected to be all things to all people. The vast majority on this forum have no problem with anyone who has made a rational decision to buy into another system. What people object to is when individuals take Canon's business decisions and market research personally and insist they know better.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 6, 2017)

I wasn't sure from reading but would the mirrorless mount be wider or narrower than an EF Mount?
I was also curious why Canon or Nikon don't go for a sensor larger than full frame but maybe not as big as medium format if there was a new mount to be made for mirrorless.
If you were going to go to the trouble of creating new lens wouldn't it be an opportunity to go all out and create a new category.
There is alot of space available between Full Frame and Medium Format.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 6, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'd never buy a Canon FF mirrorless that requires an adaptor for EF lenses.



I'll second that. With $9,000 worth of EF lenses, I'll never have a desire to switch to a new mount. I'd rather stick a new 5D Mark III in moth balls so I can keep using my EF lenses for years to come.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 6, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, if it's EF mount and DSLR sized it better be pretty damn impressive in other ways if they have any chance of selling.



You mean selling *to you.* I, and many others like me, will be much more likely to buy mirrorless with an EF mount.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 6, 2017)

Aaron D said:


> Now we're talking AH!
> 
> If I were designing a mirrorless camera, I'd find some middle ground between a FF DSLR body and an M body. When I look at a 5D, I see a bulge directly behind the mount--if that bulge were to go away, meaning put the mount surface just above the body at it's thinnest, you've already made the camera thinner. Sure the grip is still as big, but the thing slips into a case easier now! But go a step further--remove that bulge AND keep the grip's forward protrusion BUT make the body a little thinner and now you've IMPROVED the fingernail against body clearance! OR protrude the grip behind the thinner body Ala Hasselblad XD-1 and voila!
> 
> ...



True. That bulge at the mount is what makes the camera so big and hard to slip into a case. : Puns intended.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 6, 2017)

preppyak said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Sony will have released 10 models by then, and they will still all be crap. *What does that tell you? *
> ...



Wrong! I bought both the A7 (and also the A7 II after returning the A7) with the intent of replacing my 6D a few years ago. After taking side-by-side shots with both cameras, the Sony was returned because it basically did nothing better and many things a whole lot worse. I then considered replacing my Olympus E-M1 with the Sony, but quite frankly, the Olympus was also a better camera. All things considered (including the lenses), the Sony was the least favorite camera that I have ever purchased.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 6, 2017)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> My interest is definitely piqued. But my gut tells me (based on company track record) that it will not be something that is compelling enough to bring me back to a Canon body.
> 
> There are three things that I can already be pretty certain of:
> 
> ...



Goodluck JohnDizzo ;D

Dylan


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 6, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> There is alot of space available between Full Frame and Medium Format.



True medium format, or digital mini medium format? 

At the plebeian end of current production digital medium format camera bodies (not digital backs), only Pentax has readily available lenses that will cover a 645 sensor, with the exception of their very latest 645 lenses (90mm macro for example). It would be pretty cool if it happened.... 

I can't even imagine what new medium format capable Canon lenses would cost. As far as I know, only (some) of the tilt-shift lenses will cover a mini-MF sensor.

It would be interesting to see, but certainly out of reach, at least for me.


----------



## bf (Oct 6, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'd never buy a Canon FF mirrorless that requires an adaptor for EF lenses.


Me either! Not that I have so many EF lenses since I just own one but I don't trust their speed in developing a new ecosystem bases on a new mount.


----------



## hmatthes (Oct 6, 2017)

This entire thread fascinates me. I use Canon DSLRs and a Leica Q. There is room for choices, here are mine:
1. a 5DIV ML brother with same sensor, EF mount, no pentaprism bump (EVF to side). I love using the 5DIV but wish for a real EVF with focus peaking, realtime ExpComp viewing, realtime depth of field viewing, etc.
2. a new mount? No reason for me. EF glass is all I need.
3. Fixed lens FF ML (Leica Q) is my goto everyday, everywhere, always with me camera. 28mm f1.7 Summilux with good macro (not just marketing macro) and phenomenal EVF = perfection for my photography. I like aperture selection on the lens. I like instant AF with AF points spread across the entire FF space. I like instant choice of manual everything without search menus. I like ExpComp under my right thumb and immediate feedback for such adjustments. If Canon builds a Leica Q for $2,000 they will sell the hell out of it.
Image quality is the objective. Side by side shooting of the 5DIV/35mm1.4L and Leica Q (28mm1.7) yielded equally wonderful RAW files. I prefer Canon jpegs but rarely use them anyhow.
Just my $000.02... When can I order the 5Dm?


----------



## josephandrews222 (Oct 6, 2017)

I own a 5D3; it has served me well (still does!)...with a wide variety of lenses: Canon's 100-400 II is more-or-less permanently attached to it.

I also own a stlll-functioning 40D; Canon's 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens hasn't left that body in months.

I also own a variety of M's (and inch toward purchasing the M6); currently (and usually) an M2 is mated to the 11-22mm lens, an M10 lives happily with the 22mm lens, and the og M is partnered with an 18-55mm M-native lens.

While I have sold a few (sports) photos, I am not a professional photographer.

Instead, I am an organic chemist, and my most important photographs are of my family...at home and on vacation.

The majority of our family-oriented pix are now (and have been for several years) produced with M's.

Readers here can surmise manifold reasons why this is so--but the size-and-weight advantages offered by the M platform are important.

I think I am probably aware of most of what professional photographers need as far as their cameras are concerned...and I pay attention to what they write.

Here is what I think I know:

*Canon's upcoming M100 + 22mm lens will be the nearly-perfect point-and-shoot rig.

**Any existing M + 11-22mm lens is a very functional walkaround vacation kit.

***Any existing M attached to lenses with more mass-and-volume than, say, Canon's 70-200mm 4.0IS becomes (somewhat) unwieldy, compared to the same lenses attached to a 5Dwhatever.

****Young people (well, a sample size of two, actually) love shooting with their M's (although I think the Asian markets agree with my daughters).

*****The focusing precision that Canon's current crop of pro-level DSLRs offers is necessary for a wide range of professional shooters. 

And here is what I think I think:

*A full-frame mirrorless Canon body that uses EF lenses without an adaptor will sell to professionals if the focusing system on these new bodies is equal to (or superior to) that found on their current DSLR.

Finally, here is what I'd like to know:

For night-time vacation shots, I generally utilize the 5DMk3/35mm 2.0 IS combination as vacation photos acquired using this gear have supplied us with lots of joy--when seeing some of the 5DMk3/35mm 2.0 IS images my wife actually thinks I know what I'm doing!

*JUST HOW MUCH SMALLER & LIGHTER (than the 5DMk3/35mm 2.0 IS combo) could a designed-from-the-ground-up analogous full frame mirrorless camera+lens system get?

Finally...to try and answer my own question:

A 5DMk4 (880g) is much heavier than an SL2 (453 g)...and larger in all dimensions; this comparison gives a bit of an estimate (probably overdoes it by some) of the size-and-weight effects of full-frame vs crop.

Oddly (perhaps?!), the M6 (520 g) is 67 g heavier than the SL2 (is this right?)...but the M6's dimensions are significantly smaller than those of the SL2...yielding mixed results on the size-and-weight effects of mirrorless vs mirror (for crop sensors).

As far as lenses are concerned (I'm sure CR readers will correct my data if they're wrong):

*IS/STM 18-55M and 18-55S lenses are about the same mass, but the S version is about 10mm longer and 8mm wider (diameter) than the M

*...for IS/STM 18-150M and 18-135S lenses, the S is 180 g heavier, 10mm longer and 18mm wider

*..for pancakes, the EFM 22mm is a mm longer than the EF 40mm but also 25 grams lighter

=====

I hope the data here are correct.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 6, 2017)

hmatthes said:


> This entire thread fascinates me. I use Canon DSLRs and a Leica Q. There is room for choices, here are mine:
> 1. a 5DIV ML brother with same sensor, EF mount, no pentaprism bump (EVF to side). I love using the 5DIV but wish for a real EVF with focus peaking, realtime ExpComp viewing, realtime depth of field viewing, etc.
> 2. a new mount? No reason for me. EF glass is all I need.
> 3. Fixed lens FF ML (Leica Q) is my goto everyday, everywhere, always with me camera. 28mm f1.7 Summilux with good macro (not just marketing macro) and phenomenal EVF = perfection for my photography. I like aperture selection on the lens. I like instant AF with AF points spread across the entire FF space. I like instant choice of manual everything without search menus. I like ExpComp under my right thumb and immediate feedback for such adjustments. If Canon builds a Leica Q for $2,000 they will sell the hell out of it.
> ...



Appreciate the thoughts. Given that a standalone high quality EF 28mm f/1.7 is nearly L territory (say an $800-1000 ish instrument), I'm guessing an FF mirrorless Leica Q with Canon branding would run $3-4k depending on how good a sensor / what throughput it can deliver, i.e. a 6D2 sensor / throughput with that lens would be about $2800, and a 5D4 with that lens might be $4000 or so.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 6, 2017)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> 1. Canon will dumb down or omit a to be determined number of features so as to not cannibalize their other high end lines



This kind of statement always makes me laugh. The two lines would run parallel. There might be a difference here or there, but not too much. One would simply have the choice of either or.

Which cameras do you think this camera would match or which series' do you believe such a camera would slide between... keeping in mind there are no specs yet. People love to use market segmenting decisions and attach negatives like "dumb down" "crippled" "keep from cannibalizing" etc. The fact is that even Canon's models tend to leap frog each other technologically as they are released. We saw flip screens and DPAF on consumer end cameras first.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 6, 2017)

josephandrews222 said:


> *JUST HOW MUCH SMALLER & LIGHTER (than the 5DMk3/35mm 2.0 IS combo) could a designed-from-the-ground-up analogous full frame mirrorless camera+lens system get?



Look at the RX1R II, right? 35mm f/2 lens + FF sensor, but I don't know if it has IBIS. Pretty sure that lens doesn't have IS.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 6, 2017)

Woody said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Consider: how many landscapers left Canon for that Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8?
> ...



How many left? How many stayed? How many moved to Canon from Sony? Fred is just one case. This question is rhetorical because you could give me 10 names and it still wouldn't mean anything.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2017)

I'm curious. Can someone who owns and uses an adapter with the current Canon mirrorless tell me if you have to mount the adapter to the lens first, as with a tele-extender. 

I ask, because I can see it being a real problem if you have to remove the adapter from the camera body every time you want to change lenses.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 6, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I'm curious. Can someone who owns and uses an adapter with the current Canon mirrorless tell me if you have to mount the adapter to the lens first, as with a tele-extender.
> 
> I ask, because I can see it being a real problem if you have to remove the adapter from the camera body every time you want to change lenses.



i use EF/EF-M adapter frequently - mainly with EF STM lenses [40/2.8, 50/1.8]. Adapter can be mounted as you like .. on lens first and then on camera or vice versa.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 6, 2017)

The likely big reason that Canon would use a new mount, is patents. They can patent it and make it difficult for 3rd parties to connect to the mount. It can use a different encrypted protocol, lots of ways to lock out competition. The Canon adapter can still let a EF lens work, but 3rd parties may not be able to make native lenses.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Oct 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> josephandrews222 said:
> 
> 
> > *JUST HOW MUCH SMALLER & LIGHTER (than the 5DMk3/35mm 2.0 IS combo) could a designed-from-the-ground-up analogous full frame mirrorless camera+lens system get?
> ...



Good point. Real good point...I guess that's where the notion that Canon's first full frame mirrorless might be a fixed-lens model, eh?

As I'm sure you realize, too, the RX1R II's body (minus the fixed lens) is more-or-less the same size and weight as...the M6!


----------



## Cthulhu (Oct 6, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> WeekendWarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Canon just running behind as usual.
> ...



I do. I'd much rather have a FF mirrorless right now than an M5. I don't buy for one second that they are taking this long because they want to show up with an excellent camera, looking at Canon's history the first few will be terribly underwhelming. Might as well get on with it and get it out of the way


----------



## meho1a (Oct 6, 2017)

Pearsonaly i don't care if it takes EF lenses nativaley or with adapter. I just hope it wont be so ugly as on the front photo.
I also think that uncompetative sensor was used in 6D mk ii to make space for new ful frame line. This might be mirrorless. Why not?


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 6, 2017)

Actually, I don't really care if the new Canon FF Mirrorless uses EF mount or not. Because by the time it's out the Sony A7RIII (or possibly A9R) will be out.


Now, if the new EF-mount Canon camera was a hybrid device keeping the mirror but with a combined OVF/EVF giving you the best of both worlds, then I'd be very interested.

But large heavy mirrorless cameras that only take EF lenses? Count me out right now.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 6, 2017)

what is the point of posting on Canon centric forum then? I genuinely and admittedly have no interest in Sony system. That does not prompt me to start posting on Alpha Rumors?
I can recall that one of CR forum members asked you to stop promoting the Sony system around here and you replied to the effect that you made the post is "Other Manufacturers" section of the forum. Fair enough... but now you are posting in *EOS Bodies* section.



jolyonralph said:


> Actually, I don't really care if the new Canon FF Mirrorless uses EF mount or not. Because by the time it's out the Sony A7RIII (or possibly A9R) will be out.
> 
> 
> Now, if the new EF-mount Canon camera was a hybrid device keeping the mirror but with a combined OVF/EVF giving you the best of both worlds, then I'd be very interested.
> ...


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 6, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I can recall that one of CR forum members asked you to stop promoting the Sony system around here and you replied to the effect that you made the post is "Other Manufacturers" section of the forum. Fair enough... but now you are posting in *EOS Bodies* section.



That must have been someone else, not me. 

I'm not promoting Sony over Canon. I'd much rather have a Canon FF MILC than a Sony one, but I don't want a heavy DSLR-sized body tied to the old EF lens mount. Why compromise? Build something for the future, not the past.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 6, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm not promoting Sony over Canon. I'd much rather have a Canon FF MILC than a Sony one, but I don't want a heavy DSLR-sized body tied to the old EF lens mount. Why compromise? Build something for the future, not the past.



+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> ...but I don't want a heavy DSLR-sized body tied to the old EF lens mount. Why compromise? Build something for the future, not the past.



I guess in _your_ future, we'll all have teeny tiny hands, and the laws of physics will no longer apply such that f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes will be small and light. 

:


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > ...but I don't want a heavy DSLR-sized body tied to the old EF lens mount. Why compromise? Build something for the future, not the past.
> ...



no. some people will continue to buy large cameras and large lenses. Others will hopefully get a chance to buy fully capable smaller cameras and fully capable compact lenses that will cover *the vast majority* of image capture situations very well. Big & heavy stuff will only be needed for special situations. And / or for XXL users who like/need things generally Texas size.


----------



## snoke (Oct 6, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The likely big reason that Canon would use a new mount, is patents.



Sigma & Tamron have Canon "help". Zeiss no. Patent already mean no AF on Zeiss. Nothing change.


----------



## snoke (Oct 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Consider: how many landscapers left Canon for that Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8?



Already buy A7RII and adapter. Don't need Canon. Ship sailed.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I guess in _your_ future, we'll all have teeny tiny hands, and the laws of physics will no longer apply such that f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes will be small and light.
> 
> :





I'd like a future where people realise you don't always need a 2.8 zoom or a 1.4 prime to take a great photo.

For that I have my 5DSR. That works great.

A compact mirrorless camera allows me to shoot in different ways, I don't want to replicate the same set up with 2.8 zooms and 1.2 primes that I use with the 5DSR. That's fine as it is. 

Basically, I am very happy with the combination of using the A7RII and compact slower primes and using the larger 5DSR with the heavy artillery. 

But far from being a Sony fanboy, I want to replace the A7RII with something comparable that's native Canon. 

Then I'll upgrade the 5DSR when the appropriate upgrade comes along too - but that's unlikely to be a mirrorless body this time round.


----------



## BillB (Oct 6, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess in _your_ future, we'll all have teeny tiny hands, and the laws of physics will no longer apply such that f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes will be small and light.
> ...




Most would agree that a 5DSR plus a small FF mirrorless would be more flexible than one or the other. The fun starts with posts that imply that that a small FF mirrorless would be a better choice than a 5DSR (or another DSLR or a larger FF mirrorless) as an either or camera choice.


----------



## snoke (Oct 6, 2017)

Mirrorless changed market.

Now I buy EF lens, don't need EF camera.

Canon EF-T (EF Thin) + adapter = use any non-mirrorless lens.

When all lens for mirrorless then adapter die. Lockin return.

Mirrorless unchain camera and lens from manufacturer.

Big problem for company.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 6, 2017)

not such a big problem if Canon kept EF mount on FF mirrorless body. what other system lenses can be adopted to EF mount? Exactly..




snoke said:


> ..When all lens for mirrorless then adapter die. Lockin return.
> Mirrorless unchain camera and lens from manufacturer.
> Big problem for company.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 6, 2017)

The new mount...a new mount means new lenses. What a great time to introduce a curved sensor complete with a (probably small) range of lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> no. some people will continue to buy large cameras and large lenses. Others will hopefully get a chance to buy fully capable smaller cameras and fully capable compact lenses that will cover *the vast majority* of image capture situations very well. Big & heavy stuff will only be needed for special situations. And / or for XXL users who like/need things generally Texas size.



There you go again with *the vast majority*. For you. But you are not everyone, nor are you representative of everyone. Not even a majority, much less a *vast* majority. 

Incidentally, if you actually thing a FF camera —with or without a mirror— will ever be used in *the vast majority* of image capture situations, you're delusional.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I guess in _your_ future, we'll all have teeny tiny hands, and the laws of physics will no longer apply such that f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes will be small and light.
> ...



I think (perhaps it's just a hope) that most people realize great photos can be taken with any gear. But...when I need to use a 70-200/2.8 (e.g. for indoor sports, like my kids on horseback in an arena), I _want_ it to be comfortable. That's not the case with a tiny body hanging off the back of a big lens.

At some point in the future, assuming continued growth of the MILC market, Canon will likely have a broad lineup of MILCs, both APS-C and FF. There will presumably be 'pro' models with larger bodies (1- and/or 5-series equivalent), and compact FF lines (6-series equivalent, but smaller). All will have their place. 

At issue here is where Canon goes initially. As the original rumor states, a likely scenario is a first FF MILC with a standard EF mount. I suspect something that's a close to 6-series features, and probably about the size of the 6D (thinner, but still with a full hand grip). That line will eventually move up-market (to 5-series features), and a new, smaller FF MILC will launch with a new mount and a small collection of slow lenses (mostly zooms, 1-2 primes, a mount adapter for EF).


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > no. some people will continue to buy large cameras and large lenses. Others will hopefully get a chance to buy fully capable smaller cameras and fully capable compact lenses that will cover *the vast majority* of image capture situations very well. Big & heavy stuff will only be needed for special situations. And / or for XXL users who like/need things generally Texas size.
> ...



Given the preponderance and preference for smartphones, I think AvTvMs comment



> Others will hopefully get a chance to buy fully capable smaller cameras and fully capable compact lenses that will cover *the vast majority* of image capture situations very well.


is quite reasonable. He referred to 'others' getting a chance, not a 'vast majority' getting a chance. And he commented on 'the others' getting a chance for a smaller camera for a 'vast majority' of their needs. What is the problem with what he is saying. I, and a lot of others have DSLR but also a 'smaller' camera for general toting around because it is smaller (ie more portable) for those occasions I am not sure if I will see anything to take a picture of. Others use a camera phone for the same reason
I often disagree with AvTvM but I think here you seem to have jumped in a bit quickly.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2017)

Okay. So Canon is considering:


A native EF Mount mirrorless (Makes some people happy)
A new lens mount mirrorless (Makes other people happy)
A fixed mount mirrorless (Makes some more people happy)

They already make:


Several APS-C mirrorless (Makes a lot of people happy)
World's most compact DSLR (Makes some people happy)
A broad range of APS-C DSLRs from beginner to professional level (Makes most photographers happy)
Several full-frame DSLRs ranging from enthusiast to most demanding professional (Makes some people happy)

Everybody gets something they want. Everybody (reasonable) should be happy. Why do we need six pages of people telling one another that they don't deserve to get the camera that Canon is either already making or going to make for them?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Oct 6, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> what is the point of posting on Canon centric forum then? I genuinely and admittedly have no interest in Sony system. That does not prompt me to start posting on Alpha Rumors?
> I can recall that one of CR forum members asked you to stop promoting the Sony system around here and you replied to the effect that you made the post is "Other Manufacturers" section of the forum. Fair enough... but now you are posting in *EOS Bodies* section.
> 
> 
> ...



Your needs and my needs are different. I own a 5D Mark IV and I don't mind if Canon mirrorless camera have the same size if that mean better ergonomic, protection, battery life, usability. It might even lighter without a mirror. 

Shooting 8-16 hrs wedding with Sony A7RII body will be more difficult than DSLR. I'm not sure the a7RIII will address alot of professional events photographer needs (dual SD, instant on, focusing in the dark, battery, ergonomic, reliability). I hope it does so it give me another option to consider when Canon finally release their mirrorless camera.

Next year will be very exciting for photographers. We will have alot of choice between Canon, Nikon and Sony FF mirrorless camera. If Canon mirrorless camera doesn't pan out, the a7RIII will be out for a while and be cheaper with the looming rumors of yet another Sony mirrorless soon to be release on the horizon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2017)

Mikehit said:


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



I diasgree. As I pointed out previously, Canon bundles 55-250mm and 75-300mm lenses with entry level kits, and for many people that ability to 'zoom in close' is what separates an ILC from their phone camera. 

I do agree that a smaller FF MILC would be nice, and I suspect we'll see one from Canon...eventually. But I think their first foray into FF MILC will have an EF mount. No doubt AvTvM will be here on CR complaining at that point (but then, that's normal here, right?).


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 6, 2017)

Sorry, Are you responding to my post or jolyonralph's post? I personally couldn't care less about small FF MILC bodies either. 



bokehmon22 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > what is the point of posting on Canon centric forum then? I genuinely and admittedly have no interest in Sony system. That does not prompt me to start posting on Alpha Rumors?
> ...


----------



## Perio (Oct 6, 2017)

snoke said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Consider: how many landscapers left Canon for that Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8?
> ...



Please share with us, a pathetic Canon community, your masterpiece landscape photographs to make us jealous.


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 6, 2017)

I'd buy it, does not matter which option: EF mount or new mount + adapter.

Just give me a modern body, good EVF and eye AF tracking.


----------



## sanj (Oct 6, 2017)

At last the debate if mirrorless is the future is over.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2017)

sanj said:


> At last the debate if mirrorless is the future is over.



Since when? Mirrorless is certainly _part of_ the future. But is it *the* future? The jury is still out...


----------



## sanj (Oct 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > At last the debate if mirrorless is the future is over.
> ...



To me it seems like all major players would get into mirrorless only because they would consider that to have value over DSLR.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > At last the debate if mirrorless is the future is over.
> ...



no. the future will NOT come about with slapping mirrors ... even if the last new mirrorslapper will be made another 20 years from now. It will still be the past. History. Legacy. Steam punk. Nice, but overcome.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2017)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I doubt the major players are that stupid. At the very least, I expect that anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of numbers could look at the publicly available CIPA data and see that $213MM in dSLRs have shipped so far this year, compared to $157MM in MILCs. 

Rather than 'value _over_ dSLRs', saying mirrorless has 'value _in addition to_ dSLRs' is certainly true. 

Will MILCs overtake dSLRs? Maybe. Even if so, the question is when. Based on the trends over the past couple of years, it may not happen before both are rendered irrelevant and we're all shooting with the equivalent of Canon's Wondercamera (ultrahigh res sensor, fixed zoom lens) or some sort of holographic 4D brain-linked imager.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



If the last DLSR is made 20 years from now, then I really don't care if mirrorless is the future. 

[quote author=John Maynard Keynes] But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.[/quote]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2017)

unfocused said:


> If the last DLSR is made 20 years from now, then I really don't care if mirrorless is the future.
> 
> [quote author=John Maynard Keynes] But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.


[/quote]

+1


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 6, 2017)

I’m ready for the implantable brainlinked eyeball imager.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 6, 2017)

I found the final specs for the 6D2 to be a bit of a head scratcher. Now, in light of Canon likely introducing an EF mount full frame MLC next year. Canons thinking may be more clear. Canon, being Canon and masters of market segmentation, have carved out a nice little niche for another full frame camera. The stills and especially video of the 6D2 will not be difficult to surpass without impinging on the market for the 5D4. Brilliant. Canon has done a remarkable job of slow walking 4K into their consumer products but they can't hold out indefinitely. This may be the camera that finally gets video right. They need something to move users from DSLRs and that sounds like the best bet. Not sure what else would do it.

First full frame MLC has to be native EF otherwise lens sales would tank as buyers would consider EF mount becoming obsolete. If MLC sales materialize, canon could release a compact mount at some later date.


----------



## jeanluc (Oct 6, 2017)

With the capabilities of most new Canon cameras..5D4, 1DX2 etc (maybe not 6D2 so much) one concern of so many people ie the whole DR issue is now largely irrelevant. 

As far as my personal use goes, which is on a tripod in Liveview 99% of the time, the main advantage of mirrorless that I see ( I have an M5 and 5D4) , ie good sensor based focusing, image preview and the ability to focus/meter almost anywhere on the image already exists in the current DSLR as well. The only other thing is that I would no longer need to AFMA lenses. Which my shooting technique right now already negates if I so choose.

So one could actually argue that DSLR's have a fair bit of life yet.

I hope they do make a FF MILC that uses EF lenses. I really don't think a slightly smaller camera with poor balance and cramped ergonomics will save nearly enough weight to make any big difference to most of us, but using L lenses already paid for does.

I think most modern offerings either dslr or milc, have reached the point of "good enough", and for most of us the differences will come down to shooting style or specific needs.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 6, 2017)

The most interesting question is; why shouldn’t Canon release mirrorless cameras in both EF-mount, in addition to a mount with shorter flange distance?

It is clear that many in here don’t want to sacrifice ergonomics and their excisting EF lens line up, and therefore wish for a mirrorless using the EF-mount. Releasing such a camera should not be very resourceful or risky. 

On the other hand, I and many others hope for a Canon FF mirrorless that can be smaller and lighter. Personally I would like a small FF camera with L-quality f2 primes: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm (+ adapter for EF lenses) as my second camera system - while DSLRs with EF zooms and f1.4 lenses would be my primary system. If Canon chose to do this, they could build a FF system that is small and light, as an alternative to their EF system. As I see it Sony failed to do this, because they are neither small and light (lenses) or ergonomically sufficient to work with their large lenses. 

I don’t believe that going both ways (EF mirrorless and small mirrorless) would be a particularly risky thing to do for Canon. Canon wouldn’t need to design that many lenses for the smaller system, since it would be able to use EF lenses with an adapter.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 6, 2017)

No time to read all this in one swoop so may have missed something, but here are a few of my thoughts. 

If you want a really small high quality camera isn't a cell phone a good choice. 

If you shoot a lot, you grip a lot and so a decent sized grip is a must regardless of straps.

I never forget my X1.4 and X2 adapters at home and I don't even have a good memory.

I won't buy another Canon camera that wont alow me to use my L glass unless it's for an alternate use like holiday/travel-light.

Jack


----------



## BillB (Oct 6, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> The most interesting question is; why shouldn’t Canon release mirrorless cameras in both EF-mount, in addition to a mount with shorter flange distance?
> 
> It is clear that many in here don’t want to sacrifice ergonomics and their excisting EF lens line up, and therefore wish for a mirrorless using the EF-mount. Releasing such a camera should not be very resourceful or risky.
> 
> ...



I think the smaller mirrorless system wouldl need a couple of compact high IQ zooms to be really attractive to a broad range of buyers, especially if it requires an adapter to use EF lenses. That is the rabbit that has to be pulled out of the hat, or at least one of them. Otherwise the small mirrorless would be mostly a useful supplemtary body for someone who doesn't want to carry a large DSLR around all the time but doesn't want to work with an aps-c camera. Of course the zooms would run the price up.


----------



## sanj (Oct 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Future. Not this year sir.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 6, 2017)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Ahhhh, yes…the future. In the future, the sun will become a red giant and destroy the earth. You have been warned.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 6, 2017)

present ratio mirrorslappers to mirrorless is only so, because there is only Sony mirrorless FF, Canon onöly lacklustre APS-C lineup and Nikon nothing, except the CX fart.

Things will change very rapidly as soon as viable Canon and Nikon MILC systems appear. I predict 80% mirrorless sales by 2020.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 6, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> present ratio mirrorslappers to mirrorless is only so, because there is only Sony mirrorless FF, Canon onöly lacklustre APS-C lineup and Nikon nothing, except the CX fart.
> 
> Things will change very rapidly as soon as viable Canon and Nikon MILC systems appear. I predict 80% mirrorless sales by 2020.



If DPAF and OSPDAF can fully replace PDAF I don't see any reason why not... It's cheaper to produce a mirrorless than a DSLR.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 6, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ahhhh, yes…the future. In the future, the sun will become a red giant and destroy the earth. You have been warned.



But only Sony will have the dynamic range to capture it. But only if they improve the weather sealing to survive the event...


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 6, 2017)

BillB said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > The most interesting question is; why shouldn’t Canon release mirrorless cameras in both EF-mount, in addition to a mount with shorter flange distance?
> ...



You are probably right. Zooms will be necessary, but maybe Canon would make them slow, small and light, and by that protect their EF line up/alternative. Sounds like something Canon could do. I still do believe it can make sense from an economic perspective, to operate with two different FF lens mounts - big and ergonomically perfect, and small and light.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 6, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhh, yes…the future. In the future, the sun will become a red giant and destroy the earth. You have been warned.
> ...



2hrs walking in the rain around HongKong, street photography, my a7r II + FE 55mm didn't have any issues. 6hrs plus shooting with same combo in the mountain with snow storm, again no issues.

Don't give such a comment if you haven't touch the product.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 6, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhhh, yes…the future. In the future, the sun will become a red giant and destroy the earth. You have been warned.
> ...



I don't think weather sealing has anything to do with this. If the Earth will be absorbed by the Sun - overheating is a much more significant problem, so don't bring the A9.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



If you let me know your PayPal account, I'll send you $1 in the sincere hope that you use it to buy a modicum of a sense of humor.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> If the last DLSR is made 20 years from now, then I really don't care if mirrorless is the future.



...you _might_ care if the only SLR in production at that time is a $6K+ 1-series gripped monstrosity, which I presume will be the case.

As others have said, it's going to be a while, but I believe mirrorless will eventually have enough mindshare / trust / money-saving opportunity for companies that -- from the bottom of the SLR portfolio to the top, it will replace the SLR line at that level. Surely, however, that's a long way off. 

But when it happens, I believe the 1-series folks will be the last to lose their mirrors for a host of reasons. So, yes, it might take 20+ years before (major manufacturer) SLRs leave the market, but the product level you prefer (XXD, 7D, 6D, etc.) will likely be RIP before that time.

Unless you're Neuro. 1-series being the last mirror standing suits him just fine. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> present ratio mirrorslappers to mirrorless is only so, because there is only Sony mirrorless FF, Canon onöly lacklustre APS-C lineup and Nikon nothing, except the CX fart.
> 
> Things will change very rapidly as soon as viable Canon and Nikon MILC systems appear. I predict 80% mirrorless sales by 2020.



If you mean mirrorless will be 80% of sales _of all ILC camera bodies_, I'll need to check my CIPA numbers, but I believe a PSA about the dangers of huffing paint might be in order.

If you mean mirrorless will be 80% of sales _of any type of camera_, surely we're already there with cell phones included, right?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2017)

Jopa said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > present ratio mirrorslappers to mirrorless is only so, because there is only Sony mirrorless FF, Canon onöly lacklustre APS-C lineup and Nikon nothing, except the CX fart.
> ...



Sure, but it won't happen overnight. There's much more to it than they'll cut over to mirrorless because it's more profitable to the manufacturer.

For 80% ILC sales to be mirrorless in 2020 to happen:

1) CaNikon would have to incentivize SLR folks to pitch their mirrors by passing the mirror box removal cost savings over to the customer. Fat chance of that. Mirrorless is the flavor of the month and initial models from (especially) Canon will be marked up relative to a same-spec'd SLR. This will inhibit high migration rates to mirrorless at first.

2) CaNikon would have to aggressively button up their SLR production and stop offering new SLRs in a number of price points. At this stage of the unproven / unequivalent performance of mirrorless in a number of areas (battery, responsiveness, AF speed, etc.), shutting down solidly selling SLR lines is tantamount to cutting off one of the legs they are running on because this shiny new robotic leg _*might *_seamlessly drop in and do better. Never. gonna. happen. Mirrorless and SLR will be sold side by side and that will water down mirrorless' opportunity to gobble up the share of sales.

3) _A ton more people in the market at large need to be drinking AvTvM's Kool-Aid on priorities for a camera_. Like if I guessed FF users were (say) 50-50 split on full mount vs. 'please make it small thin' with mirrorless, if it actually turned out that it was _10-90_ and mirrorless in the market at large (i.e. not this forum) was indeed all about being small, then maybe we'd see an exodus to mirrorless despite perfectly good SLRs still being made.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Oct 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



All points make sense. To the majority of people caring about photography it's probably irrelevant if their camera has a mirror or not. It's just a tool, right? I personally like mirrorless only because it would allow me forget about calibrating my lenses. I don't want to sacrifice AF speed and battery life though (because it will be an EVF for sure). If they add some kind of quick automated calibration in-camera - probably I won't need mirrorless.
I'm aware some folks simply hate EVF, even if it had zero delay. I guess let's just wait and see - the technology is evolving very rapidly these days. As long as Canon keeps the EF mount for their new bodies - I'm pretty sure I'll be happy no matter if the next camera will be mirrorless or not.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2017)

Jopa, you're correct -- there are different concerns at different levels of SLRs, and yeah, some XXXXD and Rebel folks might not even notice the mirror being pulled.

Higher up the chain, folks shooting FF need to be convinced mirrorless is better, or that what you get for pitching the mirror is worth what you give up to get it. In FF, you need a value proposition that will (at the minimum) get weighed against the other Canon options near it in the pecking order.

But I just don't see Canon offering the next line of (super high unit sale) Rebels cold turkey sans mirror. Not a chance. They'll offer something alongside that Rebel without a mirror (more likeness in design/handling than an M5), and then have sold side by side 1-2 generations later, we will have seen the last Rebel with a mirror, and by then, few folks will pitch a fit because the mirrorless equivalent is a known entity that gets the job done.

- A


----------



## snoke (Oct 7, 2017)

Canon in same position like now: dont need Canon camera for Canon lens.

Canon sell lens and not camera. Canon lose camera sale.

My bet Canon 1st mirrorless FF like 1DX. 20+FPS. No AF calibration. Buyer: sports photographer. Maybe wildlife. And wedding photographer. Silent camera in church = prayers answered. Not for photojournalist or birders. Birders will hate because many birders are hobby so they picky. Not like pro. Maybe this difference. Pro build bridge, hobby build wall.



SecureGSM said:


> not such a big problem if Canon kept EF mount on FF mirrorless body. what other system lenses can be adopted to EF mount? Exactly..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 7, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


So you claim that A7R II and FE 55mm can survive being swallowed by the sun?! I'm gonna build myself a doomsday shelter out of those!


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2017)

Proscribo said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



But there won't be anything to photograph afterwards


----------



## Rick (Oct 7, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> The first project is a full frame mirrorless camera with a native EF mount. This is something we have said has to happen for Canon to enter the world of full frame mirrorless cameras.



Actually, this would be a big mistake. Defeats several of the benefits of mirrorless.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 7, 2017)

snoke said:


> My bet Canon 1st mirrorless FF like 1DX. 20+FPS. No AF calibration. Buyer: sports photographer. Maybe wildlife. And wedding photographer. Silent camera in church = prayers answered. Not for photojournalist or birders. Birders will hate because many birders are hobby so they picky. Not like pro. Maybe this difference. *Pro build bridge, hobby build wall.*



hehe. Not quite. Pros do what makes them money. Hobbyists do what they like. 

Other than that I agree: most likely Canon will launch a big, fat, 1Dx-type sports MILC with regular EF mount targeted at pros [2018]. Super expensive of course. AF will be "adequate" = similar to EF glass [USM] in live view mode on a 1Dx II. 

Next [2018/19], Canon will likely launch and sell new versions [EF] of f/2.8 L zooms and hi-end primes ... with Nano-USM [and IS ... e.g. EF 24-70/2.8 IS USM]. Lens prices will of course be raised from around 2k to about 3k. 

Then [2019] they will launch a Sony RX1R II type ultracompact FF camera with bolted-on zoom 3x lens. Powershot G1X III with FF sensor. Ccurved sensor possible, but likely only in Mk. II or Mk. III version ... not in 1st gen.

And only thereafter [2020] will Canon finally come up with the slim, new mount [EF-X?] system to cater to me and all the other people who want a fully capable FF MILC in the smallest possible form factor. Price/performance roughly in 5D territory. Plus a limited line-up of super compact moderately fast, around f/2.0 primes. Plus some f/4 zooms smaller than current EF versions [16-35, 24-70, 24-105]. 

Things may happen faster, when Sony A7 III/R/S hit the market and get traction and more so, *IF* Nikon brings a killer FF MILC system


----------



## Bahrd (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Things may happen faster, when Sony A7 III/R/S hit the market and get traction and more so, *IF* Nikon brings a killer FF MILC system



I think Canon is working hard to combine a global shutter with DP AF to offer a truly silent killer camera. 
The type of a mount is not as important as Canon can weigh releasing two lines - one with and one without an adaptor.


----------



## BillB (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> hehe. Not quite. Pros do what makes them money. Hobbyists do what they like.
> 
> Other than that I agree: most likely Canon will launch a big, fat, 1Dx-type sports MILC with regular EF mount targeted at pros [2018]. Super expensive of course. AF will be "adequate" = similar to EF glass [USM] in live view mode on a 1Dx II.
> 
> ...



Could the big EF mirrorless fit in the 5D range with features such as silent shutter for a wide range of pro applications for which a 1D body would be overkill?

Maybe the fixed lens RX1R II ish version might be made in a couple of models--like a 3x zoom and also a model with a large aperture prime in the 28-35mm range. The prime version could be the starting point for introducing a curved sensor.

Another approach would be to come up with something like a 6Dish mirrorless that was relatively small, using a mount analogous to the EF-S, which would be fully compatible with EF, while permitting the use of lenses that penetrated deeper into the camera. This would avoid that use of a lens mount that would not be compatible with EF cameras and required an adapter for the use of EF lenses.


----------



## okaro (Oct 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> If you mean mirrorless will be 80% of sales _of any type of camera_, surely we're already there with cell phones included, right?
> 
> - A



This year mirrorless have been 37% if ILCs shipped. The next year it could be 50%. When the switch happens it can happen really fast like in many previous switches in technology. As to smart phones they make over 98% of total camera sales.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 7, 2017)

okaro said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > If you mean mirrorless will be 80% of sales _of any type of camera_, surely we're already there with cell phones included, right?
> ...



As soon as there are *WORTHY, CAPABLE, AFFORDABLE* mirrorless camera systems (including lenses) both for APS-C and for FF offered by all 3 major players [Ca/Ni/SO], the switch will happen very quickly. 

Just think of the transitions from film to digital or from vinyl LP to CD, from CD to download, from download to streaming. At first it took a number of years with not very much happening and as soon as it reached some critical mass, full transition happened very quickly. 

Anybody believing that "jury is out" whether mirrorless cameras are the (near!) future is ... delusional.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> As soon as there are **WORTHY, CAPABLE, AFFORDABLE** mirrorless camera systems...the switch will happen very quickly.



This is a meaningless statement -- it's like saying as soon as there's a worthy, capable, affordable flying car, the switch from road-bound vehicles will happen very quickly. I think few are attached to a mirror for its own sake, but because it enables features not currently possible with mirrorless. 

Each of us has different ideas of what "worthy, capable, affordable" means, and how that is expressed in the market will control the timing of the "transition."


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 7, 2017)

I'll specify it: I expect *worthy* MILC systems from all 3 players to be available from early 2019. And I expect in 2020 already way more mirrorless cams sold than DSLRs. And by 2021 I see the ratio somewhere around 80:20. From there on out mirrorslappers will only be bought by a few diehards ... similar to those folks who bought film Canon 1D and Nikon F6 film cameras until production was finally ended. Or to people buying vinyl LPs or shooting analogue film today.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 7, 2017)

Who cares if more mirrorless or DSLRs are sold? When the same camera makers make both - it won't even matter to them. People on forums like this seem to believe that by predicting the future sales of each that they are somehow demonstrating their great intelligence. How funny! Anyone with half a brain understands that DSLRs and Mirrorless are not competing with one another, so it doesn't matter one iota to anyone. It's like arguing which is the better fruit, an apple or an orange.


----------



## BillB (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I'll specify it: I expect *worthy* MILC systems from all 3 players to be available from early 2019. And I expect in 2020 already way more mirrorless cams sold than DSLRs. And by 2021 I see the ratio somewhere around 80:20. From there on out mirrorslappers will only be bought by a few diehards ... similar to those folks who bought film Canon 1D and Nikon F6 film cameras until production was finally ended. Or to people buying vinyl LPs or shooting analogue film today.



And how many *worthy* MILC systems would you say are now available for purchase, either FF or aps-c?


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 7, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Who cares if more mirrorless or DSLRs are sold?...Anyone with half a brain understands that DSLRs and Mirrorless are not competing with one another, so it doesn't matter one iota to anyone. It's like arguing which is the better fruit, an apple or an orange.



+1

The only question is whether the value (to me) is high enough that I want to purchase and use it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Anybody believing that "jury is out" whether mirrorless cameras are the (near!) future is ... delusional.



Should I report you for a personal attack? :


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 7, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



dynamic range, weather sealing....about add lack of native lenses to complete the joke.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Jopa, you're correct -- there are different concerns at different levels of SLRs, and yeah, some XXXXD and Rebel folks might not even notice the mirror being pulled.



Anyone I have spoken to about buying their first 'serious camera' wants a camera 'like the pros use'. They won't care if it has a mirror or not but as long as it looks like what the pros use that will be OK - and that means a decent size that 'feels' right' and a proper viewfinder. Some people worry about what the camera weighs, most worry about its size and the xxxxD range are little bigger than mirrorless models once you put a lens on the front. If these people do not see a benefit that outweighs having a camera 'like the pros use' then they will buy the DSLR. 

Reading the posts on many forums, I sometimes get the feeling that the key market for mirrorless are experienced DSLR users who want a smaller second system or are fed up of carrying DSLR at all and they realise the cost benefits of weight vs image quality. Newbies do not have that comparison so the idea of DSLR being a 'proper' camera is harder to shake.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 7, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Who cares if more mirrorless or DSLRs are sold? When the same camera makers make both - it won't even matter to them. People on forums like this seem to believe that by predicting the future sales of each that they are somehow demonstrating their great intelligence. How funny! Anyone with half a brain understands that DSLRs and Mirrorless are not competing with one another, so it doesn't matter one iota to anyone. It's like arguing which is the better fruit, an apple or an orange.



I read CR for the humour. Those who cut back on CR and venture out with their cameras, whatever they be, are the real winners.

BTW, the apple is the clear winner, it keeps the Dr. away.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Anybody believing that "jury is out" whether mirrorless cameras are the (near!) future is ... delusional.



Has anyone denied mirrorless are the future?
Define what you mean by 'near future'


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> As soon as there are *WORTHY, CAPABLE, AFFORDABLE* mirrorless camera systems (including lenses) both for APS-C and for FF offered by all 3 major players [Ca/Ni/SO], the switch will happen very quickly.
> 
> Just think of the transitions from film to digital or from vinyl LP to CD, from CD to download, from download to streaming. At first it took a number of years with not very much happening and as soon as it reached some critical mass, full transition happened very quickly.
> 
> Anybody believing that "jury is out" whether mirrorless cameras are the (near!) future is ... delusional.



Mirrorless will take over. I am not disagreeing with that. I am disagreeing as to _when_ that will happen.

If CaNikon continue to build Rebels, D5500, etc. and mirrorless doesn't climb above SLRs on the pecking order for performance / feature -per-dollar reasons, SLRs will continue to sell in nontrivial numbers. So yes, mirrorless will continue to grow, but with a very strong value-propositioned entry SLR on offer, mirrorless can't realistically 'flip' the market over to its side of the ledger.

So I argue the tipping point to mirrorless (for companies that sell both SLRs and mirrorless rigs) will come _when Canon and Nikon decide it is *time* to occur_ and offer the next Rebel or D5500 without a mirror. Bang. There's your migration. 

And no, Sony will not steal all the APS-C or FF market share over to mirrorless to cause this tipping phenomenon. Those market shifts don't happen overnight, Canon (in particular) will see that coming and then making more aggressive mirrorless moves themselves.

I just don't see a mirrorless market miracle happening without the #1 camera company driving that migration directly. 

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 8, 2017)

mirrorless vs. mirrorslappers is not öike aüples and oranges. it is like automobile vs. horse-drawn cart.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> mirrorless vs. mirrorslappers is not öike aüples and oranges. it is like automobile vs. horse-drawn cart.



It would be a valid comparison for a film vs digital sensor cameras. I don't think it's applicable to the case of mirrorless vs DSLR where both represent the same digital sensor at the end. It's more like carburetor vs injector on a gasoline engine. If someone takes a picture with a DSLR and another one with a mirrorless - good luck figuring out which is which


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> mirrorless vs. mirrorslappers is not öike aüples and oranges. it is like automobile vs. horse-drawn cart.



AvTvM vs. good analogies is like oranges vs. Sputnik.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > mirrorless vs. mirrorslappers is not öike aüples and oranges. it is like automobile vs. horse-drawn cart.
> ...



His analogies are like 85mm f/2.4 IS STM lenses and pancakes.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 8, 2017)

Jopa said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > mirrorless vs. mirrorslappers is not öike aüples and oranges. it is like automobile vs. horse-drawn cart.
> ...



well one might easily tell ... when one image is sharp and the other is blurry due to mirror slap and/or mechanical shutter shock. 

And the images out of a mirrorless camera will likely be tack sharp whereas one out of a DSLR may be not due to back- or front-focus issues. 

One photographer may be asked to leave the venue after rattling off a salvo of mirrorslapping shots during a wedding ceremony in church or at a classical music concert while mirrorless allows silent capture of great images without disturbing anyone. 

One image of a dimly lit scene with AF hunting and pumping may still be tack sharp because the mirrorless photog simply switches to manual focussing with focus peaking on the EVF, whereas the mirrorslapper user just has to live with the stumbling AF system and misfocused or missed shots.

One image is well exposed out of cam since the photographer saw the scene on the EVF exactly as the camera sensor will record it. The mirrorslapper guy looks at the same scene through an optical viewfinder and has to guess what the camera will record. Back home he may wish he'd have a Sony sensor so he can push underexposed images by 4 stops in post ... ;-)

Mirrorless guy might be able capture great images of an extended alpine climb or on a backcountry ski randomee tour with decent, small and light camera and lens whereas mirrorslapper user has his big, fat mirrorslapper and assorted L lenses ... sitting back at home because the gear was too bulky, heavy and cumbersome to haul along.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 8, 2017)

Is there an option for me to include certain forum members on my personal and permanent "ignore" list? I checked My Profile area but failed to find the relevant option there.
I find it difficult lately to navigate forum pages through this ultimate DSLR vs MILC diatribe. Thank you.


----------



## Jopa (Oct 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I don't think you've ever own the infamous Sony a7r. Try to google "Sony a7r shutter shock". Mirror is not a significant contributor to the blurry images as it turned out...

If one is an accredited photographer and not just a random dude taking pics in prohibited places - no one would ever ask them to leave.

I'm not sure if you aware of the fact - any DSLR has a cool feature called "Live View" which along with zoom can be also used for precise manual focusing.

If one knows how to use their equipment, not drunk nor on drugs - they won't underexpose in the first place. If one just pretends to be a photographer - they need to go home and learn.

If one wants to take their camera to an extended alpine climb, they better take a properly weather sealed camera that won't get moisture inside nor overheat  I'm not sure where have you been all these years... same fast aperture / focal length lenses from both worlds have similar size and weight.

It's an old article, you still can try yourself to figure out which is mirrorless and which is not: https://fstoppers.com/originals/fstoppers-reviews-canon-5dsr-sony-a7rii-and-nikon-d810-89896
Good luck!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



One image might convey moving, emotive, impactful content where the other is flat and uninteresting because mirrorless guy is probably a technophile with the latest high-tech mirrorless camera but a dearth of photographic skill.


----------



## john kriegsmann (Oct 8, 2017)

Lets see Canon's first full frame mirrorless camera will come out in lat 2018? Give me a break by that time Sony will be in its fourth generation of full frame sensor cameras and Fuji and Sony will continue to have cropped sensor models far more advanced than Canon's M series with its paltry, slow (can you believe f6.3?) native lens series. Meanwhile in the DSLR market Nikon is just killing Canon.Its new D850 blows anything Canon has out of the water. Better sensors (made by Sony), less expensive bodies and a lens lineup that is good but is not as good as Canon's.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 8, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Is there an option for me to include certain forum members on my personal and permanent "ignore" list? I checked My Profile area but failed to find the relevant option there.
> I find it difficult lately to navigate forum pages through this ultimate DSLR vs MILC diatribe. Thank you.



Profile - Account Settings. Then Modify Profile - Buddies/Ignore List....


----------



## BillB (Oct 8, 2017)

john kriegsmann said:


> Lets see Canon's first full frame mirrorless camera will come out in lat 2018? Give me a break by that time Sony will be in its fourth generation of full frame sensor cameras and Fuji and Sony will continue to have cropped sensor models far more advanced than Canon's M series with its paltry, slow (can you believe f6.3?) native lens series. Meanwhile in the DSLR market Nikon is just killing Canon.Its new D850 blows anything Canon has out of the water. Better sensors (made by Sony), less expensive bodies and a lens lineup that is good but is not as good as Canon's.



And your point would be .....?


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> mirrorless vs. mirrorslappers is not öike aüples and oranges. it is like automobile vs. horse-drawn cart.



Eh, AvTvM, now and again you come out with some real pearls of


Diarrhoea


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2017)

john kriegsmann said:


> Meanwhile in the DSLR market Nikon is just killing Canon.



Killing. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 8, 2017)

ahh, happy days...Thank you very much, Sir!








privatebydesign said:


> Profile - Account Settings. Then Modify Profile - Buddies/Ignore List....


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 8, 2017)

john kriegsmann said:


> Lets see Canon's first full frame mirrorless camera will come out in lat 2018?


You have much to learn about trolling, young padawan.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 8, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> john kriegsmann said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see Canon's first full frame mirrorless camera will come out in lat 2018?
> ...



He's up to seven posts now. All saying the same thing. Creativity does not seem to be a strong point.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > john kriegsmann said:
> ...


That seems a common problem among trolls. Creativity or humor might make it interesting, but all they know is dull-witted repetition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



He's on a mission. All work and no play makes john kriegsmann a dull boy.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 8, 2017)

It has been rather dull since Dilbert left. 

Jack


----------



## scyrene (Oct 8, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> It has been rather dull since Dilbert left.
> 
> Jack



We're not all masochists!


----------



## Rocky (Oct 8, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> It has been rather dull since Dilbert left.
> 
> Jack


What has append to him?


----------



## dak723 (Oct 8, 2017)

Rocky said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > It has been rather dull since Dilbert left.
> ...



Maybe he actually finally bought a Sony...

and is now on the Sony rumors forum telling everyone there how much better Canon cameras are!


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 8, 2017)

Rocky said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > It has been rather dull since Dilbert left.
> ...



he was bullied away by the regular forum bullies here. Who are even proud of it instead of deeply ashamed.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



That's not entirely true: I believe he made the mistake of leaving his name in the metadata of a photo he posted, and someone called attention to it. That was certainly an error in judgement on both sides, but I don't think it's fair to say he was bullied. 

Dilbert said a lot of...um...unintentionally humorous things here, but he seemed harmless.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 8, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You should comprehend his post a little better. He's talking about a cosmic / weather event that would destroy the earth. He was trying to be funny. I think he is.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 8, 2017)

Rick said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The first project is a full frame mirrorless camera with a native EF mount. This is something we have said has to happen for Canon to enter the world of full frame mirrorless cameras.
> ...



No it doesn't.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 8, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



And _that _scintillatingly repartee, folks, is the heart of the full EF mount vs. thin mount divide. 

More and more each day I believe Canon will eventually have to offer both because each group defines the upside of mirrorless so fundamentally differently.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Oct 8, 2017)

john kriegsmann said:


> Lets see Canon's first full frame mirrorless camera will come out in lat 2018? Give me a break by that time Sony will be in its fourth generation of full frame sensor cameras and Fuji and Sony will continue to have cropped sensor models far more advanced than Canon's M series with its paltry, slow (can you believe f6.3?) native lens series. Meanwhile in the DSLR market Nikon is just killing Canon.Its new D850 blows anything Canon has out of the water. Better sensors (made by Sony), less expensive bodies and a lens lineup that is good but is not as good as Canon's.



LOL Mr Troll... Do you believe yourself in this BS?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 8, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Rick said:
> ...



no. there is just one small group who still does not /want to) understand that they can continue to use all of their precious EF lenses even when Canon moves to a new native mirrorless mount. And that Canon can and will offer "chunky" bodies too, even when they move to a new "slim" mount.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 8, 2017)

Would you actually believe I was serious? 

Dilbert seemed to relish bringing disdain (bullying if you like) on himself and was tolerated but seldom truly appreciated. At some point folks have to accept responsibility for their outlandish comments that rile the vast majority of readers. CR regulars are not a bunch of monsters.

Let mirrorless and DSLRs coexist and be loved by whomever chooses to love them and forget the nonsense. All I would care about is having a high quality camera that serves my needs. Since I use larger heavy lenses a lot that will never be a dinky little camera without a decent grip.

Jack


----------



## unfocused (Oct 8, 2017)

Now we have 12 pages, all based on a rumor that Canon is going to soon offer everyone the camera they want. Sore losers are one thing, but why do we seem to have so many sore winners?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > More and more each day I believe Canon will eventually have to offer both because each group defines the upside of mirrorless so fundamentally differently.
> ...



There are two potential avenues to take, and neither is a clear win-win that makes perfect sense to solely pursue. There are therefore two different camps of views on this, and what I continue to find shocking is that a nontrivial percentage of folks in each camp cannot fathom what the other group is thinking. 

You and (some of) the thin folks cannot fathom why Canon would walk away from ideal / seamless / consistent use with over 100 million lenses.

Meanwhile, some of the full EF mount folks cannot fathom the value of a smaller rig, adaptors and the need to (potentially) have to buy new lenses for optimal AF performance.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Now we have 12 pages, all based on a rumor that Canon is going to soon offer everyone the camera they want. Sore losers are one thing, but why do we seem to have so many sore winners?


 ;D Because that will never be the case.


----------



## Yasko (Oct 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> There are two potential avenues to take, and neither is a clear win-win that makes perfect sense to solely pursue. There are therefore two different camps of views on this, and what I continue to find shocking is that a nontrivial percentage of folks in each camp cannot fathom what the other group is thinking.
> 
> You and (some of) the thin folks cannot fathom why Canon would walk away from ideal / seamless / consistent use with over 100 million lenses.
> 
> ...



I think many can fathom the advantages of a slim mount for a new mirrorless of Canon. But with this thought swings the fear that Canon might want to sit itself on this new mount and abandon the old one, render all of their EF lenses outdated and with imperfect AF performance (and may be optical performance, too).
I have just invested a lot of money in a 35 f/2 and the 70-200 f/2.8, so I do think that way a little bit... and as a hobbyist, my budget is really strechted already...

Have a nice week everyone.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 9, 2017)

with every new version of a lens, the previous one will be "outdated" and the new one will (hopefully) offer advantages in IQ and/or handling abd functionality eg AF and IS performance. even if it is just the introduction of a MK. II or Mk. III version of an EF lens. same with camera bodies. 

all the "new mirrorless slim mount Angst" would only be rational and understandable, if existing EF lenses could not be used in conjunction with it (as in the Canon FD to EF transition back in 1987). 

it will not happen. all EF lenses will remain fully functional by means of a little adaptor tube. they will perform as well as they did on the latest Canon DSLRs *in live view mode*. new native lenses however will offer advantages and unleash the full potential of mirrorless cameras without flapping mirrors and sub-mirror assemblies in the lightpath, without separate, easily de-calibrated AF array not in sensor plane, without big heavy glass prism, and hopefully soon also without mechanical shutter curtains. 

things will be slimmer, lighter, fitter. more muscle, less fat! 
just do it Canon, even when a minority of your customers has not understood YET what the switch means and what it does not mean. things they are a'changin ..


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> things will be slimmer, lighter, fitter. more muscle, less fat!
> just do it Canon, even when a minority of your customers has not understood YET what the switch means and what it does not mean. things they are a'changin ..



Ever heard the phrase 'knocking on an open door'...?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Ever heard the phrase 'knocking on an open door'...?



yes. But i see that many doors still seem to be pretty much closed and need some more knockin' ... ;D 

What really amuses me is how some people as well as Canon / Nikon themselves are having such difficulty getting their heads around the rather simple transition from mirrorslappers to *traditional" mirrorless cameras (= camera bricks + polished glass junks up front) when the next step in the evolution of image capture is almost here ... apparently they cannot see the LIGHT ... yet! ;D






https://petapixel.com/2017/08/04/heres-first-81-megapixel-photo-light-l16-16-camera-camera/
https://light.co/

The longer Canon (and Nikon) delay worthy mirrorless camera systems, the higher the chance it will have been leapfrogged already. I would not mind at all switching directly from my current gear to a really small, light, inexpensive "computational camera" with potential for IQ and functionality way beyond what *legacy* cameras with or without mirror ever can offer.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Ever heard the phrase 'knocking on an open door'...?
> ...



Who said Canon and Nikon are having difficulty getting their head around anything? That is your simple-minded assumption based on a view of 'urgency' which itself based on a market sector that is tiny compared to DSLR and has shown signs of shrinking in the last year or so. It is not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. Neither Canon nor Nikon are blind to the needs to develop mirrorless systems, as is shown by announcements from both that they are developing at FF mirrorless cameras. 
There is market resistance and inertia out there and CaNikon are quite happy to use the time thta gives them to develop a system that is not only mirrorless but actually does so in a body that features their far superior haptics.

As for 'leapfrogging'...being leapfrogged by Sony who see the need to pile everything they can into a body because that is the only way they can get market traction, and in so doing they alienate all astrophotographers because their in-camera processing obliterates stars. Which makes me wonder how much of Sony's much-praised sensor is software-based rather than sensor-based? A camera is an image-making device and when you look at all aspects of using such a device, Sony has not 'leapfrogged' Canon nor Nikon. They have simply developed a slightly different path.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 9, 2017)

Sony has leapfrogged Canon in multiple ways. Canon was ahead in sensors, Sony leapfrogged it. Big time. Canon brings EOS M with crop sensor, Nikon brings Nikon 1 with dwarf-sensor, Sony leapfrogs them with FF-sensored A7 series and now A9. It is not "a slightly different path". It is plain and clear leapfrogging.


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Ever heard the phrase 'knocking on an open door'...?
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Sony has leapfrogged Canon in multiple ways. Canon was ahead in sensors, Sony leapfrogged it. Big time. Canon brings EOS M with crop sensor, Nikon brings Nikon 1 with dwarf-sensor, Sony leapfrogs them with FF-sensored A7 series and now A9. It is not "a slightly different path". It is plain and clear leapfrogging.



'Many ways'. You mean 2.

Well Canon has FF sensors as well. I presume what you mean is they have a mirrorless with FF sensor - and that is a 'slightly different path'. 
Sony has kept their form factor for their mirrorless by making it as small as possible because that is where a lot of the natter sees an advantage of mirrorless. But you can find many posts on forums where users wish Sony had gone with a larger body for use with large lenses because they find the A9 too small. It seems Sony are stuck in a rut as much as you claim Canon are. 

Answer this question: if Sony did not have such excellent sensors, how much notice do you think their mirrorless cameras would have got? My guess it would have been 'nice idea, has potential' and that shows how important mirrorless as a camera design actually is.


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Sony has leapfrogged Canon in multiple ways. Canon was ahead in sensors, Sony leapfrogged it. Big time. Canon brings EOS M with crop sensor, Nikon brings Nikon 1 with dwarf-sensor, Sony leapfrogs them with FF-sensored A7 series and now A9. It is not "a slightly different path". It is plain and clear leapfrogging.
> ...



And yet, in a very short time worthy mirrorless cameras will be produced by all three manufacturers at very reasonable prices, along with the lenses to clinch the deal, and the era of the DSLR will be over, or at least that is the way some people tell the story some of the time


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 9, 2017)

BillB said:


> And yet, in a very short time worthy mirrorless cameras will be produced by all three manufacturers at very reasonable prices, along with the lenses to clinch the deal, and the era of the DSLR will be over, or at least that is the way some people tell the story some of the time



'near future', 'very short time'...it would be interesting to know what people mean by these vague references. 
35mm has been going for nearly a century. SLRs were invented 150 years ago. In those terms, 10 years for mirrorless to supplant it completely is a 'short time'. 

AvTvM thinks he is being wonderfully prescient....I would say he is stating the bleeding obvious.


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, in a very short time worthy mirrorless cameras will be produced by all three manufacturers at very reasonable prices, along with the lenses to clinch the deal, and the era of the DSLR will be over, or at least that is the way some people tell the story some of the time
> ...



Actually very short period of time was my phrase. At one point there was a much more specific prediction of about 4 years IIRC. That would imply that all three manufacturers already have the killer camera and lenses in the design phases, or are even further along.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> What really amuses me is how some people as well as Canon / Nikon themselves are having such difficulty getting their heads around the rather simple transition from mirrorslappers to *traditional" mirrorless cameras...



What really amuses me is how some forum dwellers and Internet trolls as well as you yourself are having such difficulty getting their heads around the rather simple reality of the ILC market. dSLRs outsell MILCs, Canon outsells Sony. The only 'leapfrogging' of significance in recent years is the EOS M line rapidly surpassing most of the other established MILC brands.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 9, 2017)

BillB said:


> Actually very short period of time was my phrase. At one point there was a much more specific prediction of about 4 years IIRC. That would imply that all three manufacturers already have the killer camera and lenses in the design phases, or are even further along.



I know it was your phrase and I also know you were paraphrasing a great many comments. 
But to expect mirrorless interchangeable cameras to outsell DSLR in 4 years is very optimistic. To say in 4 years the 'era of the DSLR will be over' is fanciful. 
I am not saying it will not happen or could not happen, but to overcome decades of perception in the camera buying public when existing mirrorless cameras have so many shortcomings is expecting a lot. And the leading mirrorless do have problems - Sony has an crap interface for a start, add into that poor after sales support and high prices on lenses and there is immediate resistance from the key demographic: the professional photographer. 

So I wonder how long AvTvM thinks it will be. In stead of a paranoid Cassandra complex I would like to see an actual prediction that means anything.


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Actually very short period of time was my phrase. At one point there was a much more specific prediction of about 4 years IIRC. That would imply that all three manufacturers already have the killer camera and lenses in the design phases, or are even further along.
> ...


I am not going to argue any of the excellent points you have made. But, I am wondering why Sony does not address any of the issues you mention. For instance their terrible camera interface/menus. One would think Sony could hire a team of software pros and human factors experts to quickly fix this problem. Question is, why don’t they do this? It would also be a fairly simple matter to set up an after sales support program that doesn’t suck, so why don’t they? Surely they must recognize these issues by now and see that they are holding back the company among pro photographers (and a lot of non pros). It seems self destructive and difficult to understand.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> So I wonder how long AvTvM thinks it will be. In stead of a paranoid Cassandra complex I would like to see an actual prediction that means anything.



I have already stated a precise prediction. Sometimes you need to READ first, what I write instead of just trying to blindly bash me. 



AvTvM said:


> Things will change very rapidly as soon as viable Canon and Nikon MILC systems appear. I predict 80% mirrorless sales by 2020.



to make it even more precise: i mean 80% of ILC units sold will be mirrorless, 20% will still be DSLRs. And round about 2026 Canon and Nikon will likely end production of their last mirrorslapper [top series - 1DX II and D5 successors]. 

btw.: I don't consider myself being wonderfully prescient. The bleeding obvious is indeed fairly obvious, except for some forum denizens. 

also i take issue with your "cassandra complex" ... I don't see it as catastrophic or even slightly negative that the end of mirrorslappers is near.  8)


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > So I wonder how long AvTvM thinks it will be. In stead of a paranoid Cassandra complex I would like to see an actual prediction that means anything.
> ...



So how close do you think Canon and Nikon are to bringing worthy full frame mirrorless cameras to market, along with the lenses necessary to clinch the deal?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2017)

BillB said:


> So how close do you think Canon and Nikon are to bringing worthy full frame mirrorless cameras to market, along with the lenses necessary to clinch the deal?



That sounds like you are presuming 'thin' new mount + all new lenses (i.e. an attempt to rebuild most of EF / FX for the new mount). 

Sony is only climbing that awful lens- (nation-) building mountain out of necessity -- A-mount was not competitive, and they particularly saw a big opportunity in a smaller rig. But Canon and Nikon are far less likely to cut bait and run / build a second version of one of the greatest investments and market strengths. 

If either company goes thin with their mirrorless setup (and that's not an unreasonable possibility), they will much more likely start with a smattering of glass that lets users enjoy the 'smaller experience' -- 50 f/1.8, 35 f/2, etc. -- and use an adaptor for access to the huge SLR lens portfolios. Maybe, 5-10 years down the road if mirrorless really does gobble up SLR sales for them, they might consider expanding the thin mount line like Sony has.

- A


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > So how close do you think Canon and Nikon are to bringing worthy full frame mirrorless cameras to market, along with the lenses necessary to clinch the deal?
> ...



I'm not presuming anything. I was asking AvTvM a question because I am confused about his assessment of the Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless camera programs. On the one hand, he seems to be saying that they are positioned to get viable mirrorless cameras to market very quickly, yet at other times he seems to be saying they don't have their act together.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2017)

BillB said:


> I'm not presuming anything. I was asking AvTvM a question because I am confused about his assessment of the Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless camera programs. On the one hand, he seems to be saying that they are positioned to get viable mirrorless cameras to market very quickly, yet at other times he seems to be saying they don't have their act together.



My apologies. I now see what you were going after.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2017)

BillB said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



That's because he makes up his own "facts" and his own numbers. It is just over two years to his predicted 80% by 2020. That will come quickly.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2017)

I've been of the mind that Canon makes one of two mount choices, and that leads to one of three outcomes:

1) Canon chooses full EF mount mirrorless --> EF lives on in perpetuity.

2) Canon chooses thin mount mirrorless --> only a handful of smaller thin mount lenses are offered, otherwise there is an adaptor to the EF highway.

3) Canon choose thin mount mirrorless --> Canon starts the climb up Mount Awful and starts designing an entire lens portfolio from scratch in the thinner mount.

(Or some combination of 1-3 if Canon does both Full EF and Thin mounts.)

But I wonder if there's a fourth avenue. Any chance if Canon is bullish on the thin mount being not just an option but the long-term future state of the company, they might offer a service to mechanically retrofit existing EF lenses with a well-built / well-sealed mount conversion to the thin mount? This would allow folks fully converted to mirrorless to have a convenient, strong, sealed junction to all their lenses. (Yes, this would be tantamount to permanently affixing an adapter to a lens.)

Any chance Canon would do this? Because if they did indeed think Thin was the next 20-30 year future of the company, *not* offering such a service (or at least a buyback program) would start to feel like the abandonment of the EF mount just like the A mount with Sony.

- A


----------



## criscokkat (Oct 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I've been of the mind that Canon makes one of two mount choices, and that leads to one of three outcomes:
> 
> 1) Canon chooses full EF mount mirrorless --> EF lives on in perpetuity.
> 
> ...



What if the mount was the same, but the expected difference to the sensor was different? 

In a Canon "pro sized body", couldn't they have a small track that moved the whole sensor mount closer to the lens if a EF-'X' lens was mounted, and pulled itself further back if an older EF lens was mounted? If in a pro sized body the size of the camera didn't change much because of ergonomics, they'd have room to shift the location of the sensor. They could then sell thinner lighter cameras that did not shift (and required an adapter) in the 80d/6d space. 

The big problem I see in this is how to you rectify working with the M mount? Maybe a microshim that could be added to them to make them mount on an EF-M mount? If the microshim was semi-permanently mounted you could firmly attach them to the end of your lens. You just wouldn't be able to swap them between a pro and non pro body without removing that - but 95% of us don't do that.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That's because he makes up his own "facts" and his own numbers. It is just over two years to his predicted 80% by 2020. That will come quickly.



In a sense, AvTvM is a doomsday prophet for SLRs. 

When the end of times prediction is passed, he'll have no choice but to do what all responsible doomsday folks do: _offer a new date in the future._ ;D

That said, I honestly do agree with the broad strokes of most SLRs eventually going away in favor of mirrorless. I just disagree on when 'eventually' is.

- A


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I've been of the mind that Canon makes one of two mount choices, and that leads to one of three outcomes:
> 
> 1) Canon chooses full EF mount mirrorless --> EF lives on in perpetuity.
> 
> ...



A variant of the first option would be for Canon to develop a mount analogous to the EF-S, in which EF lenses would be native to all cameras, and lenses could be built for the mirrorless cameras that protrude into the camera body, with a lockout that would prevent these lenses being mounted on a DSLR. This approach would eliminate the need for adapters, and maximize the number of lenses that would be native to all cameras.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 9, 2017)

BillB said:


> ... I was asking AvTvM a question because I am confused about his assessment of the Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless camera programs. On the one hand, he seems to be saying that they are positioned to get viable mirrorless cameras to market very quickly, yet at other times he seems to be saying they don't have their act together.



what is confusing? I am saying

1. Mirrorless sales are currently still well below DSLR sales *because and ONLY because* there have been no worthwhile offerings from Canon and Nikon who jointly have 75% market share for interchangeable lens cameras. 

2. As soon as Canon and Nikon are going to offer worthwhile mirrorless systems both with APS-C sensors and FF sensors, mirrorless sales will quickly exceed DSLR sales. Given the current level of rumor noise regarding Canon and Nikon FF MILC systems, I predict that within 2 years from now 80% of all ILC sales will be mirrorless, 20% will be still DSLRs. 

3. DSLR sales will then taper off towards zero over a number of years ... until the last new mirrorslapper is built and sold ... most likely to a collector. ;-) ... I guesstimate around 2026. 

And I do NOT see the end of mirrorslappers as a catastrophic event.  ;D 

So I am neither a "doomsday prophet" nor a Cassandra. If anything you may call me a prophet of new, better things to come ... very soon.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> what is confusing? I am saying
> 
> 1. Mirrorless sales are currently still well below DSLR sales *because and ONLY because* there have been no worthwhile offerings from Canon and Nikon who jointly have 75% market share for interchangeable lens cameras.
> 
> ...



1 = Sure.

2 or 3 = AAA grade nonsense. The Kobe Beef of nonsense. 

See the red text above -- in this, you are correct. Until CaNikon go mainstream in high unit sales market segments with mirrorless (I mean a mirrorless Rebel, a mirrorless D5500, etc.), the transition from mirrors to mirrorless can't possibly take place in high numbers.

But to presume that CaNikon simply offering those things _will zero-out SLR sales in record time_ is nonsense. *SLRs will still be sold alongside those new mirrorless offerings*, and likely with SLRs at a slightly cheaper price due to higher volumes and because they see mirrorless as a chance to charge extra. 

For sales to flip to 80/20 on units in mirrorless in 2+ years would require CaNikon to brazenly abandon the mirror completely from their biggest cash cow lines and only offer mirrorless products immediately, or to offer initial mirrorless alternatives to SLRs at slashed prices to sway consumers. They are not going to do either of those things.

Mirrorless will take over, but it's going to take a number of camera generations to do it.

- A


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > ... I was asking AvTvM a question because I am confused about his assessment of the Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless camera programs. On the one hand, he seems to be saying that they are positioned to get viable mirrorless cameras to market very quickly, yet at other times he seems to be saying they don't have their act together.
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up. My confusion has come from the relationship between Points 1 and Point 2. If I am following you, you are saying that Point 1 is essentially historical and Canon and Nikon are now in the early days of Point 2, which will lead quickly to dominance of the ILS camera market by mirrorless. Obviously, your assessment of the speed of this change, and the ratio between mirrorless and DSLR sales at any point in time is judgmental, and others may differ.


----------



## neonlight (Oct 9, 2017)

It makes sense that Canon will offer an APSC and FF mirrorless. The speed at which these take over the market from DLSR will depend I think on two factors: (1) a decent fast bright EVF and (2) preferably a global electronic shutter so that there is no need for a conventional shutter either. Completely silent, and if can use EVF professionals might accept them. 

With both of these I think that mirrorless could quickly displace DSLRs (say within 5 years) but whether these innovations are ready remains to be seen.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 9, 2017)

BillB said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



yes. full ack.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> what is confusing? I am saying
> 
> 1. Mirrorless sales are currently still well below DSLR sales *because and ONLY because* there have been no worthwhile offerings from Canon and Nikon who jointly have 75% market share for interchangeable lens cameras.
> 
> ...



Nothing confusing about what you're saying, except that you are clearly confused by reality. 

1. Canon's EOS M series *is* a worthwhile offering...after all, even you bought one, which would be totally irrelevant if not for the fact that enough others bought M's to give Canon 2nd place in global MILC market share. 

2. FF ILCs comprise only a small fraction of total ILC sales, the clear majority of ILCs sold are crop sensors. So, a FF MILC offering from Canon or Nikon isn't going to significantly move the needle from dSLRs to MILCs for the overall market. 

3. As stated by ahsanford, dSLR sales won't really taper off relative to MILCs unless and until Canon and Nikon shift their entry-level offerings (Rebel/xxxD and D3xxx/5xxx lines) to mirrorless. 

What all your BS really amounts to is that you want Canon to make the camera system you want...a compact FF MILC, packed with every feature you can imagine, and a collection of small, high IQ lenses tailored to your specific wants. You've managed to convince yourself that if Canon makes your heart's desire, it will somehow cause a major shift in the ILC market. At best, that's hubris...but mostly it's just pathetically sad and delusional.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 9, 2017)

neonlight said:


> It makes sense that Canon will offer an APSC and FF mirrorless. The speed at which these take over the market from DLSR will depend I think on two factors: (1) a decent fast bright EVF and (2) preferably a global electronic shutter so that there is no need for a conventional shutter either. Completely silent, and if can use EVF professionals might accept them.



I wold add battery life to the list of important factors that mirrorless must improve on before they are fully accepted.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 9, 2017)

One thing is clear to me. There are those who think clearly/logically and those who don't, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

An awful lot of what I've read over the years relating to mirrorless promoted the advantage of small size and that clearly is only the case if the lenses are also small, which precludes serious telephotos. So, it might make sense to have a small camera and lenses in the shorter focal length range designed together as previously mentioned system but that becomes a niche market competing with cell phones, which do very well in those focal lengths and no doubt will be getting even better.

What I predict is a camera incorporated in the eyeball with added memory in the brain for perfect storage/recall. It will transmit images wirelessly by a concentrated thought and ... 

Jack


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 10, 2017)

I've been using my EOS M5 more, and I'm wondering if I've been wrong about the FF mirrorless.

The more I use the M5, the more I realise there may not be a need for a compact FF mirrorless if the quality of APS-C sensors keeps improving as it has.

Back when I got serious into photography, I had the 500D, and that was a dreadful camera. The upgrade to the 5D Mark III was astonishing. The difference is night and day. But I compare photos I've taken with the M5 with photos I've taken on my full-frame cameras, and the difference isn't always as obvious. In particular, focus accuracy on the M5 is pretty damn good, one of the biggest reasons I loved the upgrade from the poor 500D to the 5D III.

APS-C mirrorless allows even smaller and lighter lenses than a dedicated FF mirrorless mount plus it's already here, tried and tested. It'd be nice for more EF-M lenses, but I'm sure they'll come eventually.

So, perhaps it is better for a future FF mirrorless camera to be aimed at a different market entirely. Perhaps as an A9-killer. It won't necessarily be what I need, but that doesn't make it the wrong choice.

And maybe instead of a compact FF mirrorless all we really need is a seriously good set of quality prime EF-M APS-C lenses.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 10, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I've been using my EOS M5 more, and I'm wondering if I've been wrong about the FF mirrorless.
> 
> The more I use the M5, the more I realise there may not be a need for a compact FF mirrorless if the quality of APS-C sensors keeps improving as it has.
> 
> ...


*

This, this and this...*


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 10, 2017)

unless you never shoot or do not care about shooting at ISO 2000+



brad-man said:


> *And maybe instead of a compact FF mirrorless all we really need is a seriously good set of quality prime EF-M APS-C lenses.[/b]
> *


*

This, this and this...
[/quote]*


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 10, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> unless you never shoot or do not care about shooting at ISO 2000+



I see a compact mirrorless camera such as the M5 as a secondary camera. If I'm shooting in more challenging conditions I wouldn't use the M5.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> The more I use the M5, the more I realise there may not be a need for a compact FF mirrorless if the quality of APS-C sensors keeps improving as it has.
> 
> And maybe instead of a compact FF mirrorless all we really need is a seriously good set of quality prime EF-M APS-C lenses.



I like my M6, but there's no doubt that FF IQ is better. That's physics. 

However, you may be right that there's no need for a _compact_ FF MILC. For me, the M6 is a compromise – I know I'm trading IQ for portability. Even a compact FF MILC will be substantially bigger than the M6. FF lenses from wide to short tele, even dedicated MILC versions, are bigger than their APS-C counterparts. All of that adds up to a lack of portability, which defeats the purpose of a compact system.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 10, 2017)

Oh, that does make sense if you are prepared carting around two sets of cameras: one for challenging conditions and second one crop MILC. 
Else, a 6d-ish sized FF MILC with Canon EF Mount coupled with half-decent zoom lens. 



jolyonralph said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > unless you never shoot or do not care about shooting at ISO 2000+
> ...


----------



## BillB (Oct 10, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I've been using my EOS M5 more, and I'm wondering if I've been wrong about the FF mirrorless.
> 
> The more I use the M5, the more I realise there may not be a need for a compact FF mirrorless if the quality of APS-C sensors keeps improving as it has.
> 
> ...



Primes may be especially import for aps-c compacts. The zooms are slowish except for the 17-55 f2.8, which pretty much proves the point about size and cost. (and it isn't EF-M anyway) Also, aps-c cameras are not happy at higher ISO's, which increases the importance of fast lenses. For me the key lens already exists, the 22mm F2, so the question is how many more are needed. Another critical focal length for me is 50mm (85mm FF equivalent), and there is now the 50mm F1.8, but it would be nice to have something native. Around 30mm, there is the 28mm macro, which is native, but not all that fast. There isn't anything at 15mm, so that is a hole. So, maybe the glass is half full on the primes (or half empty).


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 10, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Oh, that does make sense if you are prepared carting around two sets of cameras: one for challenging conditions and second one crop MILC.



Sometimes you can plan ahead and choose the right gear for the trip. Otherwise I'd be taking several bodies and dozens of lenses every time I went out.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 10, 2017)

BillB said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I've been using my EOS M5 more, and I'm wondering if I've been wrong about the FF mirrorless.
> ...



For APS-C I'd like to see a fast 15mm/16mm prime of AT LEAST f/2.8. I'd like to see a high quality native 50mm EF-M, for example an f/1.4 with IS. A 35mm f/1.8 wouldn't be a bad thing too.


----------



## scrup (Oct 10, 2017)

Must resist GAS and hold off on any new camera purchases until Canon lets us know what they have planned.

So EFM and EF full frame cameras to make everyone happy.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 10, 2017)

scrup said:


> So EFM and EF full frame cameras to make everyone happy.



On that note, I've seen a number of folks here speak up about the EF-M mount being large enough to cover FF.

If Canon did this -- if they went 'thin' with the FF mirrorless mount _and that mount was EF-M_ -- what would that look like?


How would we tell the lenses apart? Would we be in a Sony E vs. FE situation? Would Canon need to invent a letter modifier in the name so that we know what is designed for crop vs. FF? EF-M and EF-M_X_, -MF, -M(pick a letter), perhaps?


Could you mount the tiny (current, crop) EF-M lenses on such a FF mount and just get an undersized image circle for the sensor? Would the AF still work if you did that? Would the FF camera automatically jump to a 'crop mode' or would it actually capture a frame with darkened corners like those folks tinkering with Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 crop lenses on their 6D?


Presume that putting the FF EF-M lenses on a Crop EF-M body would work fine, but output would be cropped, like EF glass on EF-S or EF-M bodies today. Good presumption, or is there some other consideration that would prevent that?

I wasn't sure how the EF-M mount would play out in FF. Please educate me, thx.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... For me, the M6 is a compromise – I know I'm trading IQ for portability. Even a compact FF MILC will be substantially bigger than the M6. FF lenses from wide to short tele, even dedicated MILC versions, are bigger than their APS-C counterparts. All of that adds up to a lack of portability, which defeats the purpose of a compact system.



Not quite. I am more for the a compromise consisting of "best possible FF sensor" combined with "compact, moderately fast primes and zooms" in as small a package as possible. It does not have to be bigger than M6. Sony RX1R II is smaller than M6. Yes, FF glass will be somewhat bigger than APS-C, but on FF sensor I am happy with f/2.0 primes and constant f/4.0 zooms. I want to shed the weight and bulk of my FF mirrorslapper and use my EF L glass [on a slim MILC] only when it is really, really needed = on planned shootings. And I want consolidate to only 1 camera system instead of 2 [APS-C and FF]. A slim FF MILC will allow me to do just that, without having to compromise on IQ.

Yes that's me and my wishlist. But I know from talking to others that I am by far not the only one. Even without market research data I am confident there are enough people who want exactly the same thing to make it worthwhile for Canon. And there is not even "product cannibalizing" going on, since I will definitely not buy another mirrorslapper in my life, no matter what. Done with them.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Not quite. I am more for the a compromise consisting of "best possible FF sensor" combined with "compact, moderately fast primes and zooms" in as small a package as possible. It does not have to be bigger than M6. Sony RX1R II is smaller than M6. Yes, FF glass will be somewhat bigger than APS-C, but on FF sensor I am happy with f/2.0 primes and constant f/4.0 zooms.



1) I happen to agree with you on f/2 primes and f/4 zooms, but as the Sony A7 experiment shows, that will only placate some of the market. Lots of folks buy FF cameras expressly (or very high on their priority list) to pursue small DOF opportunities.

2) Have a look below. That's an RX1R II (35 f/2 lens) vs. an A7R II + 35 f/2.8 lens with both lined up to their back edges and disregarding the eyepiece. Even Sony, the masters of small, when granted an extra stop slower of a lens to keep it small, still could not match the RX1R II form factor. That is due to the fixed lens RX1R II design which buries the lens in the body. So a super thin FF ILC rig -- if you set the RX1R II as your goal for 'super thin' -- would require something even slower than an f/2.8 prime.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 1) I happen to agree with you on f/2 primes and f/4 zooms, but as the Sony A7 experiment shows, that will only placate some of the market. Lots of folks buy FF cameras expressly (or very high on their priority list) to pursue small DOF opportunities.



where's da problem? AT their choice they can use A) existing EF glass anything up to and including f/1.2 ... or B.) buy new native, further improved f/1.4 etc. lenses for FF MILC or C) use adapted glass from many makers, incluing Nikon, Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, whatever. 

Of course faster glass will be larger/heavier. But in most frequently used focal range it can still be made smaller than the same lens for DSLR - provided new mirrorless mount parameters are well chosen.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 10, 2017)

I still don't get it. What exactly is so great about extra small if it can't fit in your pocket. Sure a little saving on an airplane and a bit less weight wandering around site seeing but it's still dangling and in that sense a nuisance. 

Obviously the expressed desires are associated with particular personal needs of the individual, which may not match the needs of another shooter. Please make your prediction of how many years until we see all the shooters at the Olympics holding tiny mirrorless cameras.

Jack


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I still don't get it. What exactly is so great about extra small if it can't fit in your pocket. Sure a little saving on an airplane and a bit less weight wandering around site seeing but it's still dangling and in that sense a nuisance.
> 
> Obviously the expressed desires are associated with particular personal needs of the individual, which may not match the needs of another shooter. Please make your prediction of how many years until we see all the shooters at the Olympics holding tiny mirrorless cameras.
> 
> Jack



It will fit into my coat pocket with a 35/2.0 pancake on it. And it will fit into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 fixed to my backpack strap when I am in the mountains. And in all other circumstances my bag will be apprecuiably lighter and less bulky than with a DSLR setup.


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 10, 2017)

Admin could post a survey of “would you buy” mirrorless body options to see where forum members stand. We probably are not a representative sample, but it would be interesting.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 10, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> I've been using my EOS M5 more, and I'm wondering if I've been wrong about the FF mirrorless.
> 
> The more I use the M5, the more I realise there may not be a need for a compact FF mirrorless if the quality of APS-C sensors keeps improving as it has.
> 
> ...



I agree and have said so in the past. Canon does not need really small FF mirrorless. For those that want small mirrorless, there is EF-M. For those that want FF mirrorless, there will be EF mount mirrorless.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 10, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> Admin could post a survey of “would you buy” mirrorless body options to see where forum members stand. We probably are not a representative sample, but it would be interesting.



A slice of this was already done, but we certainly could get more detailed, get into the specifics of a proposed system:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28223.0

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28231.0

But, as I'll say for the umpteenth time, _CR Forums dwellers are not the market_. Some external market research on this would be a terrific read.

- A


----------



## jedy (Oct 10, 2017)

Sceptical Canon will give Sony serious competition on their first outing. On the plus side, their professional service is highly praised by many Canon users whereas Sony lags behind in this area. It'll be interesting to find out whether Canon's well established camera expertise can migrate over to mirrorless or whether they'll have to go back to the drawing board. Time will tell. Despite my scepticism, I do hope Canon can provide competition for Sony as this will only spur them both on to produce better cameras. Yes Canon (and Nikon) are late to the party but at least we have some cameras on the way at last.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 10, 2017)

jedy said:


> Sceptical Canon will give Sony serious competition on their first outing. On the plus side, their professional service is highly praised by many Canon users whereas Sony lags behind in this area. It'll be interesting to find out whether Canon's well established camera expertise can migrate over to mirrorless or whether they'll have to go back to the drawing board. Time will tell. Despite my scepticism, I do hope Canon can provide competition for Sony as this will only spur them both on to produce better cameras. Yes Canon (and Nikon) are late to the party but at least we have some cameras on the way at last.



No need to hope or 'time will tell' -- compare EOS M vs. other APS-C or m43 mirrorless platforms.

EOS M is underspec'd and overpriced on a pure spec sheet sort of comparison to the market. But it has DPAF, Canon quality and ergonomic know-how, and is one first-party attachment away from the entire EF portolio. (And it is selling well, #2 globally in the MILC market.)

Now read that same paragraph above again and apply it to full-frame. That's what likely will happen. We'll get a DPAF driven rig with a logical set of controls and an overly ambitious price for its feature set. _And it will sell well._

The only critical unknowns in Canon's approach to the FF market are the mount choice, what market level to start in (6D-level vs. 5D level vs. 1D level), and when it's coming. But that's about it. Provided 'Canon does Canon' like it usually does, whatever this thing ends up being will be a success for its target market.

- A


----------



## jedy (Oct 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> The only critical unknowns in Canon's approach to the FF market are the mount choice, what market level to start in (6D-level vs. 5D level vs. 1D level), and when it's coming. But that's about it. Provided 'Canon does Canon' like it usually does, whatever this thing ends up being will be a success for its target market.
> 
> - A


Personally, I think the hardest market to convince straight away will be the pro market as buying into a new, untested and most likely overpriced (as you predict) type of camera the moment it comes to the market won't make good business sense. Maybe a 6D level camera that could be used alongside a 5DIV/1DX or one that the rich gear whores will lap up could be Canon's best move. Speculations, speculations!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 10, 2017)

jedy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The only critical unknowns in Canon's approach to the FF market are the mount choice, what market level to start in (6D-level vs. 5D level vs. 1D level), and when it's coming. But that's about it. Provided 'Canon does Canon' like it usually does, whatever this thing ends up being will be a success for its target market.
> ...



My money is still on:

80% likely: A 6D-level camera that will be gobbled up by enthusiasts and considered as a second body for pros who do event/wedding work (where a silent rig + EVF + MF peaking + amplified VF would be handy). More powerful rigs will come over time, but the pent up demand is in the 6D-level space.

Rationale: pros and fickle and need time to thaw out on mirrorless. In contrast, I believe
there's a large pent up enthusiast / amateur group that wants to be part of what's next,
wants to tinker, and wants to bring their gear more places. They will buy a Canon FF mirrorless
rig on day one just like many did in APS-C when EOS M was announced.

20% likely: A fixed lens rig a la the Sony RX1R II and Leica Q.

Rationale: Canon knows that 1%-ers need to spend their money on _something_, and not all
of them have the chops to use a Leica M effectively. In effect, such a rig -- though possibly
comprehensive and powerful in setup and controls -- is a super high premium point and shoot
for those who money is no object.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2017)

jedy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > The only critical unknowns in Canon's approach to the FF market are the mount choice, what market level to start in (6D-level vs. 5D level vs. 1D level), and when it's coming. But that's about it. Provided 'Canon does Canon' like it usually does, whatever this thing ends up being will be a success for its target market.
> ...



i agree. i also speculate it will not be "all-in pro", but "enthusiast". medium-specced and comparatively expensive. somewhere midway between 
6d 2 and 5D 4, eg 5d 4 sensor and some sort of 4k video but not highest end, and rest aki to 6d 2 capabilities - translated into mirrorless. not a sony A9 competitor, nor an A7R 3 competitor. targeted at Sony A7 III. pricing something like 2499 MSRP. and it will have to be small, so "upgraders" from phone cams and all others who want a small, but fully capable camera with excelkent IQ will buy it and DSLR owners (without adapter-fear-syndrome) looking for a smaller, lighter, more discreet, totally silent etc. secondary system will also buy it.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> i agree. i also speculate it will not be "all-in pro", but "enthusiast". medium-specced and comparatively expensive. somewhere midway between
> 6d 2 and 5D 4, eg 5d 4 sensor and some sort of 4k video but not highest end, and rest aki to 6d 2 capabilities - translated into mirrorless. not a sony A9 competitor, nor an A7R 3 competitor. targeted at Sony A7 III. pricing something like 2499 MSRP. and it will have to be small, so "upgraders" from phone cams and all others who want a small, but fully capable camera with excelkent IQ will buy it and DSLR owners (without adapter-fear-syndrome) looking for a smaller, lighter, more discreet, totally silent etc. secondary system will also buy it.



A 6D2-level rig for $2499 sounds about right, but again, I'm not convinced it _must_ be tiny. Everything looks like a huge brick compared to a cell phone, so I still see this rig predominantly aimed at avid enthusiasts and not the cell phone masses. If it's an ILC and not a fixed lens camera, it's overwhelmingly _not_ going to be the buyer's first camera.

But if it's a fixed lens rig, it might be a first camera for some. I could see a budding Instagram star who might have the 'eye' or curated tastemaking thing down pat and want that sweet, sweet bokeh and low light ability for their food / bikini / jetsetting shots -- but at the same time lack the patience for all the 'aperture-shutter-compensation stuff.' :

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2017)

upgraders from APS-C rebel class DSLRs will likely also prefer it small.  

i would consider it an easier proposition to sell current rebel / xxD DSLR owners an upgrade to "ultimate FF / IQ goodness plus all the mirrorless advantages" in a package about the size of their rebel, rather than in the form of 1.5 pound 6D or even 5D brick. ;-)

they also wint have to worry about lens compatibility, since they need to dump their EF-S glass anyways when migrating to FF. ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> upgraders from APS-C rebel class DSLRs will likely also prefer it small.



Then I guess they'll be disappointed, too. Or maybe not, since it will be only slightly larger than a Rebel dSLR (the regular ones, not the SL variety).


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > upgraders from APS-C rebel class DSLRs will likely also prefer it small.
> ...



if it were about Sony A7 (1st gen) sized - even if grip were somewhat chunkier to accommodate a substantial LP-E6N size battery, it would still be noticably smaller than a regular rebel and thinner than an SL-2.  
http://j.mp/2y9KlqS


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> jedy said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I really do wish you would do better research and get the made up numbers and percentages right. Also, the pent up demand is not at the 6D level. It is at the T3i level. That is according to reliable sources that the "Ahsanford Show" ought to be aware of.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 10, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I really do wish you would do better research and get the made up numbers and percentages right. Also, the pent up demand is not at the 6D level. It is at the T3i level. That is according to reliable sources that the "Ahsanford Show" ought to be aware of.



T3i, nice one. We didn't know how perfect it was until it was gone.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 10, 2017)

jedy said:


> Personally, I think the hardest market to convince straight away will be the pro market as buying into a new, untested and most likely overpriced (as you predict) type of camera the moment it comes to the market won't make good business sense. Maybe a 6D level camera that could be used alongside a 5DIV/1DX or one that the rich gear whores will lap up could be Canon's best move. Speculations, speculations!



Knowing it has a Canon badge on it, with a Canon sensor they are happy with, and is supported by the full portfolio of Canon lenses and customer support will help a lot to give pros the confidence to try it out. That is good business sense.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 11, 2017)

Still finding this whole thread a bit mind boggling.

Here is the rumor: Three full-frame mirrorless cameras will join Canon's full-frame DSLR lineup: fixed lens, special mount and traditional EF mount.

If true, that should satisfy just about everyone. What I find amazing is that so many people aren't content with getting the camera they want -- they also want to make sure that others don't get the camera they want. 

Then there is the idea that just because Canon may begin offering some full frame Mirrorless models, that somehow means that DSLRs can't continue to be sold -- that one must inevitably supplant the other.

DSLRs have a lot of advantages that cannot be replicated with mirrorless, just as mirrorless have advantages that DSLRs don't have. 

This is not going to be a zero sum game as some people insist. Is it possible that someday the DSLR format will merge with mirrorless? Certainly, but it could be quite some time before that happens. Predicting the massive demise of DSLRs in two years is kind of ridiculous. 

It's true that in the face of a shrinking market, there are tremendous risks for all camera manufacturers. But, frankly, mirrorless is neither going to save nor destroy the market. The trends that are hurting the market have nothing to do with the format of cameras, and everything to do with cell phones and ease of connectivity. 

All of the manufacturers have been painfully slow in adapting to a world dominated by social media. It cost them the point-and-shoot market and it may cost them the next generation of would-be APS-C users.

Will there continue to be sufficient demand for high-end dedicated devices (and high-end really means anything over about $500) to keep the camera industry alive? I certainly hope so. But I'm not so delusional as to think mirrorless cameras will have the least bit of impact on the overall trends. 

So, for now, let's all celebrate Canon's willingness to make a significant investment in mirrorless and be content that those who want a mirrorless full-frame system could soon have their wishes fulfilled, at no price to those who have different priorities.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 11, 2017)

I still don't get it.  So, have cell phones been hurting small cameras or big fat pro cameras the most. Do cell phones compete best with cameras with 35mm lenses or 400mm lenses? How is mirrorless the great potential savior of the camera companies?

As alluded to in previous posts; why the religious fervor over mirrorless? Let both peacefully coexist and let me choose what I like to shoot with.

Jack


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2017)

Could it be that there will be more EF pancake style lenses with STM motors for those who want small and compact? f/2.8 like Canon's 40mm pancake? Is a 50 and 85mm able to be made that short? We already have the 40mm and the 24mm. Both are f/2.8. Well, the 24 is EF-s, but one would think it would be no problem making it with an EF mount after a few other mods. Maybe: 24, 40, 65, 90. That would mean small for those who want small.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I still don't get it.  So, have cell phones been hurting small cameras or big fat pro cameras the most. Do cell phones compete best with cameras with 35mm lenses or 400mm lenses? How is mirrorless the great potential savior of the camera companies?
> 
> As alluded to in previous posts; why the religious fervor over mirrorless? Let both peacefully coexist and let me choose what I like to shoot with.
> 
> Jack



;D ;D ;D The fervor will reach it's zenith when it doesn't turn out to be the camera some people have dreamed up in their minds. We endure the threads where mirrorless is considered the second coming. When it finally gets here, they'll be screaming the thing is the anti-Christ because a specific feature they wanted isn't there (But is on a Sony) or that the camera is struck with some kind of crippling disease.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 11, 2017)

mirrorless will "supplant", replace, make DSLRs obsolete. Just like automobiles supplanted horse-drawn carts and digital cameras supplanted film - even when horse carriages and film cameras can still be used and even bought new by a few people. and the transition will be very soon over the next 2-3 years, not in the distant future. 

even the next transition in image capturing is already well underway. "computational photography" gear is making its first forays into the market. first mover lytro did not succeed in mass market, now Light L16 is at the start. we shall see whether it / that concept gets traction or if it is also a bit too ahead of its time.

end result is plain to see: mirrorless allows us to finally jettison mechanical contraptions like flapping mirrors, submirror assemblies, shutter curtains, aperture rings and the like. computational photography will allow us to finally shed the need for those large, heavy, expensive and delicate ground and polished glass blocks called lenses. collecting incoming photons and arranging them neatly into the visual patterns / images we desire can also be handled by an array of small lenses and some smart software in a small camera with incredible image quality - at a fraction of the cost, bulk, size, weight, obtrusiveness of "legacy cameras and optics". 

these transitions are not an outcome of feverish dreams and personal wishlists but the result of techno-LOGICAL progress abd hard economic facts ... ability to produce better products at lower costs and sell them at even higher prices is damn attractive in any industry and market. it just makes plain sense. companies who dont board the train in time will be left behind. kodak is there and many others will follow or are in grave danger to follow if they dont move really fast now to catch the right train. just to end this post on a nice little doomsday note.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 11, 2017)

So what is the dire consequence of not heeding this prophesy? Does this somehow tie in with Planet X and earth's destruction with only mirrorless folk being saved? :'(


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> these transitions are not an outcome of feverish dreams and personal wishlists but the result of techno-LOGICAL


Does making crass puns make you feel intelligent?



AvTvM said:


> companies who dont board the train in time will be left behind.



WOW! He's a marketing genius as well



AvTvM said:


> in time will be left behind. kodak is there and many others will follow or are in grave danger to follow if they dont move really fast now to catch the right train.



YAWN! That old 'move fast' trope. I don't think it means what you think it means.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> mirrorless will "supplant", replace, make DSLRs obsolete. Just like automobiles supplanted horse-drawn carts and digital cameras supplanted film - even when horse carriages and film cameras can still be used and even bought new by a few people. and the transition will be very soon over the next 2-3 years, not in the distant future.
> 
> even the next transition in image capturing is already well underway. "computational photography" gear is making its first forays into the market. first mover lytro did not succeed in mass market, now Light L16 is at the start. we shall see whether it / that concept gets traction or if it is also a bit too ahead of its time.
> 
> ...



Mirrorless isn't a paradigm shift. It's not horsecart vs. car or film vs. digital. MILC vs. dSLR are just different formats of ILCs, like Betamax vs. VHS. Remember that the technoLOGICALLY superior product lost that format war. In this case, Canon is already competing —very effectively— in the new format. FF MILC is a niche market, even though you seem to think that particular tail wags the dog. 

Computational photography *is* a potential paradigm shift, but as you say, the first attempt at that failed.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Oct 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> mirrorless will "supplant", replace, make DSLRs obsolete. Just like automobiles supplanted horse-drawn carts and digital cameras supplanted film - even when horse carriages and film cameras can still be used and even bought new by a few people. and the transition will be very soon over the next 2-3 years, not in the distant future.
> 
> even the next transition in image capturing is already well underway. "computational photography" gear is making its first forays into the market. first mover lytro did not succeed in mass market, now Light L16 is at the start. we shall see whether it / that concept gets traction or if it is also a bit too ahead of its time.
> 
> ...



The Light L16 technology which is "a bit too ahead of its time" is based on mirrors and lenses. Quote from the Light Technology web site "Using folded optics, the L16 bounces this light off periscopic mirrors, through horizontal lens barrels and onto individual optical sensors. The result is one exquisite 52MP photo, formed from 10+ slightly different perspectives." There is no way that the mirrorless police are going to allow that to happen is there?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 11, 2017)

mirrorless cameras, respectively "no more moving parts inside cameras" with all the associated benefits to makers [lower cost] and to users [size/weight, WYSIWIG viewfinder, no noise, no vibration, etc.] is more than enough of a paradigm shift to guarantee total and utter success in the market. DSLRs will be supplanted, just like SLRs have supplanted rangefinder cameras [it does not not matter that a few rangefinders can still be bought new decades later]. 

Transition is well underway already and will be completed within a short few years. Even the next transition to "truly digital imaging" - supplanting detachable large expensive lenses with in-built arrays of small cheap lenses plus smart software is already in plain sight. [e.g. Light L16 multi-lens array camera].

PS: yes, I do like cheap thrills and blatantly obvious lame pun ... just as much as Neuro  

Take this "innovative Canon" ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Take this "innovative Canon"



Your graphical commentary is as pithy as your text commentary.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 12, 2017)

Let's just not forget: "No more moving parts" also means the camera innards won't be very modular. This is especially true if the design is a thin design. If the sensor and everything else are on the same board, then the whole board needs to be replaced when something goes wrong. Canon is not going to fix things at the component level. Canon will charge for the whole board.

Do printed circuit board assemblies go bad? Darn right they do. I wonder what replacing the guts (All the guts since all on the same board) would cost? On a $3,000 camera? maybe $2,500? My numbers are made up like so many other numbers around here, but you get the point.

Anybody have a main board go bad on a high end DSLR? What did Canon charge to replace it? Just wondering.

Less to go wrong on a mirrorless camera? You mean just because there is no shutter? What about all those components on the board? How many more or less components on a mirrorless camera board? Those parts aren't moving, but they still go bad. Replace a DSLR shutter every 150,000 or more shots? That isn't expensive at all.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 12, 2017)

I love when folks talk about the longer lasting power of electronics as opposed to "mechanical moving parts!" Tell that to all the folks who had mirror-slappers that lasted 20 or 30 years while their electronics and mother boards typically fail in far less time! 

As as the few relatively intelligent have pointed out over and over, mirrorless and DSLRs don't compete with one another, are just two variations of an ILC camera, and can peacefully co-exist for the next few decades.

Of course, common sense will be ignored, and the ridiculous rhetoric will now continue for many more pages....


----------



## BillB (Oct 12, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> mirrorless cameras, respectively "no more moving parts inside cameras" with all the associated benefits to makers [lower cost] and to users [size/weight, WYSIWIG viewfinder, no noise, no vibration, etc.] is more than enough of a paradigm shift to guarantee total and utter success in the market. DSLRs will be supplanted, just like SLRs have supplanted rangefinder cameras [it does not not matter that a few rangefinders can still be bought new decades later].
> 
> Transition is well underway already and will be completed within a short few years. Even the next transition to "truly digital imaging" - supplanting detachable large expensive lenses with in-built arrays of small cheap lenses plus smart software is already in plain sight. [e.g. Light L16 multi-lens array camera].
> 
> ...



If all of this turns out to be true, I would expect a significant shrinkage in the market for FF cameras. I don't see how FF cameras and lenses can compete with aps-c and similar formats on size and price and any FF IQ advantages seem to be shrinking. Optical physics and the production costs of FF sensors are very real things. Small, high IQ 16-35 and 24-70 FF zooms comparable to the current heavy weights are at this point mythical and I doubt this will soon change, whether they are constant F4.0 or not. Certainly Sony's performance so far is not reassuring on this score, or anyone else's for that matter. It looks to me like FF is going to be bigger and more expensive no matter what, so alpine hikers and their ilk are going to tend to carry smaller format cameras, just as they do now.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2017)

BillB said:


> Small, high IQ 16-35 and 24-70 FF zooms comparable to the current heavy weights are at this point mythical and I doubt this will soon change, whether they are constant F4.0 or not. Certainly Sony's performance so far is not reassuring on this score, or anyone else's for that matter.



Sony has demonstrated both: how compact a goood FF camera can be [RX1 RII] and how using the designed for APS-C E-mount also for their FF system causes huge problems and way too big lens designs. 

Canon could (theoretically) learn from both.


----------



## BillB (Oct 12, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Small, high IQ 16-35 and 24-70 FF zooms comparable to the current heavy weights are at this point mythical and I doubt this will soon change, whether they are constant F4.0 or not. Certainly Sony's performance so far is not reassuring on this score, or anyone else's for that matter.
> ...



True enough, but another way of saying that is as of now, nobody has a lens mount in production that is suitable for for the strategy that you anticipate, which would seem to lead to some uncertainty about how soon all this is going to happen. In fact, one of the three companies who are to lead us to the mirrorless promised land is committed to a lens mount that doesn't work very well. And then there is Nikon who seems to be making a big bet on the future of DSLR's.
So it may be up to Canon to pull this rabbit out of the hat. 

With the RX1R II, Sony did come up with a radical solution to the interchangeable lens mount problem, but that has its limitations as well. Sony may also have demonstrated the pricing issues associated with using a very high end FF sensor.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Oct 12, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> mirrorless cameras, respectively "no more moving parts inside cameras" with all the associated benefits to makers [lower cost] and to users [size/weight, WYSIWIG viewfinder, no noise, no vibration, etc.] is more than enough of a paradigm shift to guarantee total and utter success in the market. DSLRs will be supplanted, just like SLRs have supplanted rangefinder cameras [it does not not matter that a few rangefinders can still be bought new decades later].
> 
> Transition is well underway already and will be completed within a short few years. Even the next transition to "truly digital imaging" - supplanting detachable large expensive lenses with in-built arrays of small cheap lenses plus smart software is already in plain sight. [e.g. Light L16 multi-lens array camera].
> 
> ...


This is the type of thing that really annoys me. When I go into a camera shop, above all I want there to be a choice and this will not be possible if one technology replaces all the others "totally and utterly." I have no objection to there being a wide range of mirrorless cameras available, but I also want there to be some alternatives such as DSLRs, compact cameras and range finders. Why the urge to rob everyone of their right to purchase the products they want?
It reminds me of what happened in the mid 1980s when CDs began to replace vinyl records. The major record companies forced the issue by refusing to supply vinyl records to the distributers, offering the CD as a "suitable" replacement. The CDs cost three times as much to buy, they were smaller and lighter making them easier to store and distribute and production costs were very low - it was a no brainer. Some people even argued that CDS were capable of producing a better sound than the same recording on vinyl. Yet 30 years later most of these record companies no longer exist, and the last time I went to one of the few record shops that still exist what did I find? Almost half the shelf space was occupied by vinyl records, that same technology that was ******* and set to be obsolete by the end of the 1980s.


----------



## bhf3737 (Oct 12, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Let's just not forget: "No more moving parts" also means the camera innards won't be very modular. This is especially true if the design is a thin design. If the sensor and everything else are on the same board, then the whole board needs to be replaced when something goes wrong. Canon is not going to fix things at the component level. Canon will charge for the whole board.
> 
> Do printed circuit board assemblies go bad? Darn right they do. I wonder what replacing the guts (All the guts since all on the same board) would cost? On a $3,000 camera? maybe $2,500? My numbers are made up like so many other numbers around here, but you get the point.
> 
> Anybody have a main board go bad on a high end DSLR? What did Canon charge to replace it? Just wondering.




Very good point. 
From reliability engineering perspective, failure rate (i.e. failure per unit time) of components of a typical electronic system is (<< means much less than): 
computing hardware << electro-mechanical hardware << computing software << power unit.
In other words, power unit (batteries, etc.) fails the most and computing printed circuit board should fail the least. However, in recent years, many manufacturers have replaced soldering material with good thermal retention to cheaper material that cracks with frequent temperature changes. This has contributed to finding computing boards fail more and more and their failure rate is now almost in-par with the electro-mechanical hardware parts.
The point is that from failure and longevity perspective there is not much difference between electronic boards with no moving parts and electro-mechanical parts with moving components. 
We can also conclude that in camera systems overheating not only affects the sensor but also all the rest of the electronic boards. It will affect longevity and may probably function as a "kill switch".


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2017)

In cameras i have no worries re. theoretical lifespan of electronics vs. mech lifespan. Repairs generally have become almost irrelevant in practice. Any sort of failure after warranty period economically pretty much a total loss to customer - in DSLRs as well as in mirrorless cameras. Just consider those latest flat rates for even totally minor repairs Canon is introducing in Japan. Skilled repair people have become way too rare and too expensive. 

As long as a digital camera lasts me 5 years without hiccups I am fine. After that I want a newer, improved model anyways. So in practice .. pretty much a moot point.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Repairs generally have become almost irrelevant in practice. Any sort of failure after warranty period economically pretty much a total loss to customer - in DSLRs as well as in mirrorless cameras.



That isn't true. I had a broken shutter replaced. I believe it cost me about $250. That included a cleaning and tuning. That is far from a total loss. Canon had my camera back to me in a week. Sony would probably still have my camera or say it is unrepairable. I believe the sensor is the most costly part. I'm sure others here have probably had repairs done and can chime in.


----------



## bhf3737 (Oct 13, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> In cameras i have no worries re. theoretical lifespan of electronics vs. mech lifespan. Repairs generally have become almost irrelevant in practice. Any sort of failure after warranty period economically pretty much a total loss to customer - in DSLRs as well as in mirrorless cameras. Just consider those latest flat rates for even totally minor repairs Canon is introducing in Japan. Skilled repair people have become way too rare and too expensive.
> 
> As long as a digital camera lasts me 5 years without hiccups I am fine. After that I want a newer, improved model anyways. So in practice .. pretty much a moot point.



A thread of argument in favor of mirrorless cameras was that they are more reliable because of not having moving components. The point is that it is simply not true, and quite the opposite, because of the small form factor and inefficient heat management, poorly designed and rushed mirrorless cameras may fail more frequently. 
BTW. Cameras are "professional devices" and are designed to last about 100K TBF (time between failures) equivalent to almost 12 years life span. Service mechanisms are in place to support the users during this period. They are not "toys" that one may get bored with them in 5 years or so!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 13, 2017)

bhf3737 said:


> Cameras are "professional devices" and are designed to last about 100K TBF (time between failures) equivalent to almost 12 years life span. Service mechanisms are in place to support the users during this period. They are not "toys" that one may get bored with them in 5 years or so!



Maybe not to you or me...


----------



## DaviSto (Oct 30, 2017)

BillB said:


> It looks to me like FF is going to be bigger and more expensive no matter what, so alpine hikers and their ilk are going to tend to carry smaller format cameras, just as they do now.


And as crop format cameras get better and better, and smaller and smaller, what have they got to lose and why should they ever be interested in all that heavy FF stuff?

IMHO the competition that lighter/smaller but less ergonomic short flange distance FF ILCs will face in future is increasingly going to be from crop mirrorless bodies. Not in the USA, and not in Europe, but globally, I think Canon already has the highest volume of sales in that segment.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> even the next transition in image capturing is already well underway. "computational photography" gear is making its first forays into the market.



Pah, I've been practicing in computational photography since 2005; I don't see it changed the world


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 27, 2018)

Hopefully they will do it:

One for the pure EF mount party and
one for the "I want to adapt different things"-party!

A guarantee for more peace in forums and the photo (gear) world


----------



## sanj (Feb 10, 2018)

dak723 said:


> deadwrong said:
> 
> 
> > ;D say 2019..........Sony will have released like 10 full frame models by then.....
> ...



By what standard are the Sony camera's crap sir? Have you used any? I have and they are wonderful.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Mirror slap = RIP



Canon 5Ds/r = RIP mirrorslap


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 11, 2018)

I use both mirrorless and dslr's and the main point with mirrorless is that they are supposed to be smaller and cheaper.
Smaller they may be, but they are priced much the same as mirrorslappers.
Where is their so-called price advantage?
Dslrs are often cheaper than a mirrorless equivalent, and to be frank with you, dslrs still perform better than mirrorless cameras in that their speed of focussing and getting the shot is far superior to any mirrorless that I've tried.
I also haven't found a mirrorless camera that I'd be happy to hold in my hand for 12 hours straight,like I do with my 5d3.

Mirrorless MAY be the coming thing, but they aren't there yet.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 11, 2018)

sanj said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > deadwrong said:
> ...



Obviously, I am exaggerating. I am sure for many folks the Sony FF cameras are doing a fine job. The differences in all brands is very minimal, but over the past 5 or 6 years I bought a number of cameras, a few FF, a few APS-C, and some M4/3rds. A few were older used Olympus M4/3rds as well as their newer E-M5 and E-M1. From Canon I bought the 6D and the newer M5. The two Sony FF cameras I bought were the A7 and the A7 II. I sold some of the cameras used, and I upgraded from the E-M5 to the E-M1, but the only cameras I returned were the two Sonys. They were the only cameras of the bunch that were disappointing in almost every way. I can not afford higher priced lenses, so the kit lens that comes with the Sony is hampered by the short flange distance. A big negative. One Sony underexposed by nearly 1 1/2 stops, the other 1 stop. While there was some variation in the other brands, too, the Sonys were the worst. I have read that the newer Sonys have improved their EVFs, which is good, because the EVF of the two earlier models I had were far below the EVF of the Olympus cameras, for example. Not surprisingly, the ergonomics of the Sonys were the worst of the bunch, too. Yes, it's all subjective and these are my opinions. So, maybe crap was a definite overstatement. But every other camera I have owned was better overall, in my opinion.


----------



## Talys (Feb 12, 2018)

@dak723 - I still think that EVFs are crap 

I think that the A7R3 and A9 viewfinders are a dramatic improvement over A7R2. But to me, that's like saying, if you need a +3.5 prescription, a pair of +2.5 glasses is dramatically better than nothing.

I won't change my opinion of EVFs as being inferior until what I see through the viewfinder has a mode that is indistinguishable from what I see through optics. The pixel density has to be so tight that I can't see pixels or a pixel grid, and the refresh rate needs to be high enough that fast moving objects and rapid changes of light occur just like I would see with the naked eye. I do think that will be the case one day, but I doubt, soon.

Part of the reason for preferring OVF in situations where EVF might be helpful is that I give almost no value to WYSIWYG through the viewfinder. It's a wonderful learning tool, but at some point, as a photographer, one should learn (through experience and learning, whether through instruction or reading) to be familiar enough with their gear and exposure to understand how light works, and not be disappointed with their shot because it isn't lit or exposed properly.

Or to put it another way, if you always just rely on live view/EVF to give you "better", and settle for that, you'll never know what you need to get what you're really create the shot that you're envisioning -- that might involve moving or getting your subject to move, waiting for a different time of day, or adding filters or a reflector or a diffuser or supplementing light, et cetera, et cetera.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> @dak723 - I still think that EVFs are crap
> 
> 
> Or to put it another way, if you always just rely on live view/EVF to give you "better", and settle for that, you'll never know what you need to get what you're really create the shot that you're envisioning -- that might involve moving or getting your subject to move, waiting for a different time of day, or adding filters or a reflector or a diffuser or supplementing light, et cetera, et cetera.



So if someone uses LiveView for landscapes (as many do, with the tilty-flippy) the photographer does not know what they need to do to get the shot they are envisioning? Where is the logic in that?

That sounds like the s-called advice to newbies (that has only recently stopped being propogated) that the best way to learn photography is to buy a film camera and take your time, or to start off with a prime lens instead of these new-fangled laziness-inducing zoom lenses.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> I won't change my opinion of EVFs as being inferior until what I see through the viewfinder has a mode that is indistinguishable from what I see through optics.



That about sums up my thinking too. I might put up with an EVF if I bought a second camera specifically to be a small and light (eg for travel), but I have yet to see an EVF I would be happy with on my primary camera.

The use of an EVF, along with lesser battery life and slower AF (although I gather the AF gap is closing and may soon be a thing of the past) mean I am not especially excited about the idea of mirrorless. And when it comes to FF mirrorless, the fact it seems few lenses will actually be smaller and lighter means I just don't understand the attraction. Yes, I understand mirrorless can offer some advantages other than being small and light, but I guess I just don't value those things enough to offset what I see as disadvantages.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 12, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > @dak723 - I still think that EVFs are crap
> ...



I thought most people using LiveView for landscapes were using it because it's more comfortable than having your eye to the viewfinder when the camera is on a tripod, rather than because of any WYSIWYG view on the screen ...?

That said, I agree there is no reason why the WYSIWYG view of an EVF should be seen as a negative or something you should outgrow as a photographer. If it helps you get the shot you want, use it. (Just like if AF helps you get the shot, use it rather than focus manually, etc.) For my own part, though, I still prefer an OVF. The advantages of an EVF do not outweigh the disadvantages, in my view. (Pun intended!)


----------



## Talys (Feb 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > @dak723 - I still think that EVFs are crap
> ...



Not at all. I said that an EVF (or live view) it's a good learning device.

However, if you ONLY rely on WYSIWYG to take photos, and also rely on a sensor's dynamic range flexibility and the ability to adjust photos in post, then what you end up with is a photographer who:

a) learns to hate their flash because all flashes do is ruin shots

b) never learns to augment light, for example, with filters and reflectors

c) doesn't learn about how light works: what types of angles create what type of mood, different types of light, and different types of reflections

And specifically with landscapes:

d) will never take a long exposure with an ND filter


I mean specifically, landscapes. If you rely on WYSIWYG, you can point your camera at a beach sunset, and snap a great shot on the first try. All your friends will say it's a beautiful photo.

If you set your camera on a tripod and take the right exposure with an ND, it's probably going to take a bunch of tries, but your water and the wisps of clouds will look amazing. All your friends will think the photograph is magical.

Talk portraits for a sec. With WYSIWYG, yeah, anyone can get a decent shot out outside. Yes, that's a great shot of your girlfriend. Now, add a softbox and a kicker light, switch to a wider angle lens and take it from higher angle and ask her to turn just that way and move her hand just this way, and suddenly, you have a very flattering photograph that makes her look positively angelic.

My point isn't that WYSIWYG is bad; it's that if you rely on it and never try to improve beyond that, you'll get stuck at a plateau of being a very mediocre (though perhaps happy) photographer. To improve one's skills beyond that, in my opinion, you really need to study other photography and techniques, learn, experiment, and explore -- with many of those applications where what you see in the viewfinder as a composition aid rather than WYSIWYG.




jd7 said:


> I thought most people using LiveView for landscapes were using it because it's more comfortable than having your eye to the viewfinder when the camera is on a tripod, rather than because of any WYSIWYG view on the screen ...?



I don't do a lot of landscapes; it's just not my thing, and I don't enjoy travel, which makes it even less attractive (since it would be of the same spots). So someone who does, please, share your experiences.

That said, just as with everything else in photography, I do enjoy dabbling and seeing how the pros make their shots. I find that I use live view a lot, but mostly because my camera is on a tripod with a remote trigger, and it's just more convenient to do so (as you said, sometimes, it's at an awkward angle, too). The live view is to frame the shot, though, not to tell me what my picture will look like.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 19, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't get it. What exactly is so great about extra small if it can't fit in your pocket. Sure a little saving on an airplane and a bit less weight wandering around site seeing but it's still dangling and in that sense a nuisance.
> ...



Heck, with a pancake lens my 5D Mark III fits into my coat pocket. Just get a coat with bigger pockets.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 19, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Heck, with a pancake lens my 5D Mark III fits into my coat pocket. Just get a coat with bigger pockets.



hehe ... and now take the 5D III, stick it into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 pouch, attach it to backpack strap and have an enjoyable day in the mountains ... oO ... lol


----------



## BillB (Feb 19, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> It will fit into my coat pocket with a 35/2.0 pancake on it. And it will fit into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 fixed to my backpack strap when I am in the mountains. And in all other circumstances my bag will be apprecuiably lighter and less bulky than with a DSLR setup.



Heck, with a pancake lens my 5D Mark III fits into my coat pocket. Just get a coat with bigger pockets. 
[/quote]



hehe ... and now take the 5D III, stick it into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 pouch, attach it to backpack strap and have an enjoyable day in the mountains ... oO ... lol
[/quote]

And exactly what are you planning to stick into a Lowepro Dashpont 30? Would it be the fantasy EF-X magic box with the imaginary 35mm F2 pancake, or are we talking about something else here? Maybe I'm missing something... .


----------



## dak723 (Feb 19, 2018)

Talys said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



All the WYSIWYG of an EVF gives you is more information - which doesn't keep you from doing any of the things you mention. In fact, more information at the start makes all of the other adjustments or experiments you want to do easier. You are assuming that someone with an EVF will never go beyond relying on the EVF. Well, lots of folks don't go beyond relying on their OVF either, so your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You could substitute OVDF for EVF in everyone of our sentences and it would make no difference. All the EVF gives you is more information than an OVF - why should that be bad or prevent someone from using filters or lighting? No reason that I can think of.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 20, 2018)

BillB said:


> And exactly what are you planning to stick into a Lowepro Dashpont 30? Would it be the fantasy EF-X magic box with the imaginary 35mm F2 pancake, or are we talking about something else here? Maybe I'm missing something... .



Not planning on anything re. Canon and FF mirrorless. But my mirrorless dream camera would have exact size and form factor of Sony RX-1R II ... just with a lens mount up front. With a pancake lens [sized like like EF 40/2.8] it would serve as my "ultra-compact mountaineering kit" ... and fit into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 attached to my leftside backpack strap for imemdiate access at all times without causing a sore shoulder. Currently I am using an EOS M [original) with 22/20 or 18-55 for that purpose. But an ultra-compact FF-sensored camera would be more "universal" ... especially in low light.


----------

