Will Canon's FF Mirrorless be EF or EF-M Mount?

Photato wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Photato wrote:

nnowak wrote:

First and foremost is the problem of perception if Canon were to go full frame EF-M mount. Full frame EF-M instantly signals to every working pro that their entire EF lens inventory is now obsolete and will soon drop in value. Think that might anger a few people? If the long term prospect is that you will eventually replace every lens you own with a virtually identical EF-M version, what is to stop you from just starting over with Nikon or Sony?

There is more friction to change to a different system than just the perception that your glass will eventually depreciate in value. You could also argue that in the Sony system you have the option of more portable FF bodies with small primes.

Next up are the technical merits of the two mounts. With the mirror gone, there are no optical designs that you could build for the EF-M mount that could not be duplicated in the EF mount. In fact, the EF mount makes bright lenses easier due to the much larger throat diameter.

Almost every single EF-M lens is sharper than its EF equivalent due to the shorter flange back distance. This is not a theory, you can clearly see this in the resolution charts, EF-S vs EF-M.

But what about mount adapters? They suck. If you are carrying multiple lenses with mixed mounts, the only option that makes sense is to put an adapter on every lense in your bag. Your camera body might be thinner with an EF-M mount, but now a buch of your lenses just got bigger. There are also several problems with the design of the current EF-M adapter; the internal baffle blocks a full frame image, it is not weather sealed, and it is not sturdy enough to support larger bodies and lenses. There is also no physical blocking mechanism that would prevent use of the current adpater instead of a newer "full frame" adapter and there is no identification on the current adapter indicating that it is only for crop cameras. That is a recipe for problems.

The adapter thing is a temporary transitional compromise.
Business wise it makes more sense for Canon to have customers buy the newer EF-M lenses to enjoy its benefits yet nobody is forcing users to do it.

People need to stop thinking in terms of a full frame M2 + 22mm and start thinking in terms of a mirrorless 1DX + 600mm f4.

You could think about Sony A + 35mm lens vs Canon 5D + 35mm

Take a look at the sidelines of any major sporting event, and especially the Olympics. Canon must build a mirrorless system to support their needs, not the system that you personally want to put into your pocket.

Mirroless doesn't necessarily means enthusiast pocketable.

Sony and Panasonic have already an answer to Sport Professional Photography with the A9 and G9, their name similarity is not a coincidence. I don't see why Canon or Nikon can deliver something similar, perhaps they don't because they can't...but they should.

There shouldn't be any performance penalty if Canon decide to use the EF-M mount for FF MILC

Aside from the reduced flange diameter which really complicates the creation of bright full frame lenses with minimal vignetting.

nor there is any performance penalty when EF are used with the EF-M adapter.

Aside from the reduced flange diameter, no weather sealing, additional electrical contacts, reduced structural integrity.  But yeah, other than that there is no penalty.

If you are a professional, having the option to buy a newer sharper EF-M lens is not a problem but rather a joy !

There is absolutely no truth to this last bit.  You can not build sharper lenses for the EF-M mount than you could for a mirrorless EF mount.  In what world is replacing lenses that cost over $2000 each considered a "joy"?