Thoughts After the Nikon Mirrorless Launch...

[graveur]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

sure if you ignore ergonomic differences between then and falsey assume that's as small as canon can make a full frame. oh wait, it's not because that's even a 5D Mark IV image, you've chosen the largest full frame camera that canon makes and compared it to cameras that are lacking it's haptic buttons and top plate LCD and claiming similarity.

The 5D IV is not the largest Canon camera they make, it is the 1DX II. In the past they made also larger cameras like the 1Ds and 1D line. There is only one Canon camera, that is FF and smaller than the 5D IV: it is the 6DII. And the 6D II is still bigger then the A7 III / A7r III.

I should have stated non-1 series grip style, however i though that would have been obvious.

I compared the A7(r)iii with the 5D, because these cameras are positioned against each other in the market. The 5D IV also lacks some ergonomic aspects like the articulating screen for example.

except the A7RIII lacks much more such as the haptic buttons across the top and a top plate LCD which dramatically increase the size of the camera. it also lacks a grip the size of the 5D Mark IV which dramatically changes the size of the camera.

Well, the new Nikon is way smaller then the 5D IV and has bigger grip then the A7 and a top display. So obviously it is possible to do it in a small body.

the A7 series is almost down to rebel ergonomics with a joystick added.

and then you also have the fact that the 5D Mark IV has a penta prism, and related housing which increases the size over that of an EVF and it's related optics.

Obviously a lot of people disagree, with your opinion about the ergonomics: we are both Canon users in the Canon forum talking about Sony. Look at the Sony again and tell me wich buttons from a Canon 5D you miss. The "rate button"?

actually the rate button is hugely popular with working pros.

but this is really an easy mental exercise.

answer this question:

what is stopping canon from making an EF mirrorless full frame camera the size of an SL2 or even smaller than that if you take into account a mirrorless has no AF, AE and penta mirror assembly?

Nothing stops them. Maybe only the fact that they are the market leader and want to see how the merket develops. Still, they will make such camera rather sooner then later.

----------------

graveur8x

Explore graveur8x’s 1,776 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Robert127]

Well, the size differences are not totally mythical.









The Sony A7RIII is a fair bit smaller than my Canon 5DII with the comparable 24-105 F4 lense. And with the 35mm F2.8, the Sony is great little street camera. With longer lenses, the total size will not be much different, but the 5DII can never be as small as the Sony/35 option. Holding the Sony reminds me of my old Minolta X700. I don't remember complaints that that camera was too small, but we didn't have the internet back then.

As I said in another post, maybe Canon will make a 1.0 telephoto extender rather than an adapter, so everyone will be happy.

I think we all have to admit that Canon is not going to keep the EF mount with their mirrorless FF camera.

Robert

--
I may not be a professional photographer, but I like to take pictures.

 

[PhotoKhan]

I was pleasantly surprised that Nikon gave the Z6 the same high-quality EVF as the Z7. Canon would never, ever do such a thing.

EVF quality is the single biggest barrier to acceptance of mirrorless for a large proportion of DSLR users. I don't think Canon will make the mistake of skimping on that.

They won't.

Canon clearly has a better strategy than Nikon regarding mirrorless and it has been an obvious one all along.

it goes even further than you describe. Canon has been working on it's ability to work with mirrorless since the 40D when liveview came out. They are in the 5th generation of DSLR liveview right now, and each one was an improvement on the latter.

Correct.

They clearly have been tracking back and forth between the DSLRs and the "M" line implementing some features and perfecting others with a final goal in mind.

It just amazed me, the past few years, how people couldn't see it

PK

 

[rrccad]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

sure if you ignore ergonomic differences between then and falsey assume that's as small as canon can make a full frame. oh wait, it's not because that's even a 5D Mark IV image, you've chosen the largest full frame camera that canon makes and compared it to cameras that are lacking it's haptic buttons and top plate LCD and claiming similarity.

The 5D IV is not the largest Canon camera they make, it is the 1DX II. In the past they made also larger cameras like the 1Ds and 1D line. There is only one Canon camera, that is FF and smaller than the 5D IV: it is the 6DII. And the 6D II is still bigger then the A7 III / A7r III.

I should have stated non-1 series grip style, however i though that would have been obvious.

I compared the A7(r)iii with the 5D, because these cameras are positioned against each other in the market. The 5D IV also lacks some ergonomic aspects like the articulating screen for example.

except the A7RIII lacks much more such as the haptic buttons across the top and a top plate LCD which dramatically increase the size of the camera. it also lacks a grip the size of the 5D Mark IV which dramatically changes the size of the camera.

Well, the new Nikon is way smaller then the 5D IV and has bigger grip then the A7 and a top display. So obviously it is possible to do it in a small body.

the A7 series is almost down to rebel ergonomics with a joystick added.

and then you also have the fact that the 5D Mark IV has a penta prism, and related housing which increases the size over that of an EVF and it's related optics.

Obviously a lot of people disagree, with your opinion about the ergonomics: we are both Canon users in the Canon forum talking about Sony. Look at the Sony again and tell me wich buttons from a Canon 5D you miss. The "rate button"?

actually the rate button is hugely popular with working pros.

but this is really an easy mental exercise.

answer this question:

what is stopping canon from making an EF mirrorless full frame camera the size of an SL2 or even smaller than that if you take into account a mirrorless has no AF, AE and penta mirror assembly?

Nothing stops them.

if nothing stops them from making a mirrorless full frame the size of an EF SL2, then why bother switching the mounts to a new mount for the sake of body size?

 

[photog7320]

The Sony A7RIII is a fair bit smaller than my Canon 5DII with the comparable 24-105 F4 lense.

By a couple mm's and ounces? We have different definitions of "a fair bit."

And with the 35mm F2.8, the Sony is great little street camera.

And with the 40mm f/2.8 so is the Canon. And if Canon were to do a FF "Rebel" the sizes would be virtually identical. (They're sorted by weight in the image below. Notice which one is lightest.)

Loading…

j.mp

I think we all have to admit that Canon is not going to keep the EF mount with their mirrorless FF camera.

I don't know if they will or not, but those are famous last words.

 

[rrccad]

Well, the size differences are not totally mythical.

sure it is. you are comparing a large canon camera against a small camera. canon makes small EF mount cameras as well, where they don't have a top plate LCD, and there's not a massive pentaprism, and a huge grip, and guess what.. they are the same size as the A7. the sensor size is rather immaterial to the comparison since a full frame sensor and a aps-c sized sensor in an EF mount mirrorless doesn't consume that much more space.

like the discussion in another sub thread here, there's nothing stopping canon from making a full frame mirrorless camera with an EF mount slightly smaller than an SL2 which is a pretty tiny camera.

while i have no idea what they will do, the concept that they MUST change the mount to make smaller cameras is widely suggested as fact, where in reality, it's simply a matter of opinion based upon a alternative reality.

they may switch the mount because it's compelling for UWA lenses, who knows. but body size isn't really a problem with either mount.

 

[dpr4bb]

The Sony A7RIII is a fair bit smaller than my Canon 5DII with the comparable 24-105 F4 lense.

By a couple mm's and ounces? We have different definitions of "a fair bit."

And with the 35mm F2.8, the Sony is great little street camera.

And with the 40mm f/2.8 so is the Canon.

Nonsense. The 5D4 body is a behemoth.

And if Canon were to do a FF "Rebel" the sizes would be virtually identical. (They're sorted by weight in the image below. Notice which one is lightest.)

http://j.mp/2NkPMaX

I think we all have to admit that Canon is not going to keep the EF mount with their mirrorless FF camera.

I don't know if they will or not, but those are famous last words.

 

[photog7320]

I agree completely. This would be the smartest design. This means it is also the unlikeliest. I'm afraid the biggest reason Canon will introduce a new mount is not a photographic one at all. They know people will buy into a new mount and new lenses in droves.

Market confusion doesn't help sales. One guy might buy a new mount lens while another stops buying EF glass because "it's dying." A single mount would inspire confidence in the entire line. "Buying a mirrorless today but thinking you might want a DSLR tomorrow? No problem, your lenses will work." Consumers hate confusion and love consistency.

EF (or EF-R) is the smart move. No idea if they've done that (or if the choice is still open to them, i.e. different test bodies in the wild).

And it still leaves Canon free to make real size/weight gains in compact EF-M for those who want it.

 

[rrccad]

I agree completely. This would be the smartest design. This means it is also the unlikeliest. I'm afraid the biggest reason Canon will introduce a new mount is not a photographic one at all. They know people will buy into a new mount and new lenses in droves.

Market confusion doesn't help sales. One guy might buy a new mount lens while another stops buying EF glass because "it's dying." A single mount would inspire confidence in the entire line. "Buying a mirrorless today but thinking you might want a DSLR tomorrow? No problem, your lenses will work." Consumers hate confusion and love consistency.

EF (or EF-R) is the smart move. No idea if they've done that (or if the choice is still open to them, i.e. different test bodies in the wild).

And it still leaves Canon free to make real size/weight gains in compact EF-M for those who want it.

the EF-M is TINY. if you want small and packed with good IQ and actually good quality lenses, you really don't have to go much further than that. more primes and some F4 zooms would certainly round out the ecosystem nicely, but it really is a great travel kit with a 11-22,22,18-150.

 

[davev8]

Only if they CANNOT make compact primes to go with a new ML mount. The Nikon 50/1.8 S and 35/1.8 S are huge, so like you say there's no point in making the body a little slimmer. Especially considering the grip protrudes at least as far as a FF mount would.

IF Canon can make compact 50/2, 35/2, 24/2 primes to go with a new ML mount, then by all means, I'll take a new mount.

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

Best rumor I've read was that Canon was going to use an EF-R mount that would directly accept EF lenses, but use a notch to allow the mounting of EF-R lenses where the rear lens element can extend back into the body. Kinda like EF/EF-S.

Lens designers would be able to take advantage of EF-R for the few designs that benefit, and we would have out-of-box native compatibility with our existing lenses. We would lose a bit in terms of adapted glass, but I consider that minor.

This would be the best move by Canon for a mirrorless mount.

I agree completely. This would be the smartest design. This means it is also the unlikeliest. I'm afraid the biggest reason Canon will introduce a new mount is not a photographic one at all. They know people will buy into a new mount and new lenses in droves.

NO if the canon FF ML is EF mount i will not even look elsewhere ..but if i have to have adaptors and new lenses i may look at sony ...just like i did with cordless power tools ...i was very happy with Makta but when they changed the battery to slide on (like they all did) and it meant changing all my tools if i wanted the Makita latest tools i may as well look at the competition as it will cost the same to stay ...must have spent 2.5K with Milwaukee by now

 

[JackM]

I agree completely. This would be the smartest design. This means it is also the unlikeliest. I'm afraid the biggest reason Canon will introduce a new mount is not a photographic one at all. They know people will buy into a new mount and new lenses in droves.

Market confusion doesn't help sales. One guy might buy a new mount lens while another stops buying EF glass because "it's dying." A single mount would inspire confidence in the entire line. "Buying a mirrorless today but thinking you might want a DSLR tomorrow? No problem, your lenses will work." Consumers hate confusion and love consistency.

EF (or EF-R) is the smart move. No idea if they've done that (or if the choice is still open to them, i.e. different test bodies in the wild).

And it still leaves Canon free to make real size/weight gains in compact EF-M for those who want it.

Again, I agree. But me liking an idea usually means it doesn't happen, historically.

 

[Rick Knepper]

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

We have no reason to believe this. All we really have are comparisons to Sony configurations. A few MMs?

Best rumor I've read was that Canon was going to use an EF-R mount that would directly accept EF lenses,

With this configuration, it would lose any weight/size advantage.

this is patently false.

This is a ridiculous statement given that the whole thread is based on speculation and fantasy and given that none of us knows anything.

are you talking about your statement, if so I agree.

you are the one that made a distinct statement. I disagree with it.

You said it was patently false which is a falsehood itself since neither of us knows exactly what is coming. If you are merely disagreeing, then I am okay with that.

you made a statement, I stated it was a false statement.

You can keep saying it over and over but it doesn't make it so. Thankfully, I can walk away from this conversation and not be all tied up in knots.

it has nothing to do with what canon comes out with, it's your concept that if canon uses an EF mount, then "With this configuration, it would lose any weight/size advantage." which is a false statement because it does not lose any / all weight and size advantage AT ALL.

SIze and weight advantage depends on ergonomics more than it ever would for the actual mount.

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

I was pleasantly surprised that Nikon gave the Z6 the same high-quality EVF as the Z7. Canon would never, ever do such a thing.

EVF quality is the single biggest barrier to acceptance of mirrorless for a large proportion of DSLR users. I don't think Canon will make the mistake of skimping on that.

They won't.

Canon clearly has a better strategy than Nikon regarding mirrorless and it has been an obvious one all along.

it goes even further than you describe. Canon has been working on it's ability to work with mirrorless since the 40D when liveview came out. They are in the 5th generation of DSLR liveview right now, and each one was an improvement on the latter.

Correct.

They clearly have been tracking back and forth between the DSLRs and the "M" line implementing some features and perfecting others with a final goal in mind.

It just amazed me, the past few years, how people couldn't see it

PK

Olympus/Panasonic have a pretty good range now, though. I recently got Olympus stuff (used to have it years ago) and it's pretty damn good. Great lenses, fab camera (2 OMD-EM1M2) very lightweight. One amazing lens is Panasonic 100-400mm (=800mm on FF). Fantastic stabilisation. Weighs maybe 2lb. Video is amazing. Stabilisation is like have a tripod.

 

[PhotoKhan]

I was pleasantly surprised that Nikon gave the Z6 the same high-quality EVF as the Z7. Canon would never, ever do such a thing.

EVF quality is the single biggest barrier to acceptance of mirrorless for a large proportion of DSLR users. I don't think Canon will make the mistake of skimping on that.

They won't.

Canon clearly has a better strategy than Nikon regarding mirrorless and it has been an obvious one all along.

it goes even further than you describe. Canon has been working on it's ability to work with mirrorless since the 40D when liveview came out. They are in the 5th generation of DSLR liveview right now, and each one was an improvement on the latter.

Correct.

They clearly have been tracking back and forth between the DSLRs and the "M" line implementing some features and perfecting others with a final goal in mind.

It just amazed me, the past few years, how people couldn't see it

PK

Olympus/Panasonic have a pretty good range now, though. I recently got Olympus stuff (used to have it years ago) and it's pretty damn good. Great lenses, fab camera (2 OMD-EM1M2) very lightweight. One amazing lens is Panasonic 100-400mm (=800mm on FF). Fantastic stabilisation. Weighs maybe 2lb. Video is amazing. Stabilisation is like have a tripod.

Hi Garry,

Nice to hear from you

Yes, they do have excellent gear, it seems.

I would contend it is very hard for one to completely go wrong over gear, these days.

PK

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

I was pleasantly surprised that Nikon gave the Z6 the same high-quality EVF as the Z7. Canon would never, ever do such a thing.

EVF quality is the single biggest barrier to acceptance of mirrorless for a large proportion of DSLR users. I don't think Canon will make the mistake of skimping on that.

They won't.

Canon clearly has a better strategy than Nikon regarding mirrorless and it has been an obvious one all along.

it goes even further than you describe. Canon has been working on it's ability to work with mirrorless since the 40D when liveview came out. They are in the 5th generation of DSLR liveview right now, and each one was an improvement on the latter.

Correct.

They clearly have been tracking back and forth between the DSLRs and the "M" line implementing some features and perfecting others with a final goal in mind.

It just amazed me, the past few years, how people couldn't see it

PK

Olympus/Panasonic have a pretty good range now, though. I recently got Olympus stuff (used to have it years ago) and it's pretty damn good. Great lenses, fab camera (2 OMD-EM1M2) very lightweight. One amazing lens is Panasonic 100-400mm (=800mm on FF). Fantastic stabilisation. Weighs maybe 2lb. Video is amazing. Stabilisation is like have a tripod.

Hi Garry,

Nice to hear from you

Yes, they do have excellent gear, it seems.

I would contend it is very hard for one to completely go wrong over gear, these days.

PK

True. I'm keeping the Canon DLSR stuff. Unbeatable for poor light!

 

[Robert127]

Hmmm.

I posted 2 pictures, one with the Canon and Sony with an identically specified lens, and the one you re-posted showing how small the Sony can be. I can tell you that the 24-105 F4 feels more compact and lighter with the Sony than the Canon. I don't have the Canon 40mm to compare. However, I have mounted Canon lenses on my Sony using the Metabones adapter, which size-wise would be nearly identical to a Canon mirror-less with an EF mount. The added size and weight were certainly noticeable - but I moved to Sony partly for the reduction in size, so that is important to me. No matter how small they can make it with an EF mount, it would be that much smaller with a shorter flange distance. And you will never get to an A6000 size with an EF mount.

On the other hand, there is no reason an adapter cannot be as accurate and reliable as an integrated EF mount. Canon does not have to reverse engineer the specifications. And if they cannot manufacture a metal tube with mil tolerances, I wouldn't trust their cameras either.

By the way, the Nikon adapter is a no-go for me. I can't imagine trying to hold the camer and lens with my left hand bumping against the bottom bulge. I removed the tripod mount from my Metabones adapter for that reason. Canon does not have a motor requirement, so they won't need that - I hope.

I moved on from Canon after waiting years for them to come up with a FF mirror-less camera. So I am mostly just a spectator now, although I still have more Canon glass than Sony glass.

Robert

 

[photog7320]

Hmmm.

I posted 2 pictures, one with the Canon and Sony with an identically specified lens, and the one you re-posted showing how small the Sony can be. I can tell you that the 24-105 F4 feels more compact and lighter with the Sony than the Canon.

It may be. There are other cases where the Canon lens is more compact and/or lighter. It all depends on the particular lens design, and doesn't seem to be influenced at all by the actual flange distance.

I don't have the Canon 40mm to compare. However, I have mounted Canon lenses on my Sony using the Metabones adapter, which size-wise would be nearly identical to a Canon mirror-less with an EF mount. The added size and weight were certainly noticeable -

How do they compare to an SL2? A "smallest possible" EF mount FF MILC would be that size or even smaller.

And you will never get to an A6000 size with an EF mount.

You can't with Sony FF glass either.

 

[Peak freak]

In reply to the OP, I like the new Z7. As a landscape shooter / hiker the prospect of a D850 (type) sensor in a smaller, lighter body is a good thing. But what has really got my interest is the talk about the lens mount / flange distance having tangible benefits for lens design - interested to see how well the 24-70/4 performs as a guide.

My EF16-35/4 spends most of the time on my 5D2 and I have an 800D which mostly has the 70-200 on it. I find I don't need a lot of lenses, just good performing ones. The Nikon S 14-30/4 is really what will be interesting (for me).

 

[Robert127]

I am not sure what you are saying here. The Sony A6000 accepts Sony EF lenses the same way the A7RIII does. I don't think there is a technical reason why the an A6000 sized camera could not be built with a full frame sensor the same way your are suggesting the SL2 could be built with a full frame sensor.





Putting a 35mm lense on the Sony still leaves you with a 'pocket-able' camera.

If Canon does go EF mount though, I definitely will not have buyer's remorse.

Robert

--
I may not be a professional photographer, but I like to take pictures.

 

[stevedavidsonphotography]

I am a 5dMKIII owner as well as a GH5 for video. the launch of the Nikon Z cameras today was kind of a glimpse of what lies ahead for the Canon camp. From what I saw and read, the camera itself looks plenty capable and overall a great tool. I am sure Canon can produce much of the same. What caught my attention is the lenses, or should I say lack of lenses.

I am not a Nikon shooter, but if I was I would disappointed in the choices for the new lens mount. The road map extended in to 2020 and was not exactly complete. This is a real barrier to commit to a switch. I guess I thought they would have more lenses ready to go as adapting existing lenses leave some of the camera features out of the mix.

As a Canon shooter, I think this is going to be much of the same story we are going to get. Great body with a poor lens selection. Kind of leaves the water muddy and shows how important the system is to being confident in a purchase.

I do not know much about lens production/design but I kind of see a half hearted commitment from Nikon with this launch from the lens point of view. Maybe I am underestimating how good the existing lenses will be with the camera but I think folks need more than three at launch!

It does not have a DLO IC or even PP DLO ? Ouch !