Mirrorless mount - will Canon stick to EOS?

[BernardLanguillier]

Now that Nikon have officially announced a new mount with a clearly stated focus on optical quality, the question is what path Canon is going to follow for their upcoming FF mirrorless body.

- Since they already have 3 mounts, can they afford to base their FF mirrorless on a new 4th mount?
- Seeing how conservative they have been the past 10 years, are they not going to just focus on leveraging their existing EOS lenses line-up and release a 5DmkV where the mirror is simply replaced by an EVF?
- Since the Canon shooters who were frustrated by Canon’s lack of sensor innovation have mostly already added a Sony to their line up and are progressively replacing Canon lenses by E mount ones, is Canon not just going to focus on the photographers who have decided to stick to Canon for whatever reasons (ergonomics, colors, some great lenses, best in class video AF, lack of budget to switch, perception that there is nothing to gain elsewhere - all cameras are now the same,...) which means stick to EOS?

I would personnally be surprised if they followed the bold approach Nikon has just announced. I am 90% sure that they will stick to EOS for FF and just propose the M mount for customers looking for compactness.

What do you guys think?
- do you share my views?
- do you think this would be good for Canon photographers and for photography as a whole?
- do you think this would be a successfull short and long term strategy for Canon?

Cheers,
Bernard

[davidgp]

Now that Nikon have officially announced a new mount with a clearly stated focus on optical quality, the question is what path Canon is going to follow for their upcoming FF mirrorless body.

- Since they already have 3 mounts, can they afford to base their FF mirrorless on a new 4th mount?
- Seeing how conservative they have been the past 10 years, are they not going to just focus on leveraging their existing EOS lenses line-up and release a 5DmkV where the mirror is simply replaced by an EVF?
- Since the Canon shooters who were frustrated by Canon’s lack of sensor innovation have mostly already added a Sony to their line up and are progressively replacing Canon lenses by E mount ones, is Canon not just going to focus on the photographers who have decided to stick to Canon for whatever reasons (ergonomics, colors, some great lenses, best in class video AF, lack of budget to switch, perception that there is nothing to gain elsewhere - all cameras are now the same,...) which means stick to EOS?

I would personnally be surprised if they followed the bold approach Nikon has just announced. I am 90% sure that they will stick to EOS for FF and just propose the M mount for customers looking for compactness.

What do you guys think?
- do you share my views?
- do you think this would be good for Canon photographers and for photography as a whole?
- do you think this would be a successfull short and long term strategy for Canon?

Cheers,
Bernard

That it is easy... yes they will make a new mount with an adaptor. The adaptor will give the same level of usage to their users... (that it is already happening with cameras like the A9, A7 III with third party adapters).

That will make a transition path for their users and also a lot more of money for Canon... since they will sell new lenses.

And anyway... I suspect that sooner and later they will have to release new L lenses with linear motors (better for on sensor AF) like Sony did... why not update the mount meanwhile... allowing them to have some small advantages of having the mount close to the sensor... like smaller wide angle lenses  without the need of retro focus elements...


http://dgpfotografia.com

[BernardLanguillier]

David,

So you disagree and think Canon will add a 4th mount and adopt the same approach as Nikon.

How will you react if they stick to the EOS mount instead?

Cheers,
Bernard

[davidgp]

David,

So you disagree and think Canon will add a 4th mount and adopt the same approach as Nikon.

How will you react if they stick to the EOS mount instead?

Cheers,
Bernard

Well... I’m seeing it from the Canon perspective... they will be able to sell new glass to people that switch in the long run, I really think Canon, Nikon and Sony are making more from the glass than from the cameras.

As a user, and considering that right now I’m half the way of switching between Canon glass to Sony (one macro lens and one tele and I will sell all my Canon lenses...). For me it the worry will not be a 4th mount. For me will be Canon taking this seriously. Look at the EOS-M lens line... those cameras are selling (at least in Japan), but Canon in all this years have hardly released any lens that can be considered serious lens. My fear will be that Canon releases the system... and then no focus in supporting it in the long run, creating enough glass for it. More than having to use my EOS lenses via an adaptor... but then again... I’m already used to have to relay in an adaptor.

Also, there is the other topic, you are thinking that they have three mounts, but they are only taking one seriously, the EF one. If you have an EF-S camera like the 80D and you want very good glass... you need to buy or EF L glass or relay in third party lenses like sigma... that they have that zoom f1.8 lenses that a lot of videographers like. It is even worst in the EOS-M lens line...



http://dgpfotografia.com

[Rado]

Personally I think/hope that Canon keeps the EF mount for their full frame mirrorless cameras. There's nothing missing/wrong with it unlike the legacy mess that is current Nikon's mount (for them it makes technical sense to have a new mount). Shorter flange distance is only useful for 1) somewhat smaller ultra wide lenses 2) adapting non-EF lenses. Neither is a critical feature.

If they offer a new mount with the hope to sell many new lenses that opens them up to people saying "well if I have to invest in a new system I might as well look at other brands too"

[BernardLanguillier]

... unlike the legacy mess that is current Nikon's mount (for them it makes technical sense to have a new mount)...

If I may, Nikon has clearly managed to maintain good backward compatibility with old lenses on the F mount, but how does that make F mount a mess? As of today their lens line up is just as good as Canon overall (all their recent releases being best in class) with the great value of having direct access to a great pool of legacy lenses.

The truth is that mirrorless mounts enable designs that are just impossible with DSLR mounts, be it F mount or EOS.

Just try shooting with the wide glass of the GFX or X1D, they are in a different class compared to the best DSLR wides.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rado]

It's not a statement about the quality or coverage of their lens line. It's a mess in a sense that there are many (historical) variations and that must be very challenging to support properly, so I'm sure the Nikon engineers were happy to start with a clean slate for the mirrorless.

[BJL]

Canon’s mirrorless EOS-M Mount is wide enough for 36x24mm format, and my guess is that it was designed with that second role in mind. The reason for a slightly different EF-S mount was to allow lenses to extend back into the shallower mirror box; clearly irrelevant to mirrorless systems.

With Nikon now more or less confirming that it—like every SLR maker—is adopting a new mount for its new mirrorless system, and Canon already having done so with its APS-C format mirrorless system, it fascinates me that some people are still predicting that Canon will stick with the EOS system’s EF mount for a mirrorless 36x24 format system.

[BernardLanguillier]

Canon’s mirrorless EOS-M Mount is wide enough for 36x24mm format, and my guess is that it was designed with that second role in mind.

With Nikon now more or less confirming that it—like every SLR maker—is adopting a new mount for its new mirrorless system, and Canon already having done so with its APS-C format mirrorless system, it fascinates me that some people are still predicting that Canon will stick with the EOS system’s EF mount for a mirrorless 36x24 format system.

It may indeed be possible to design lenses compatible with 24x36 with the smallish EF-M mount, but wouldn’t this be very limiting for FF lenses design?

The philosophy of the EOS mount always was to have a large diameter to enable unique designs.

What makes you think that Canon would want to embark on the next major strategic phase of their development with a mount that is 7mm smaller than EOS?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

Depends on how Canon view the future of mirrorless vs DSLR. My opinion is mirrorless will take over from DSLR and all top of range cameras will be mirrorless in the next four or five years. Of course I could be wrong. If I am correct however and if Canon see the future in the same way then I believed they should design a new mount dedicated to this purpose. Supply a really good adapter in the interim and move on. Anything less than a dedicated designed from the ground up solution will have to be a compromise in some way and will hamstring them in the future.

[BernardLanguillier]

Depends on how Canon view the future of mirrorless vs DSLR. My opinion is mirrorless will take over from DSLR and all top of range cameras will be mirrorless in the next four or five years. Of course I could be wrong. If I am correct however and if Canon see the future in the same way then I believed they should design a new mount dedicated to this purpose. Supply a really good adapter in the interim and move on. Anything less than a dedicated designed from the ground up solution will have to be a compromise in some way and will hamstring them in the future.

So overall you think we’ll get a new 4th mount from Canon? Or do you agree with BJL that Canon will obviously use the EF-M mount?

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

It may indeed be possible to design lenses compatible with 24x36 with the smallish EF-M mount, but wouldn’t this be very limiting for FF lenses design?

The philosophy of the EOS mount always was to have a large diameter to enable unique designs.

What makes you think that Canon would want to embark on the next major strategic phase of their development with a mount that is 7mm smaller than EOS?

Cheers,
Bernard

EF-M at 47mm is slightly wider than Sony E mount, and the same 18mm deep:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount

The far shorter flange depth means that a smaller diameter is enough to accomodate a given low f-stop: the wide light cones coming from near the edge of the image start outside the diameter of the image circle, but angle in as they approach the focal plane. So roughly, with the flange depth less than half of that for EF, the excess of opening diameter over sensor diagonal only needs to be about half as much, for a given lens design and f-stop.

EF at 44mm deep and 54mm wide (over-engineered at 5mm wider than any competitor, allegedly to accomodate a few “marketing stunts” like the 1200/5.6) has a surplus of about 10.7mm; EF-M at 18mm deep can match that with 18/44 x 10.7mm = 4.4mm, so adding the sensor diagonal of about 43.3mm gives a needed diameter of 47.7mm; very close to the 47mm of EF-M.

It seems very likely that Canon (and Sony with E mount) planned ahead and did the math to avoid the need for yet another mount a few years later. To put it another way, both the EF-M and E mounts are far wider than needed for APS-C sized sensors, and I think the reason is clear.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I agree with you that the EF-M mount will impose long term limitations on lens design. I have no idea what Canon will do but if I was looking for a mirrorless system and was not married to existing lenses then Canon going for the EF-M mount would be a mark against them in my decision making.

Personally I think too much is made of existing lens systems. It limits the manufacturers and it gets in the way of making a good decision by the photographer. I realize money is a thing, well it is for me, but step away from letting current lenses get in the way of the decision making and you will make a better decision. Buy the camera best suited for your purposes, and that varies more than forums would have you think, and one or two most frequently used lenses. Keep using existing camera and lenses until you have slowly over time migrated to the new system.

If I was in the market for a new camera right now I would wait and see what Canon and Nikon come up with, compare it to what Sony has right now then decide. If I was invested in a DSLR that was less than 150 000 shutter actuations and I had lenses  to back it up I would not buy a thing. I would sit tight.

Mirrorless turned out a bit different to how I expected. I have a range of Minolta lenses I use on the A6500 and A7R2. 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 135mm f2.8 and 500mm mirror lens. All effectively stabilized due to the IBIS and give me different effective focal lengths on the two formats. I also have a range of tiny sigma and Sony primes I use on the APSC and sometimes on the FF, 4 of those. I have a third set of lenses, just three, Sony primes for FF. Also use them on the APSC for various reasons. Then I have a set of zooms for FF from 16 to 200mm, three lenses. Oh and one APSC wide angle zoom, 10 to 18mm. Seems odd but I swap lenses between formats and use different sets of lenses for quite specific purposes. Didn’t see that coming. I would hope Nikon and Canon would allow that type of flexibility.

[kers]

There is no reason not to change the mount from Canons point of view, if it has some design advantage.
An adapter will always be necessary to make the DSLR lenses work.
A new mount makes it for third party lens developers like Sigma more difficult.
They again have a new mount to reverse engineer and new technologies to understand and adapt to work with their lenses.
At some point they cannot compensate for the special benefits of the native lenses.

[Martin Kristiansen]

EF-M at 47mm is slightly wider than Sony E mount, and the same 18mm deep:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount

The far shorter flange depth means that a smaller diameter is enough to accomodate a given low f-stop: the wide light cones coming from near the edge of the image start outside the diameter of the image circle, but angle in as they approach the focal plane. So roughly, with the flange depth less than half of that for EF, the excess of opening diameter over sensor diagonal only needs to be about half as much, for a given lens design and f-stop.

EF at 44mm deep and 54mm wide (over-engineered at 5mm wider than any competitor, allegedly to accomodate a few “marketing stunts” like the 1200/5.6) has a surplus of about 10.7mm; EF-M at 18mm deep can match that with 18/44 x 10.7mm = 4.4mm, so adding the sensor diagonal of about 43.3mm gives a needed diameter of 47.7mm; very close to the 47mm of EF-M.

It seems very likely that Canon (and Sony with E mount) planned ahead and did the math to avoid the need for yet another mount a few years later. To put it another way, both the EF-M and E mounts are far wider than needed for APS-C sized sensors, and I think the reason is clear.

I was not aware of this. My mistake. I was under the impression that the Canon EF-M was not quite up to FF or coped with FF with some limitations.

[BernardLanguillier]

A smaller mount helps a bit with lens compactness for sure.

Now, my view is that a mount designed to both cope with compact APS-C lenses and FF ones is significantly compromised.

Future will tell.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

I won't be buying anything, what I have is far more than enough for realistic purposes, and so I have no pooch in the race and thus no bias.

So, from that basis, I'd start with a clean sheet of the white.

Legacy lenses matter most to people of my age or slightly younger. Af has been around quite a while, and with it a new set of user expectations and, presumably, glass purchases. The fact that there are zillions of old lenses around means that buyers are often in that market as they are with used cars: it's cheaper to buy (though far from cheaper to run, at least with cars). Would those buyers be buying anything new and expensive?

The biggest change to hit the business was digital. It - the business - survived very well, if only by merging and attrition. A fresh set of toys will not kill it, either. The only worry might be the cellphone, if it gets too good.

[Martin Kristiansen]

A smaller mount helps a bit with lens compactness for sure.

Now, my view is that a mount designed to both cope with compact APS-C lenses and FF ones is significantly compromised.

Future will tell.

Cheers,
Bernard

Indeed it will. Wait and buy the system that suits you best. If you think it necessary to define that as the best system then do that too.

[Javier S.]

I don´t think Canon will change the mount. I was very surprised that Sony made their E-mount somehow small, as a bigger mount means more flexibility in lens design and quality will be easier to achive.

With the increase in sensors quality, it will be a nice feature for any brand to have extra room in the mounting, taking into account that with that extra it will be very easy to insert an adaptor as well.

As well, the easiest way to get more quality with the sensors is to increase their size, this is as good for high ISO as fo higher Mp, and a bigger mount would solve that nicely as well.

Some people is complying about Sony´s size and it will be right for their needs, but as an underwater photographer, I´ll be very happy if I can reduce the size of the housings as well as their weight. Actually I´m carrying 17 Kg of equipment on my travels and it is starting to feel heavy for me, lettin aside the bulk.

So for me, small size and big mouth are superb

Of course this is just an opinión, but we´ll see in a near future.

Cheers

[Paulo Bizarro]

A smaller mount helps a bit with lens compactness for sure.

Now, my view is that a mount designed to both cope with compact APS-C lenses and FF ones is significantly compromised.

Future will tell.

Cheers,
Bernard

As already stated, there is no compromise, just look at Sony E-mount, which is about the same dimensions as Canon's EF-M. Look at the FF lenses that have been released for Sony E mount, where is the compromise on that?

See here for a list of Sony lenses:

https://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/

With the mounts being basically the same size, I see no reason why Canon can not at least replicate that.