[JJ_SO]

I wonder which source you used for those diameters. I measured 43.6 mm for Fuji and 46.8 mm for Nikon outer diameter of the camera mount (which doesn't matter so much) and something like 40.6 (Fuji) and 43.4 (Nikon) at the lens' mount smallest diameter.

 

Fuji and Nikon don't share any of the diameters. 

[obican]

The mount diameter of Sony NEX is the same (tiny bit smaller). That explains why Sony needed a different mount for FF mirrorless....  :ph34r:

I have not read anywhere Canon stating what you state above?

 

The numbers: Fuji X-mount diameter: 44mm. Nikon F-mount diameter: 44mm (bigger flange distance). Leica M39 diameter: obviously smaller than 39mm diameter (bigger flange distance), Leica M mount diameter 44mm (bigger flange distance). 46.1mm for Sony E mount. 47mm for Canon EOS M mount (54mm for EOS (bigger flange distance)).

 

That said, both the Nikon F-mount and the Sony E mount are rather narrow and kinda limiting for large apertures. 

 

 

Slightly trivial info:

 

Nikon F mount and Sony E mount are almost completely the same thing. You can fit made-for-E-mount things like adapter tubes and body caps on to a Nikon and it will go in and will even click-lock in place (although with a slight wobble). Trick is, it's about 120 degrees rotated. I don't recommend putting F mount lenses directly in front of a Sony though since protruding pins might damage your camera but even the rear lens caps are mostly interchangable. 

[Brightcolours]

I wonder which source you used for those diameters. I measured 43.6 mm for Fuji and 46.8 mm for Nikon outer diameter of the camera mount (which doesn't matter so much) and something like 40.6 (Fuji) and 43.4 (Nikon) at the lens' mount smallest diameter.

 

Fuji and Nikon don't share any of the diameters. 

So the Fuji X mount diameter mentioned in various places is wrong, too big. The rest I mentioned appear to be correct.

[Rover]

Slightly trivial info:

 

Nikon F mount and Sony E mount are almost completely the same thing. You can fit made-for-E-mount things like adapter tubes and body caps on to a Nikon and it will go in and will even click-lock in place (although with a slight wobble). Trick is, it's about 120 degrees rotated. I don't recommend putting F mount lenses directly in front of a Sony though since protruding pins might damage your camera but even the rear lens caps are mostly interchangable. 

Thanks! I thought I was the only one who has been stating that, so doubt has crept into my mind that I might have had made this up. I thought I'd read that bellows and similar accessories make the most sense to share between the mounts.

[davidmanze]

Why for me? I went FF...

 

    because it finances the Canon camp  and it's the season of good will!  

 

 

  The same for all those Nikor lenses I cannot afford or need, however, the more that throw wood on the fire the less chance of being left out in the cold and the longer the fire will burn!

[wim]

The mount diameter of Sony NEX is the same (tiny bit smaller). That explains why Sony needed a different mount for FF mirrorless....  :ph34r:

I have not read anywhere Canon stating what you state above?

 

The numbers: Fuji X-mount diameter: 44mm. Nikon F-mount diameter: 44mm (bigger flange distance). Leica M39 diameter: obviously smaller than 39mm diameter (bigger flange distance), Leica M mount diameter 44mm (bigger flange distance). 46.1mm for Sony E mount. 47mm for Canon EOS M mount (54mm for EOS (bigger flange distance)).

 

That said, both the Nikon F-mount and the Sony E mount are rather narrow and kinda limiting for large apertures.

Regarding Canon not creating a FF mirrorless:


There have been at least 2 official interviews with highly placed Canon officials, after Canon having made the M1 available, in which Canon categorically stated that they would not produce an FF mirrorless, and that the M-mount was too small for an FF sensor.


I can't remember which the exact occasions were for these interviews, but they were related to the large photography exhibits like Photokina or the US exhibitions a few years ago.


I think one of those interviews might have been by DPReview, although I am not entirely sure.


Personally I do not care too much, as a shorter flange distance with larger sensors is IMO with the current state of commercially available sensor technology a recipe for disaster anyway, plus I am seeing FF more and more as a new medium format considering the size of bodies, megapixel count and increase of lens sizes in order to cope with the demands and stresses sensors with larger megapixel counts put on lenses and lens design. See 5Ds and 5DsR f.e., and the latest developents in lenses, like the 11-24 L - it is frighteningly huge.


Over the next few years I will likely replace my ageing 5D II, provided its replacement will have a minimum increase in pixel count of 50%, and I will certainly wait at least for the 6D II to be released to make some sort of decision, but it currently looks like the shooting gear I immediately grab for when going out for a shoot is something way smaller and more convenient, like my MFT gear.


People still deride it every so often, but with the current incarnations of bodies and (pro) lenses it is really awesome, and way better than the dslrs of say 4 or 5 years ago. And those were excellent as it was.


Kind regards, Wim

[Rover]

Well, it appears that the excitement (?) was premature and misguided:

 

A recent report at PetaPixel that seems to have gained traction suggests that the Canon EOS 6D Mark II will be a full frame mirrorless camera. This report is 100% untrue, the EOS 6D Mark II, which we expect to announced around May/June of 2017, will be a DSLR.

As for a full frame mirrorless camera, we haven’t seen any solid evidence of one coming in 2017.
 
http://www.canonrumors.com/the-eos-6d-mark-ii-will-not-be-a-mirrorless-camera/ 

Some may say: well, this is only a rumour. But so has been the original statement, so it's just a war of words. My take: I don't believe in a Canon - or Nikon - FF mirrorless (just yet); people have indulged in wishful thinking too much.

[JJ_SO]

Well, the Nikon D7xx also was kind of wishful thinking. Nikon just put a new 20 MP sensor into a D750 and the Swedish guy could play with. Yawn. D5 sensor? this kind of crap with reduced DR.

[Brightcolours]

Haha Wim, that is a bit of a bait and switch, 1st stating "...as their M-series mount is too narrow for FF. At least they said so themselves" and then a next post making it into "Regarding Canon not creating a FF mirrorless:"  :ph34r: 

 

Anywho, facts remain that the E-mount is a tad small for a mirrorless FF mount with a ~18mm flange distance, and that yet Sony has built an entire FF line around it, and the EOS M has a slightly wider mount and same flange distance.

 

So Sony looks at it one way (so what if it is a less than optimal mount we started with, we will make it work warts and all), and possibly Canon another way (not ideal so lets make a wider mount).

 

There is no reason what so ever to think Canon would do something stupid like making a mirrorless camera with mirrorbox sans mirror. Canon, after all, sees the primary reason for mirrorless to be smaller and lighter. Even if they would not want to use the EOS M mount, they can do the same thing they do with EOS M (make an appropriate mount for mirrorless FF lenses, and an adapter for EOS lens use).

[wim]

Just thinking out loud, BC .

 

The thing is that if they would create a proper, dedicated FF mirrorless camera, they'd have to make yet another new lens mount. I doubt they will do that in the current market.

 

And as I mentioned, I doubt FF mirrorless performs all that well, with current technology, especially with high megapixel sensors (say 40+ megapixels). Too much light fall-off not only due to the lenses and cosine rule, but also because of the way sensors are structured currently.

 

Kind regards, Wim