[Brightcolours]

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

I don't see the issue, to be frank. A mount does not cost much. So they can go either the Sony route and use the narrow APS-C mirrorless mount and make do with that, or they make a new mount. Either way, they need to make FF mirrorless lenses.

 

No one is going to buy a Sigma style "mirrorless" which actually is a DSLR without mirror, really...

Light fall off for most uses simply can be corrected. And MFT with similarly big apertures will show similar vignetting (APS-C too).

[wim]

I don't see the issue, to be frank. A mount does not cost much. So they can go either the Sony route and use the narrow APS-C mirrorless mount and make do with that, or they make a new mount. Either way, they need to make FF mirrorless lenses.

 

No one is going to buy a Sigma style "mirrorless" which actually is a DSLR without mirror, really...

Light fall off for most uses simply can be corrected. And MFT with similarly big apertures will show similar vignetting (APS-C too).

 

What I mean with a new mount is not just the new mount, but also the fact that new lenses need to be designed and manufactured. Considering that the FF market is relatively small compared to APS-C etc., and that the market for higher grade cameras (higher than phone based cams) seems to be dwindling, I doubt Canon will start investing in an FF mirrorless system soon.

 

Can they do it? I am sure. Will they? I do not think they will in the current market.

 

As to vignetting: the short flange distance in principle makes vignetting worse, due to light rays with higher angles of incidence reaching the edges of a sensor. This will likely be worse with FF mirroless than with smaller size sensor based mirrorless cameras, as the flange distance needs to be kept much smaller relatively speaking. In addition, high megapixel numbers make this worse, due to the construction of current series sensors. And yes, this could be autocorrected, even on a per lens basis, but it increases noise to start with, and probably also amplifies other faults, lens faults f.e.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

The smaller sensors have exactly the same issue. Take MFT as example as it is easy to do the numbers. Lets say a 20mm f1.4 lens (like the Sigma) vignets wide open a lot on FF. For large part due to the micro lens structure.

 

To get equally shallow DOF and similar FOV, you need a 10mm f0.7 lens for MFT.  The angle of light to the corners will be comparable, and vignetting will be comparable.

 

Seeing the relative success of the Sony A7 range, in the mirrorless part of the market it is interesting to enter FF. If one does, only a mirrorless mount will sell. A DSLR without mirror will not be an attractive deal.

 

So, if they decide to enter the mirrorless FF segment, it will be with a sensible flange distance, as according to Canon management, mirrorless is about smaller size and lower weight. They then would need some shorter focal length more compact primes to make the mirrorless FF make sense, and the rest can be covered by an adapter + EOS lenses.

 

Time will tell what the FF part of mirrorless segment will do in marketshare. 

[JJ_SO]

 

 

No one is going to buy a Sigma style "mirrorless" which actually is a DSLR without mirror, really...

 

BC, the reason why no one (but maybe three or four  ^_^ ) buys Sigma mirrorless and Sigma had no other choice than to go this way, is beyond your horizon. For Sigma, cameras are no real money generating part of their business. I recall the SD 1 Merrill once was priced for 7000, then dropped to 2000, because no one was repaying Sigma's R&D, Customers who already bit the 7000 got a repay after (!). When was the last time CaNikon did repay somebody? Nikon i.e. for malfunctioning, yet expensive lenses which even after warranty repair have a blind VR spot...

 

It is NOT a DSLR without mirror, because without mirror a DSLR would eat battery quicker than the Sigma does and the LV of Nikon is a joke only useful for not moving subjects to do stills or moving subjects to do a video. The list of what Sigma cameras can't do is so much longer than the list in what they are as good as no other current system - no one with the need of an allround-body for every occasion can seriously consider their products. It's niche.

 

For a niche making even a halfway complete group of wide-angle until standard lenses is too much for a small company and do the rest with adapters, which will lead eventually to a 1.3 kg lens in front of a comparably tiny body - that's just the new 85 mm. I wonder, if Sigma's SD quattro could focus a 150-600 without drowning the battery for more than 10 shots, not to mention AF-C... As long as Sigma only makes 3 lenses for µ 4/3, they will not step into mirrorless short flange business. And for their own mount, they offer a range from 4.5 ... 800 mm.

 

I don't know if it's smart to make an APS-C at competitive price and sell and APS-H for  around 1000 more - at the moment both are out of discussion for me due to double as slow proprietary software for Mac. I'm not even remotely tempted to bother with their trash they call an app.

 

I know, all this doesn't help you getting off the dead "DSLR without mirror" horse you're riding until the bones splitter, but it's anyway interesting that you drag this as negative sample and are totally ignoring other MILC concepts doing well. The µ 4/3 appears to be your favourite because their you get the hay for the other dead horse, called the equi(!)valence (Equi = equestre... :lol: ) Knowing for sure that no one will ever make the lenses )10/0.7  sure...) which you think have the equivalent DoF, ignoring the 20 MP µ 4/3 sensor's pixel density issues equivalent to some 50 MP FF. Anyway - it's just impossible to downscale a system, trying to get the same quality out of it the bigger one already has and cut costs, weight and size the same amount of the sensor size's difference. Apart from you, everyone knows that microtech is not micro in terms of costs... 

[Brightcolours]

JoJu, apparently it exacped you, but kinda at the same time that Sigma announced those cameras, they came up with another product: Sigma MC-11.

 

They simply could have done the exact same thing to accommodate the DSLR lenses, and offer 1 or 2 mirrorless primes for the cameras. They would  already have 3 such primes for the APS-C one (30mm f1.4 DC DN, 19mm f2.8 DN, 60mm f2.8 DN).

 

But my point was not about why Sigma might have made that choice, my point is that no one is interested much in a mirrorless camera which lacks one of the biggest advantages of going mirrorless (getting rid of the mirrorbox and thereby getting a smaller combination with appropriate lenses).

[toni-a]

This thread is growing faster than I can follow.

Canon have already filed a patent for a hybrid viewfinder that joins the best of both worlds.

Could we see this in the 6D ? this way we have a mirrorless camera with a mirror !!!

IMHO at least for me  advantages of mirrorless are having the electronic viewfinder with face recognition for portraits, possibility of focus peaking and ease of manual focus, not needing focus alignment for lenses, I wouldn't mind the size and weight, such a camera would be very tempting for me 

[JJ_SO]

Yes BC, that could have been an idea, although converter/adapters are always second best choice.

 

I entirely disagree the advantage of mirrorless being size only or even one of the "biggest advantages". I also don't think, going small is practical per se. It makes the whole design less complicated as some difficult to manufacture parts like mirror, indirect AF-module and indirect metering module are left away - at the cost of more power consumption. The size advantage, if you compare all the high MP FF bodies against Sony is theoretically there - but then, usability sucks if I have to dive into the menu to set ISO, AF mode, metering mode and so on - all those buttons which make FF bodies also huge and partially ugly (at least not elegant) have a practical reason. Making 3...5 Fn buttons is not that helpful. It's just transfering the decision to the user and showing, they basically have no genuine idea about camera manufacturing. 

[Brightcolours]

I know about the ergonomics, that is why I like my 6D. So I agree on that. 

[wim]

The smaller sensors have exactly the same issue. Take MFT as example as it is easy to do the numbers. Lets say a 20mm f1.4 lens (like the Sigma) vignets wide open a lot on FF. For large part due to the micro lens structure.

 

To get equally shallow DOF and similar FOV, you need a 10mm f0.7 lens for MFT.  The angle of light to the corners will be comparable, and vignetting will be comparable.

 

Seeing the relative success of the Sony A7 range, in the mirrorless part of the market it is interesting to enter FF. If one does, only a mirrorless mount will sell. A DSLR without mirror will not be an attractive deal.

 

So, if they decide to enter the mirrorless FF segment, it will be with a sensible flange distance, as according to Canon management, mirrorless is about smaller size and lower weight. They then would need some shorter focal length more compact primes to make the mirrorless FF make sense, and the rest can be covered by an adapter + EOS lenses.

 

Time will tell what the FF part of mirrorless segment will do in marketshare. 

 

The problem with mirrorless lenses really is with non-retrofocus lenses, especially wide-angle ones. The angle of incidence of light rays just gets too high, this si why I suggested a reasonable, not too short flange distance.

 

Personally, I'd like to get rid of the mirrorbox - EVFs have come of age, they are plenty detailed, and they even allow one to view things as they are outside, light level wise, or choose to see it as the image will be recorded.

 

As to aperture equivalence: I don't really care about that. One chooses a system for a reason. For extreme shallow DoF one choses a FF camera, or Medium or Large format. Besides, I don;t know whn you last shot  a fairly tight portrait, but if you want more than a few eye lashes in focus with a lens normally used for portraiture, on FF you really need at least F/4 to achieve that, so an F/2 MFT lens will suffice, no problem.

 

If I really want very large apertures on MFT, I use my metabones adapters with my Canon glass, no problem, but in that case I specifically choose to do so.

 

I love FF shooting (own a 5D II after all), but I don't always want to carry it around when I am on the move, which is most of the week these days. And the IQ of MFT is very good indeed. In the end, in order to make a photograph, you need to carry a camera - and in my case I always do and want to do so, but not always a FF with the relatively heavy lenses I own.

 

Time will indeed tell what mirrorless FF will do in the market. The way it is now there are relatively few users, however. If Canon would come out with a 6D variant that is mirroless, I think uptake would become a lot better.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

Yes BC, that could have been an idea, although converter/adapters are always second best choice.

 

I entirely disagree the advantage of mirrorless being size only or even one of the "biggest advantages". I also don't think, going small is practical per se. It makes the whole design less complicated as some difficult to manufacture parts like mirror, indirect AF-module and indirect metering module are left away - at the cost of more power consumption. The size advantage, if you compare all the high MP FF bodies against Sony is theoretically there - but then, usability sucks if I have to dive into the menu to set ISO, AF mode, metering mode and so on - all those buttons which make FF bodies also huge and partially ugly (at least not elegant) have a practical reason. Making 3...5 Fn buttons is not that helpful. It's just transfering the decision to the user and showing, they basically have no genuine idea about camera manufacturing. 

 

 

I know about the ergonomics, that is why I like my 6D. So I agree on that. 

 

Actually, all you need to do is sit down for a bit, to get to know the options and possibilities. No camera make uses the same set-up, and even between models significant differences may exist, with some manufacturers in any case.

 

With MFT you may reprogram the buttons to your personal liking, and you can even save such set-ups. There also are custom settings available, accessible by the Mode-dial, just like with e.g. Canon.

 

It is always possible to leave the default settings as they are, and they are just as easy to use as any other camera. Even with my Canon 5D II I get lost in the menus occasionally, even though I like the ergonomics as well. However, IMO it is horses for courses - I don't have a problem with smaller cameras, despite my relatively big size hands. In the past I shot mostly with cameras like the Pentax ME and MX, and I would love for FF cameras to be that size again. essentially about the same size as MFT cameras .

 

I do not miss those days, however, as digital cameras nowadays are so much more capable than our old film slrs were, and lenses have evolved so much, there is no comparison there either.

 

Kind regards, Wim