This could be a surprise: Canon next 6DmarKII will be….mirrorless?

I think the first post in that thread summed it up.

Using an EF mount and register would mean the camera remains the same size, effectively giving all the disadvantages of a DSLR with all the disadvantages of a mirrorless.
 
Is it possible to make the mount much smaller with a 35mm sensor? I have no idea but I would also assume that the body could be a bit smaller (but perhaps not much lighter) without the mirror, prism, etc. But then the lenses are a significant part of the weight anyway
 
Phil V said:
I think the first post in that thread summed it up.

Using an EF mount and register would mean the camera remains the same size, effectively giving all the disadvantages of a DSLR with all the disadvantages of a mirrorless.
Click to expand...

This :agree:. Distance between the sensor and glass will need to be the same. Might be lighter but dimensions will be roughly the same.
 
I wonder if they are looking at users that are happy to buy a Sony A7 series and buy adapters to continue using their Pro Canon lenses.
 
mikew said:
I wonder if they are looking at users that are happy to buy a Sony A7 series and buy adapters to continue using their Pro Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

... and the inevitable loss in quality by introducing another piece of glass.
 
Willo said:
Most adaptors don't have glass, it's to ensure the lens is the correct distance from the sensor.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of that. I use 'legacy' lenses on Nex cameras.

If you shorten the distance between the lens and the sensor you need a correction lens.
There is precious little space for moving the sensor towards the rear of the camera, so the size of the camera without a mirror box would have to be the same if you didn't use a correction lens in an adaptor.
 
sirch said:
Is it possible to make the mount much smaller with a 35mm sensor? I have no idea but I would also assume that the body could be a bit smaller (but perhaps not much lighter) without the mirror, prism, etc. But then the lenses are a significant part of the weight anyway
Click to expand...
No.
The important measurement is the one between the lens flange and sensor. You can remove the mirror box but you still can't move the flange without requiring a different lens design.

TBF the new APSC sensor in the 5M is probably 'good enough', but Canon still aren't producing pro lenses to suit. A 16mm 22mm and 35mm at f2 or faster would be brilliant. So a FF line of mirrorless would either use EF lenses and be bigger, or require a new line of lenses (Canons 4th current)?
 
Willo said:
Why mention extra glass then? We're talking about FF.
Click to expand...

Are you being dense? Or are we just not understanding each other? :)
Read Phil's post.

IF the camera is smaller, the flange distance will change and so a correction lens will be needed in an adaptor.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's a big surprise, more of a case of when.
I think both Nikon and Canon have left it way too late to release a really good mirrorless system that'll be able to complete with the likes of Fuji & Sony.
Also think that using their existing mounts is a double edged sword, will save them R&D and manufacture costs by avoiding a new lens system but surely once of the advantages is reduction of the DLSR size and weight?.
I doubt I could ever go back to a Brickon now that I have been with mirrorless since my D7000 days.
 
Fuguru said:
I don't think it's a big surprise, more of a case of when.
I think both Nikon and Canon have left it way too late to release a really good mirrorless system that'll be able to complete with the likes of Fuji & Sony.
Also think that using their existing mounts is a double edged sword, will save them R&D and manufacture costs by avoiding a new lens system but surely once of the advantages is reduction of the DLSR size and weight?.
I doubt I could ever go back to a Brickon now that I have been with mirrorless since my D7000 days.
Click to expand...

Don't think this is really true, Nikon and Canon have the advantage over Sony/Fuji over having a wide range of glass available from day one, Fuji and Sony have limited ranges of glass in comparison. I agree though about the size, there won't be a benefit.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Don't think this is really true, Nikon and Canon have the advantage over Sony/Fuji over having a wide range of glass available from day one, Fuji and Sony have limited ranges of glass in comparison. I agree though about the size, there won't be a benefit.
Click to expand...

Your right but how much of those Nikon and Canon lenses are capable of working with the higher mega-pixel sensors which seems to be the trend going forwards? Canon openly admit that only certain lenses work well with their 5Dsr bodies.
I guess both Canon and Nikon could just rip out the mirror box out of their bodies and its job done! :D
 
michael23 said:
Well if they do make it mirrorless I hope they finally pull all the stops out, even the m5 isn't totally "there". I hear fuji calling more and more.
Click to expand...
Fuji XT-2 is a epic little camera :D
 
Fuguru said:
Your right but how much of those Nikon and Canon lenses are capable of working with the higher mega-pixel sensors which seems to be the trend going forwards? Canon openly admit that only certain lenses work well with their 5Dsr bodies.
I guess both Canon and Nikon could just rip out the mirror box out of their bodies and its job done! :D
Click to expand...

The line pair ratios are marginal on some Canon lenses with the 5DS/DSR, that's why Canon updated several of their lenses and have a recommended list for these cameras. Don't think the 6D Mk2 will have anything like the resolution of the 5DS, as Canon need a low light monster in their range, and you won't get High ISO capability with current high resolution sensors, I'd expect to see something in the 24-30MP range, probably 24MP but with very high ISO capability.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The line pair ratios are marginal on some Canon lenses with the 5DS/DSR, that's why Canon updated several of their lenses and have a recommended list for these cameras. Don't think the 6D Mk2 will have anything like the resolution of the 5DS, as Canon need a low light monster in their range, and you won't get High ISO capability with current high resolution sensors, I'd expect to see something in the 24-30MP range, probably 24MP but with very high ISO capability.
Click to expand...

I agree, 24MP also seems a sweet spot for me..... having owned a 42.2 A7RII, it was a real pain to work with those kind of sizes.

I wonder if they could somehow build a hybrid OVF/EVF setup like the Fuji X-Pro2.
 
The flange distance could be reduced even with using the same lenses. You would need a piece of optics between he sensor and the lens similar to a diopter but with a megnification factor to compensate. Downside would be more glass but if the quality is top grade it wouldn't matter. Another downside would be cost, inability to clean sensor if dust appeared and no doubt the complicated maths to ensure no distortion or other problems. Will they do this though? Highly doubtful..
 
kendo1 said:
Are you being dense? Or are we just not understanding each other? :)
Read Phil's post.

IF the camera is smaller, the flange distance will change and so a correction lens will be needed in an adaptor.
Click to expand...

I think you need to re-read your post as you stated:

kendo1 said:
... and the inevitable loss in quality by introducing another piece of glass.
Click to expand...

I just replied saying you don't need glass in an adaptor, the adaptor is there to ensure correct distance. Not being dense, just replying to your post.
 
Willo said:
I think you need to re-read your post as you stated:



I just replied saying you don't need glass in an adaptor, the adaptor is there to ensure correct distance. Not being dense, just replying to your post.
Click to expand...


You're not being dense! :) It's me trying to keep the camera and lens size down: I'm thinking along the lines of changing the flange distance.

We're coming at it from different angles.

Apologies are sent with Christmas Cheer and a man hug :)
 
kendo1 said:
You're not being dense! :) It's me trying to keep the camera and lens size down: I'm thinking along the lines of changing the flange distance.

We're coming at it from different angles.

Apologies are sent with Christmas Cheer and a man hug :)
Click to expand...

Now both of you go out and buy a Fuji XT-2 and forget about this Canon 6DM :D
 
I'll stick to Nikon and Sony :) Canon are weird :eek:
 
Well one thing for sure, if Canon go ahead with this it won't be too long before Nikon follows them. Would they keep their existing mirrorless systems though?
 
Where were we? Oh, yes, this was mooted several months ago, at least the stuff about a ff Canon mirrorless. The suggestion was then that it would come with an adaptor for EF lenses, that way it could hit the ground running, or walking very fast at least, presumably with dedicated ones to follow. A fat bodied mirrorless would be a waste of time. Canon seem to have been messing around with the mk2 for a very long time and the longer they leave it the less likely are people going to be interested unless it has astonishing specs, which it won't, or is relatively low cost, which it won't be. But who knows for Canon, I've been waiting for the mark 2 all year and just gave up and bought the current one.
 
Merluza said:
A fat bodied mirrorless would be a waste of time.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it'd actually be a waste of time.

I prefer more compact kit and I have MFT and Sony so this camera doesn't interest me one bit but I can see advantages in having a large bodied mirrorless camera (but I'm not interested) even if it's the same size and weight of a DSLR as with mirrorless you get the goodies such as the in view histogram, peaking, zebras, magnified view, level gauge, WYSIWYG, no more MA faff on and all the rest and I'm sure having a mirrorless 5D of the same size would interest some... but not me.... and wouldn't be a complete waste of time.

Dunno if it'd make commercial sense though but do Canon's rather limp wristed mirrorless offering to date make financial sense? They certainly seem to be comprehensively creamed by the opposition so maybe just aiming at existing EF lens invested customers who want to go mirrorless with as little hassle as possible and retain the Canon logo is the way forward?
 
Last edited:
I think it would be a pity if Canon did away with the 6D model as an SLR, and I think it would leave a hole in their 'full-frame' price range line-up (which I imagine their competitors would probably be quite pleased about!). :whistle:

Talking of price ranges, I have been fortunate/hard working enough (delete as applicable) to own a prosumer (one below the top of the range) Canon SLR for many years; the first of these was a Canon A1, the next was a T90, followed by an EOS 3 (yes, I've been brand loyal!). I'm fairly sure each of these cameras cost around the same in relative terms - which translates with inflation to around the £1200 to £1500 mark at today's prices (depending how you calculate historic inflation). After buying a 400D while I waited for digital SLRs to advance (so as not to take too big a hit in the process), I decided to upgrade a couple of years ago.

By rights I should have gone for the 5D MkIII, but this was around the £2,300 mark at the time, which was more than I could justify for the amount I would use it. So instead I went for a 6D, this was third down in the price order ranking, but (according to my calculations) equivalent in price range to the A1, T90 and EOS 3. So when did Canon (and presumably some other major digi SLR makers?) work another price tier into their range?! According to pricing history around £1500 should be getting us 'second best' not 'third best', or have I got my sums wrong? :thinking:

Mind you, I've been very pleased with my 6D (I think it's a superb camera, especially in low light) and I don't actually miss any of the additional features the 5D or 1D models had to offer at the time, but all the same, if my sums are correct, I'm left wondering why I'm no longer getting a 'full prosumer' one down from the top camera for the equivalent money?
 
I've been thinking along the lines of the Hasselblad and the requirement for new lenses, with adaptors for existing H (?) lenses.
If they don't go down this route it seems a rather pointless exercise.

Someone, sometime, will have to bite the bullet and produce yet another lens mount.
 
Phil V said:
Using an EF mount and register would mean the camera remains the same size, effectively giving all the disadvantages of a DSLR with all the disadvantages of a mirrorless.
Click to expand...

Or, glass half full moment, all those lovely EF lenses on a body with all the advantages of mirrorless. I don't think I could go back to a mirror now, but I'm not against having a larger body.

Mirrorless doesn't have to mean smaller, in fact lots of people are hoping for a larger Sony mirrorless body at the moment!
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
Or, glass half full moment,
Click to expand...
Why is it whenever I say something that could be perceived as negative about mirrorless, someone decides I must be against the principal o_O

I'm a Fuji owner (and a big fan) and I'll be switching to a Canon M as soon as the right one is available - because of...

ukaskew said:
all those lovely EF lenses on a body with all the advantages of mirrorless.
Click to expand...
 
ukaskew said:
Or, glass half full moment, all those lovely EF lenses on a body with all the advantages of mirrorless. I don't think I could go back to a mirror now, but I'm not against having a larger body.

Mirrorless doesn't have to mean smaller, in fact lots of people are hoping for a larger Sony mirrorless body at the moment!
Click to expand...

It's already been tried. Sony originally produced the Alpha line of DSLRs (with mirrors and pretty decent live view) and then they decided to get rid of the mirror and produced the SLT Alpha cameras which are mirrorless but because they use the same a-mount lenses, they are the same size as DSLRs. These are not very popular cameras, compared to equivalent Canon/Nikon DSLRs.
When Sony wanted to make a full frame mirrorless camera, they decided to use their e-mount (rather than a-mount) system which allowed them to have a much smaller body and give you the advantage of size/weight reduction.
If this rumour is true (and I'm not convinced, why change the very good 6D formular?) Canon would be wise to learn from Sony's experience: take the smaller mount of the EOS-M and make a full frame camera around it.
 
Having never owned or used a mirrorless camera what are the main benefits? I can see that size and weight can be reduced but are there any performance benefits??
 
onform said:
Having never owned or used a mirrorless camera what are the main benefits? I can see that size and weight can be reduced but are there any performance benefits??
Click to expand...
It depends what you are taking pics of.
For things that don't move, for travel/walking/hiking then the benefits of weight and size are obvious, and in some cases the same sensor is used in mirrorless and DSLRs.
They're not so good for sport, but that (dare I say it) is really the only drawback. Focus speed and accuracy is improving all the time.
 
onform said:
Having never owned or used a mirrorless camera what are the main benefits? I can see that size and weight can be reduced but are there any performance benefits??
Click to expand...
Exposure/wb preview, no chimping means reduced post processing, much better manual focussing, fewer moving parts, no need for focus fine tuning, and sometimes electronic shutter, to name a few.
 
ABTog said:
It's already been tried. Sony originally produced the Alpha line of DSLRs (with mirrors and pretty decent live view) and then they decided to get rid of the mirror and produced the SLT Alpha cameras which are mirrorless but because they use the same a-mount lenses, they are the same size as DSLRs. These are not very popular cameras, compared to equivalent Canon/Nikon DSLRs.
When Sony wanted to make a full frame mirrorless camera, they decided to use their e-mount (rather than a-mount) system which allowed them to have a much smaller body and give you the advantage of size/weight reduction.
If this rumour is true (and I'm not convinced, why change the very good 6D formular?) Canon would be wise to learn from Sony's experience: take the smaller mount of the EOS-M and make a full frame camera around it.
Click to expand...
Sony SLT's are not mirrorless, they have a translucent mirror which reflects some of the light onto an AF module so you get traditional DSLR phase detect AF. However, they do also have great liveview but I'm not sure if they still use the off sensor AF module in live view since the mirror never moves and so always reflects some light onto the module. The big downsides with this system are that it's EVF rather than OVF (that's personal preference), and that high ISO performance isn't great due to the translucent mirror reducing the light to the sensor. On saying that I had the A77 and A77-II and was very happy with both.

Back on topic I'm not sure why you would choose mirrorless other than the size/weight saving that some mirrorless offer (OK there's the EVF benefits ;)) so don't understand why Canon would make a full size mirrorless camera. That being said, Sony A7's appear to sell well so I guess there's a market ;)

I just wish they could make an OVF with focus aids as I much prefer looking through optics.
 
Last edited:
Mirrorless cameras have far fewer moving parts, I'd expect this change to come in from the bottom up as a cost saving exercise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top