Why doesn't canon make a EF compatible mirrorless camera?

Why can't Canon make a mirrorless camera that takes EF lenses (without adapters) ? The Camera would be a little thicker than a Sony, but that would be OK.
It should be a FF camera, electronic Image stabilization. All they have to do is to remove the mirror and the pentaprism, and replace it with an electronic viewfinder.

Perhaps Canon thought about it, and due to the ho-hum that the Canon M had in the marketplace, thought that mirrorless was simply not a good idea for them when the M mount had so few pro caliber lenses.

The problem is the 44mm flange distance of the EF mount, compared to the 18mm flange distance of the Sony E mount. That distance can't be changed, and thus Canon would either have to design an entirely new mount or accept the physical size imposed by this hefty distance!

And then one has to wonder about the downside...the viewfinder LED much higher battery consumption rate compared to the dSLR, the lag time of the viewfinder update (unless it has a 120Hz refresh rate). And have we not been told (for a long time) that the constant-On use of a sensor creates heat-related noise in the image?

blue9 wrote in post #18484166
Why can't Canon make a mirrorless camera that takes EF lenses (without adapters) ? The Camera would be a little thicker than a Sony, but that would be OK.
It should be a FF camera, electronic Image stabilization. All they have to do is to remove the mirror and the pentaprism, and replace it with an electronic viewfinder.

I think that would be great!

I have absolutely no use for a camera that is smaller or lighter than the current pro-designated DSLRs.

I'd like to go mirrorless, because of the ability to shoot without shutter noise, but the darn mirrorless cameras from other companies are small and light, which sucks. . Also, the whole adaptor thing sucks, too. . A full-size mirrorless offering from Canon that accepts EF lenses would be great.

With an EF compatible mirrorless body, I realize that there would be some "extra space" between the sensor and the lens that wouldn't be necessary ..... but I think that extra space would be great, and would help to keep things a nice, full, comfortable size (instead of some smaller lighter crap that can't be held the same way as a 1D series body).

.

That would be great for those with a decent investment in EF glass but if they want to get new customers who might buy other cameras it may not be such a good option. One of the reasons a fair few have gone for mirrorless is size, but then my A7 is possibly not much lighter than some of the smaller DSLRs. The other issue is do they make lenses optimised for the AF system on a mirrorless body than does that require a load of new designs? Then again Sigma have made one that uses their SA? mount so it could be possible.

blue9 wrote in post #18484166
Why can't Canon make a mirrorless camera that takes EF lenses (without adapters) ? The Camera would be a little thicker than a Sony, but that would be OK.
It should be a FF camera, electronic Image stabilization. All they have to do is to remove the mirror and the pentaprism, and replace it with an electronic viewfinder.

Whats wrong with an adapter? Also, there already is a FF mirrorless that takes EF lenses and the new one looks simply awesome. It's called the A7RIII.

A very obvious and annoyingly unanswered question for Canon.

The EOS-M was not well received. And now, 6 versions later, still is basically an after thought from Canon (except for the M5, it's like all the M series really was an experiment to see how to best release what became the M5). Even if the EOS-M series was released with a full frame sensor, I don't think it would change anything at this point. The EOS-M design is poor in general.

For Canon to release a full frame mirrorless camera for EOS and using the EF mount, they would have to release a mirrorless mSLR that is the same size as the common dSLR because the EF lenses are and always will be designed for that registration distance, so a mirrorless will just bit a minor change in the body, but won't change much else. The EOS-M and EF-M mount are their own animal, very poorly received, and basically just a shadow of a shadow on the market with poor and minor support as a system. A full frame mirrorless from Canon, to be taken seriously at all, would have to already at least be doing what everyone else is doing. Yet, they have none of those things (from the software to the hardware).

Looks to me like Canon is viewing the whole mirrorless thing as a "long game" approach. Until everything and everyone is so mirrorless that it hurts, they won't release a big mirrorless EF capable camera. There's really no benefit other than audible sound from the mirror slap for Canon to go mirrorless. To release a mirrorless body without the distance to the EF lens to be appropriate would require an adapter and that's a huge put off.

I think we will see a full frame mirrorless eventually from Canon. But the real question is, do they implement it with EF-M lenses, or do they just say use an adapter to use EF glass. That's such a big deal that its not on the market, for good reason.

Very best,

Why do you describe the m as "poor in general". I have the original m and think its great to take places where I don't want to lug a DSLR around. Picture quality is pretty damned good. There are some things that need refining, but for what it is, I'm happy.

Frodge wrote in post #18484205
Why do you describe the m as "poor in general". I have the original m and think its great to take places where I don't want to lug a DSLR around. Picture quality is pretty damned good. There are some things that need refining, but for what it is, I'm happy.

Compared to other mirrorless offerings with large sensors, it lacks in literally every regard. I finally got fed up with its slow AF abilities and lack of a view finder. The view finder lack being its greatest sin. I enjoyed what I could out of that camera. And my daughter loved it. But frankly, everything the EOS-M + 22 F2 could do, my smartphone could frankly do at this point.

I sold it and didn't go back to the EOS-M line. The M5 being the only one I'd even entertain, but I have zero use for that camera for the purposes I wanted it for.

I moved to a different mirrorless, also APS-C, also 23mm F2 pancake lens, with a built in view finder (both optical & electronic) that is nearly the same size, pocketable, and it has been such a joy to finally have a small, large sensor camera, with the FOV I wanted, the speed I wanted, and the ability to see through a viewfinder, manually focus or AF without any special settings or menus, and it actually focuses fast. Just moving to another camera that basically does the same thing but far better, I can't help but reflect on how poor the the EOS-M really was (this all refers to the EOS-M 1, I have not used the other 5 versions nor care to).

I'm now using a Fuji X100S for the same purpose as my EOS-M & 22mm F2 and it's crazy the difference in the user-experience. I used to like the EOS-M, but, that was largely due to not having used anything else and it was also not my primary system.

That's just my own anecdotal experience.

From a market standpoint, it's glaringly clear that the EOS-M barely registers on the mirrorless market as an option outside of a Canon shooters side kick.

It was amazing when you could get an EOS-M & 22mm F2 for about $150~200. But it dropped to that for a reason.

If the M5 were smaller, it would be very, very interesting. But, it's the same size as a dSLR. That's fine and all. But I really wanted the M for the size, small as possible with the biggest sensor possible, with a great fast pancake lens. The M5 seems to be a great all around camera for what it is. So Canon is capable. But the smaller M series with the afterthought viewfinder and stuff is just terrible, merely my opinion, compared to what others are producing and what Canon could produce.

If Canon were to drop an affordable full frame mirrorless, it would be very interesting. I just don't see them doing it without the EF mount, making it a big bulky option or the adapter option (worse). And I really don't see the EF-M lens line up attracting full frame shooters.

Very best,

EF lenses are designed for (D)SLRs (both flange distance and phase detect AF). Mirrorless systems use a different flange distance and AF system. Sony came up with the newer FE mount lens system just for FF A7 and A9 cameras, which reduces flange distance, mechanical complexity of aperture and focus system, as well as optimized speed for contrast/hybrid focus systems of live view. For optimal performance, Canon would have to follow Sony's suit and come up with a mirrorless lens system apart from EF.

As many others have said to get the size advantage in both the body and the lens, especially with a 36×24mm sensor coverage, you need to seriously reduce the flange distance. The biggest example of this, that is currently available, is probably the Leica M series of rangefinders. They can have such small lenses because of the reduced flange distance. If you keep the 44mm distance of Canon cameras you are literally limited to lenses the size of current EF mount ones available. Canon actually have one of the shortest registration distances of any SLR, hence the number of MF lens mounts that can be adapted to the mount.

When you look at lens design reducing the registration distance works really well for wide angle lenses, and is pretty good for lenses in the "normal" range too. The only place that really doesn't benefit from a short registration distance is telephoto designs. Telephoto designs, as well as simple long focal length lenses, are usually limited in size by the need to use large front element sizes to maintain the desired maximum aperture. a 300mm f/4 requires an aperture of 75mm and a 600mm f/5.6 needs 107mm, and an f/4 version would need 150mm. With lens sizes this big the DSLR is not at a disadvantage size wise.

For those wanting a large EF mount "mirrorless" without mount adapter, you might as well use your DSLR in Live view mode. LV on modern Canon DSLR's is now pretty good with the new hybrid focusing systems, at least as good as any of the "mirrorless" cameras. If I were to be happy with having to use an electronic display to use with a large telephoto on a tripod I would simply mount a large 10" display with hood and use that, in much the way you used to see the old Studio TV Pedestal Cameras used. Because if you have such a large system why would you want to sit with your eye to an "EVF". on a mirrorless.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18484297
For those wanting a large EF mount "mirrorless" without mount adapter, you might as well use your DSLR in Live view mode. LV on modern Canon DSLR's is now pretty good with the new hybrid focusing systems, at least as good as any of the "mirrorless" cameras. If I were to be happy with having to use an electronic display to use with a large telephoto on a tripod I would simply mount a large 10" display with hood and use that, in much the way you used to see the old Studio TV Pedestal Cameras used.

It's all about shutter noise, and the desired lack of it with mirrorless. . Shutter noise is such a big deal to me, and has such a huge impact on the way that I shoot, that it would be worth switching to a new type of camera just to avoid it (as long as I can use my current lenses without an adaptor).

BigAl007 wrote in post #18484297
Because if you have such a large system why would you want to sit with your eye to an "EVF" on a mirrorless.

I don't want to use an EVF, as I really hate EVFs and Live View. . But if doing so will allow me to shoot with no shutter noise whatsoever - a truly silent capture - then it would be worth the tradeoff.

But now that I think about it, Focus Peaking is also something that would be an enormous advantage for many of my shoots where I am set up on a tripod and shooting stationary subjects.

I cannot even begin to tell you how important it would be for me to be able to know EXACTLY what part of an animal's face was in focus. . With my current DSLR gear, it is almost impossible to know before the shot whether the back corner of a deer's eye is in sharpest focus, or the front corner of his eye is in sharpest focus. . That kind of super-duper nit-picky anal-retentive exactingness is something that is actually important to me, and with ultra-sensitive focus peaking I would actually know which hairs or feathers are in the very sharpest focus and which are just a super-tiny bit not quite as sharp. . And I would know this BEFORE taking the shot. . Even though I may never notice the difference in prints it still matters to me. . A lot.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18484314
It's all about shutter noise, and the desired lack of it with mirrorless. . Shutter noise is such a big deal to me, and has such a huge impact on the way that I shoot, that it would be worth switching to a new type of camera just to avoid it (as long as I can use my current lenses without an adaptor).

Mirrorless may not be completely silent either (they also can have a shutter noise). IMO, shutter noise is relative. I know apart from AF, one of the first things I noticed from upgrading to old MF SLRs/5Dc to the 5D3 was how quiet the silent modes are (you don't have to have any click noises in LV, and the silent shutter seemed amazingly quiet compared to what I was used to).

davesrose wrote in post #18484328
Mirrorless may not be completely silent either (they also can have a shutter noise). IMO, shutter noise is relative. I know apart from AF, one of the first things I noticed from upgrading to old MF SLRs/5Dc to the 5D3 was how quiet the silent modes are (you don't have to have any click noises in LV, and the silent shutter seemed amazingly quiet compared to what I was used to).

Conversely, the so-called "silent" mode on my 1D Mark 4 is ridiculously loud. . Oh, yeah, sure, it's quieter than when shooting in regular mode, but still it's way too loud for a lot of the things I want to do with my camera. . Plus, when shooting in "silent" mode, it can only do one shot at a time, which is nearly useless for my purposes.

Being able to shoot machine-gun style with no camera noise would help me get photos that I cannot get with my DSLR.

.

davesrose wrote in post #18484328
Mirrorless may not be completely silent either (they also can have a shutter noise). IMO, shutter noise is relative. I know apart from AF, one of the first things I noticed from upgrading to old MF SLRs/5Dc to the 5D3 was how quiet the silent modes are (you don't have to have any click noises in LV, and the silent shutter seemed amazingly quiet compared to what I was used to).

there are many models that do completely silent shutter, not just quiet. I use them for hummingbird shots as not to scare them off. Quiet shutter from a DSLR would be heard based off of using the 6D, which is more quiet than the 5Diii from what I recall.

There are more models that are either mechanical or electronic shutter. Only electronic shutter can be completely silent. I'm not going to get into which camera models might be the most quiet at mechanical shutters: my observation was that all current ones are much more quiet then what we were used to back in the hey day of SLRs. And when it comes to fast moving subjects, some mirrorless brands give a disclaimer that electronic shutters aren't suitable for such situations:

Electronic Shutter Vs. Mechanical Shutter | Pros & Cons