Where are the full frame Canon mirrorless cameras?

I dont understand what Canon is waiting around for. Seems to me thats where the future is headed, not in DSLRs any longer. Sony's lineup of FE lenses is not very good, which is the only reason I have not taken the plunge to buy an a7ii or a7r yet. Canon would have a huge advantage with their current lens lineup if it were to accept EF lenses as well. If not, they would really have to add to the EF-M lineup quickly. Anyone know what Canon is waiting around for?

Maybe they don't share your view of the future or maybe they are waiting for Mirrorless technology to actually be better than DSLR rather than just having a different set of problems. Many people aren't interested in having a smaller camera if it means slower AF and a laggy EVF. Even if the AF and viewfinder were the same as a DSLR that still wouldn't be enough reason for some people to switch because they have a lot invested in their current system and would lose money dumping them to switch to a Mirrorless that is just "as good as" what they already have. If they were substantially better in every regard then maybe.... but until then why bother.

If you can list all the advantages inherent to mirrorless camera design, we could have a discussion about why does Canon not adopt the mirrorless design.

Without enumeration of specific advantages, then it merely becomes a discussion about why some lenses focus left vs. focus right to get to infinity, or which some lenses zoom left vs zoom right to get to longest FL... "just because"

dexter75 wrote in post #17696612
Canon would have a huge advantage with their current lens lineup if it were to accept EF lenses as well.

Just to address this one point:

About the only significant advantage I can think of for mirrorless (I prefer to call them EVIL) cameras is that the deletion of the mirror box allows for a thinner body, and thus a much reduced overall size.

But EF lenses have to be mounted 43mm from the sensor plane (this is the register distance) whether there is a mirror box between the mount and sensor or not. So in a nutshell, the absolute minimum size of any EF mount body is limited by the register distance. Any EF mount EVIL camera is going to be about the size of an SL-1 at the smallest I would expect. And then you get all of the disadvantages of not having a mirror when you do want it.

You could create a very small and thin Canon EVIL camera and then offer an extension tube to allow the camera to use EF mount lenses as well as short register lenses.....but this is not attractive to Canon I suspect. The tiny camera will have terrible ergonomics when mounted to most EF mount lenses, and Canon would face pressure to also design and build a full suite of lenses for the new, shorter, register distance to make the camera viable. Going down this path leads to where Sony is now.....a company with three or four separate lens mounts, and no complete lineup for any of them.

The number one draw of Nikon and Canon dSLRs for most serious photographers is the complete line of lenses for any and all needs.

The Canon rebel line is still the best seller all around, unfortunately the largest moneymaker are not the people who want FF mirrorless. It's the ones who want the entry level cameras that make them look pro. Canon's number one priority is to make money.


In the asian markets it's different they're all mirrorless happy, which is why Canon has released 3 of them there vs the single one here.

maverick75 wrote in post #17696914
unfortunately the largest moneymaker are not the people who want FF mirrorless. It's the ones who want the entry level cameras that make them look pro.

There's really no point insulting people who use Canon and Nikon's cheapest dSLRs. These are by all measures quite excellent cameras, and while they are 'cheap' compared to the more expensive dSLR offerings, they are not 'cheap' cameras compared to the full market.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17696902
You could create a very small and thin Canon EVIL camera and then offer an extension tube to allow the camera to use EF mount lenses as well as short register lenses.....but this is not attractive to Canon I suspect. The tiny camera will have terrible ergonomics when mounted to most EF mount lenses, and Canon would face pressure to also design and build a full suite of lenses for the new, shorter, register distance to make the camera viable. Going down this path leads to where Sony is now.....a company with three or four separate lens mounts, and no complete lineup for any of them.

In fact Canon does this. It came out at the same time as the EOS M, and accepts both EF and EF-S lenses. And it's just like you say - adds bulk. An 18-55 EF-M IS ST-M lens is smaller than the 18-55 EF-S IS STM (2.4" x 2.4" vs. 2.7" x 3.0"), and that's without the EF to EF-M adapter (which adds another inch to the EF-S or EF lens length).

Wilt wrote in post #17696858
If you can list all the advantages inherent to mirrorless camera design, we could have a discussion about why does Canon not adopt the mirrorless design.

Without enumeration of specific advantages, then it merely becomes a discussion about why some lenses focus left vs. focus right to get to infinity, or which some lenses zoom left vs zoom right to get to longest FL... "just because"

I thought it was pretty common knowledge and a big reason why many pros are switching to Sony FF mirrorless systems, but I'll list the advantages of mirrorless cameras here:

1. Smaller and lighter
2. Faster auto focus
3. Better IS since most are built into the body. Example, Sony and Olympus fantastic 5 axis IBIS systems.
4. Better video: Most DSLRs can't use phase detection with the mirror up while recording video, so they have to use the slower and less accurate, contrast-detection focus method.
5. EVF: This may be a con to some but seeing exactly how an image will look thru a viewfinder because its coming off the sensor and not the lens is a huge advantage IMO. EVF also feature face/eye tracking. EVF are always 100% coverage too
6. Silent operation
7. No mirror slap
8. Higher FPS rate
9. Way more AF points in general, and the ability to focus anywhere on the screen meaning no more having to focus and recompose ever again
10. Superior subject tracking

dexter75 wrote in post #17696979
I thought it was pretty common knowledge and a big reason why many pros are switching to Sony FF mirrorless systems, but I'll list the advantages of mirrorless cameras here:

1. Smaller and lighter
2. Faster auto focus
3. Better IS since most are built into the body. Example, Sony and Olympus fantastic 5 axis IBIS systems.
4. Better video: Most DSLRs can't use phase detection with the mirror up while recording video, so they have to use the slower and less accurate, contrast-detection focus method.
5. EVF: This may be a con to some but seeing exactly how an image will look thru a viewfinder because its coming off the sensor and not the lens is a huge advantage IMO. EVF also feature face/eye tracking. EVF are always 100% coverage too
6. Silent operation
7. No mirror slap
8. Higher FPS rate
9. Way more AF points in general, and the ability to focus anywhere on the screen meaning no more having to focus and recompose ever again
10. Superior subject tracking

OK, let the comments begin!
I will start with these...

• A mirror does not inherently make for a large camera...ask any users of Olympus OM bodies, the Pentax ME/MX, the Nikon FM, Canon AE-1, etc.
  
• Why dSLRs are so large and bulky, by comparison to the compact film SLRs which popularized 35mm film SLR ownership, is a different debate. But even in the dSLR world you have tons of folks adding grips to their Canon nnnD bodies simply because the smaller dSLRs are 'too small' for them.
  
• Have you ever seen how distractively badly the EVFs 'shimmer' when in the store under fluorescent store lighting?... How can you 'look past' the shimmer to focus accurately?!
  
• Both the 5DS and the Sony Alpha 7II have 5fps...what 'advantage'?!
  
• The Sony A7S is mirrorless, yet it is limited to only Contrast Detection AF...so just where is the 'advantage of mirrorless' materializing in this mirrorless camera?
  
• dpreview.com conclusion about the A7S, "all the magic that makes the a7S a great video camera comes from what's on the inside, not on the outside. Ergonomically, it would be hard to classify the a7S as a well designed video camera, though it's certainly functional."
  
• Only the A7II has in-body IS, the other Sonys (A7, A7R, A7S) use only in-lens IS
  
• Only the A7II with in-body IS are considerably heavier than the other Sonys (A7, A7R, A7S) which can use only in-lens IS
  To quote dpreview.com, " All the size/weight advantages of not having a mirror mechanism are negated the second you try to squeeze an IBIS system inside the body."
  
• What dpreview.com says about shutter noise of the A7II, "Not to mention the shutter makes a very loud "cur-chunk" sound, not to different-sounding than a DSLR. "
  
• About phase vs. contrast detect AF..."Keep in in mind, both the a7 and a7 II have the same number of phase detect points, 119 in total. That's 119 more then the a7S or the a7R, which use contrast detect only. "
  
• About AF tracking in a mirrorless (A7II), "The biggest problem we noted was that instead of faithfully tracking exactly what was underneath the AF point when focus was initiated, the camera tries to intelligently pick a subject near that AF point. You'll see this as a green box outlining what the camera thinks is your subject, and this green box will move, grow, and shrink to try and remain on your subject. But sometimes this green box outlining your subject just has a mind of its own. It almost tries to be too intelligent. When it works, it works; when it doesn't, the green box may have totally wandered off to a different subject."
  

Wilt wrote in post #17696991
OK, let the comments begin!
I will start with these...

• A mirror does not inherently make for a large camera...ask any users of Olympus OM bodies, the Pentax ME/MX, the Nikon FM, Canon AE-1, etc.
  
• Why dSLRs are so large and bulky, by comparison to the compact film SLRs which popularized 35mm film SLR ownership, is a different debate. But even in the dSLR world you have tons of folks adding grips to their Canon nnnD bodies simply because the smaller dSLRs are 'too small' for them.
  
• Have you ever seen how distractively badly the EVFs 'shimmer' when in the store under fluorescent store lighting?... How can you 'look past' the shimmer to focus accurately?!
  
• Both the 5DS and the Sony Alpha 7II have 5fps...what 'advantage'?!
  
• The Sony A7S is mirrorless, yet it is limited to only Contrast Detection AF...so just where is the 'advantage of mirrorless' materializing in this mirrorless camera?
  
• dpreview.com conclusion about the A7S, "all the magic that makes the a7S a great video camera comes from what's on the inside, not on the outside. Ergonomically, it would be hard to classify the a7S as a well designed video camera, though it's certainly functional."
  
• Only the A7II has in-body IS, the other Sonys (A7, A7R, A7S) use only in-lens IS
  
• Only the A7II with in-body IS are considerably heavier than the other Sonys (A7, A7R, A7S) which can use only in-lens IS
  To quote dpreview.com, " All the size/weight advantages of not having a mirror mechanism are negated the second you try to squeeze an IBIS system inside the body."
  
• What dpreview.com says about shutter noise of the A7II, "Not to mention the shutter makes a very loud "cur-chunk" sound, not to different-sounding than a DSLR. "
  
• About phase vs. contrast detect AF..."Keep in in mind, both the a7 and a7 II have the same number of phase detect points, 119 in total. That's 119 more then the a7S or the a7R, which use contrast detect only. "
  
• About AF tracking in a mirrorless (A7II), "The biggest problem we noted was that instead of faithfully tracking exactly what was underneath the AF point when focus was initiated, the camera tries to intelligently pick a subject near that AF point. You'll see this as a green box outlining what the camera thinks is your subject, and this green box will move, grow, and shrink to try and remain on your subject. But sometimes this green box outlining your subject just has a mind of its own. It almost tries to be too intelligent. When it works, it works; when it doesn't, the green box may have totally wandered off to a different subject."
  

...I am not convinced about the universal 'truths' listed about inherent mirrorless advantages in these areas.

Some valid points. I will counter with this:

Most pros and even semi-pro photographers couldn't care less how an EVF performs in a store under fluorescent lighting, no pros ever shoot in those conditions. LCD is perfectly useable in that case anyways.
You mention the a7ii in every argument. Maybe you are unaware of the A7rii. It also has IBIS and is already widely considered one of the best cameras on the market, its stuffs the specs sheet. It also features a silent shutter and a 399 point phase detection AF. If you are going to compare, at least make it top of the line for both lines. Sony A7rii vs the Canon 5DSR, most every review I have seen puts the Sony ahead. I don't own a Sony by the way, Ive been shooting Canon all 10 years of my career. Just frustrated they cant seem to put out a full frame mirrorless. I picked up a Panasonic GX8 and an Olympus 75 f/1.8 to back up my 7Dii and ended up selling the 7Dii and buying a GX7 to back up my GX8. I honestly think Canon is afraid that a full frame mirrorless in the $2k price range will kill their 5Dx sales. They need to decide whether they are going to continue with DSLR dinosaurs, get competitive with Sony and enter the FF mirrorless market or keep losing business to Sony. I think Canon are getting a bit too complacent.

The crux of my rebuttals so far is that while it is possible for you to find a specific Sony to support your arguments FOR mirrorless, I can find similar mirrorless cameras which do NOT SUPPORT your universal statement about mirrorless 'advantage', and I did not have to look hard to find a reflex dSLR which is comparable to your mirrorless in capability!

I chose the Canon 5DR simply as one of the most recent FF from Canon with a test report on dpreview.com
I chose the Sony 7DII simply as one of the most recent FF mirrorless from Sony with a test report on dpreview.com
And if you look at the comments which I quoted, it was dpreview who compared it to other Sony mirrorless, and pointing out that your universal truth about mirrorless was in fact NOT true, via their comparative comments!

Yes, some of your points ARE true...like AF points, Sony has about twice as many as even the most recent Canon or Nikon.
OTOH, I do not trust any camera to automatically choose AF points (it gets them wrong, so often!), and having to index thru twice as many points to manually choose the ONE which falls on the primary point of focus that I want, is simply more burdensome than I want it to be.

Back to rebuttals to the 'advantages'...

• If AF is faster in mirrorless, why do we hear this?...
  geoffpowell wrote in post #17622422
  My experience too. I've just sold an OM-D E-M1, 12-40 PRO, 40-150 PRO and TC and I'm moving back to Canon. Found the Olympus AF slow and the focus points too big.

Wilt wrote in post #17697089
The crux of my rebuttals so far is that while it is possible for you to find a specific Sony to support your arguments FOR mirrorless, I can find similar mirrorless cameras which do NOT SUPPORT your universal statement about mirrorless 'advantage', and I did not have to look hard to find a reflex dSLR which is comparable to your mirrorless in capability!

I chose the Canon 5DR simply as one of the most recent FF from Canon with a test report on dpreview.com
I chose the Sony 7DII simply as one of the most recent FF mirrorless from Sony with a test report on dpreview.com
And if you look at the comments which I quoted, it was dpreview who compared it to other Sony mirrorless, and pointing out that your universal truth about mirrorless was in fact NOT true, via their comparative comments!

Yes, some of your points ARE true...like AF points, Sony has about twice as many as even the most recent Canon or Nikon.
OTOH, I do not trust any camera to automatically choose AF points (it gets them wrong, so often!), and having to index thru twice as many points to manually choose the ONE which falls on the primary point of focus that I want, is simply more burdensome than I want it to be.

Back to rebuttals to the 'advantages'...

• If AF is faster in mirrorless, why do we hear this?...

Mirrorless is not inherently 'better', it is certainly 'different' from what Canon currently offers.

Good points again and there are some shooters who will find DSLRs superior for what they shoot. It would just be nice to see Canon attempting to get into this segment though. Like I said, I bet they are afraid it will cannibalize sales of the 5Dx series though. It seems the user you quoted wasn't aware how to use his camera. You can adjust the size of your focus points on the Panasonic/Olympus bodies, one feature I really love. My GX8 with the fast Olympus primes focuses noticeably faster than any Canon Ive used, especially in low light. Watch a Youtube video on the E-M1 or GX8, AF is instant.

wilt, a lot of these points are out of date with the A7rii available. IBIS available on that model as well as phase detect with canon lenses. While the new A7rii wont AF as good as canon, it's the closest thing to a universal mount camera, which is pretty exciting to me. My day to day lenses are small, while my dedicated landscape kit will be big. It's great having a day to day kit that's small, a good 70% of my shooting occurs this way, while a bigger kit for landscapes is fine, I'm ok with the weight in those special occasions. Same with event photography, I'll carry a 200/2, which cannot be made small. I'm ok with the size in those scenarios.

in short, full frame mirrorless is a highly desirable market. Even with all the flaws of the original A7/A7r, those were hugely successful cameras. Sony created a market segment that the big two ignored. Mirrorless will forever live aside DSLR imo, but it's a vast oversight for canon to ignore it, considering all their clout in the world of photography.

their first venture into the mirrorless market wasn't that great...can't imagine they're really anxious to get back in there after the failings of the eos-m

Charlie wrote in post #17697317
wilt, a lot of these points are out of date with the A7rii available. IBIS available on that model as well as phase detect with canon lenses. While the new A7rii wont AF as good as canon, it's the closest thing to a universal mount camera, which is pretty exciting to me. My day to day lenses are small, while my dedicated landscape kit will be big. It's great having a day to day kit that's small, a good 70% of my shooting occurs this way, while a bigger kit for landscapes is fine, I'm ok with the weight in those special occasions. Same with event photography, I'll carry a 200/2, which cannot be made small. I'm ok with the size in those scenarios.

in short, full frame mirrorless is a highly desirable market. Even with all the flaws of the original A7/A7r, those were hugely successful cameras. Sony created a market segment that the big two ignored. Mirrorless will forever live aside DSLR imo, but it's a vast oversight for canon to ignore it, considering all their clout in the world of photography.

The OP did open this subject with, "I dont understand what Canon is waiting around for.." In response to that, my point is NOT that a terrific mirrorless camera does not exist. My point is that the universalization, "Canon needs to design a mirrorless because mirrorless designs all have this list of (however many) advantages" is not true!

You can make good and bad mirrorless camera features, just as you can have good and bad reflex mirror camera features. The advantage is NOT the fact that one camera is mirrorless and the other camera is not...they are DIFFERENT, but one design is not inherently better than the other.

Without an inherently compelling advantage, Canon has no inherently compelling reason to choose to make a different (mirrorless) design, other than perhaps to broaden their appeal in the marketplace to a wider audience by doing so.

Being a weak #3 in the FF camera market (so to speak -- I don't know the actual market share for them), Sony sought a product differentiator to win a piece of market share...that is good marketing principle in action! Canon, owning the market with Nikon, does not have to carve out a niche for themselves, like Sony did.