[Digitalis]

Its an interesting precedent, apparently with an adapter, all the EF lenses can be used with it. Apparently its not suitable for native FF use.

Canon shot themselves in the foot with that one, wouldn't be the first time that has happened either.

[Kunzite]

Its an interesting precedent, apparently with an adapter, all the EF lenses can be used with it. Apparently its not suitable for native FF use.

I don't see why it wouldn't work; it has a larger diameter than the Sony E mount.

[philbaum]

I don't see why it wouldn't work; it has a larger diameter than the Sony E mount.

Here's a quote from the dpreview summary of the EF m-mount:

The EF-M mount is 58mm in diameter, with a flange distance of 18mm from the bayonet to the sensor. As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen.

When one looks at the image referred to above - it seems that the electrical contacts are pretty close to the APS sensor - probably too close to allow a FF sensor. There's no EVF for the camera either - i think.

A concept camera with the emphasis on smallness. I won't say "dead end" but thats what i'm thinking - maybe good for its use but not an advanced milc by any interpretation.

[Kunzite]

I'm not sure about that, and I have the bad habit of double checking most things So I've done a visual comparison between EF-M and E mounts - the contact clearance is about the same, perhaps slightly smaller for the EF-M. Since in-body stabilization won't be used, it might work.
Introducing a new mount is a pretty big deal, and implies long term planning; so I doubt Canon would introduce a mount barely incompatible with their 135 sensors. If that's indeed true, it is a (quite silly IMO) mistake. But I don't think it's true.

[RonHendriks1966]

Canon shot themselves in the foot with that one, wouldn't be the first time that has happened either.

No problem, since almost no customers. Same with the Samsung NX mini.

Just in Azia some users. They only need one new body every two years and one new lens to that. Or just never talk about it again and people wil forget about it.

[philbaum]

I'm not sure about that, and I have the bad habit of double checking most things So I've done a visual comparison between EF-M and E mounts - the contact clearance is about the same, perhaps slightly smaller for the EF-M. Since in-body stabilization won't be used, it might work.
Introducing a new mount is a pretty big deal, and implies long term planning; so I doubt Canon would introduce a mount barely incompatible with their 135 sensors. If that's indeed true, it is a (quite silly IMO) mistake. But I don't think it's true.

You're missing the point of my original post at 2:12pm. My point was that Canon credibly needs a MILC version of the EF mount to allow their huge legacy of lenses to still be used into the future. With the 18mm registration distance of the M-mount, its hardly the kind of mount that a company would sell to their loyal users as legacy lens usable camera. I don't think one is going to hang a 600mm lens off a Canon EF-M. Debating the possibility of cramming a FF sensor into the M-mount camera is irrelevant. MILC doesn't mean that the camera body has to be small - thats just the way Canikon first interpreted it.

There's no reason that the Pentax successor to the 645Z couldn't be on a large MILC body with the same mount. I was in Best Buy today, and looked into the OVF of a Nikon 610, and found the OVF to be dim in a well lit store. I'm well past the point of being interested in dim OVFs. Thats why Canon and Nikon need to consider how to update their bodies to take advantage of MILC associated technologies. The ends of aisles in stores are often considered to be valuable areas for showing deserving merchandise. Today, at Best Buy, there were Sony MILCs at the end of one aisle, and at the end of another aisle, were Samsung MILCs. The big guns, Canikon, were in the center of one aisle, and only myself and one other person bothered to stop and look at them. The busiest and largest display in the electronics part of the store, was devoted to tablets. I'm too far out of touch to know what that was about

[Kunzite]

While asking your customers to change to a new system is a big deal (and it's not guaranteed it would work as well as the last time), I don't believe in an EF-mount MILC line.

If they'll reach a point where they would want their full line to be (also) MILC, including pro cameras designed to be used with monster lenses like a 600mm, the solution will be a short registration mount; and compatibility with EF lenses will be offered by adapters. Provided that the EF-M mount is adequate, they could make a camera as large and heavy as they wish, of course we're not talking about the EOS M here.
At that point - and I'm speaking hypothetical here - they'll likely decide to give up on DSLRs, even the pro ones, and go full MILC; or at least foresee this possibility. Keeping the EF mount would be disadvantageous in the long run and for new customers; there can be no upgrade path whatsoever from entry level MILC (EF-M) to an advanced EF MILC.
In the case of a hypothetical 645 MILC, we're talking about some 5cm, which could be a good reason to do it.

Anyway, that's how I think. On a personal note, I found a high quality OVF to be much better than those overly bright EVFs.

[osv]

No problem, since almost no customers. Same with the Samsung NX mini.

i suspect that the pentax q is a bigger failure than the samsung nx mini... the q doesn't have an adapter with electrical connections to lenses of any mount, including k-mount?

the q is 12mp($400 w/lens)
nx mini 20mp bsi sensor($319 w/lens)
factory k-mount dumb adapter to q is $209, and it has a mechanical shutter(why?)
factory nx-m to nx adapter is $144, with electrical contacts for the lenses, and no internal shutter.

[RonHendriks1966]

i suspect that the pentax q is a bigger failure than the samsung nx mini... the q doesn't have an adapter with electrical connections to lenses of any mount, including k-mount?

the q is 12mp($400 w/lens)
nx mini 20mp bsi sensor($319 w/lens)
factory k-mount dumb adapter to q is $209, and it has a mechanical shutter(why?)
factory nx-m to nx adapter is $144, with electrical contacts for the lenses, and no internal shutter.

I don't know, maybe it's just smart not to offer those adapters and use the camera what it's made for. I don't see to many Nikon 1 users with adapting a large F-mount lens on it.

[osv]

I was in Best Buy today, and looked into the OVF of a Nikon 610, and found the OVF to be dim in a well lit store. I'm well past the point of being interested in dim OVFs.

it's amazing how something as useless as an ovf, could still be a preferential choice for some people.

old-skool nikon guys are probably the worst... they can't list even one single advantage to an ovf over an evf; all they know is that they must have it.

the q viewfinder is optical, $250? it's a rangefinder type of configuration? pentax doesn't get it at all.

with that kind of a track record, is pentax capable of engineering a ff mirrorless camera.

---------- Post added 12-25-2014 at 08:59 AM ----------

I don't know, maybe it's just smart not to offer those adapters and use the camera what it's made for. I don't see to many Nikon 1 users with adapting a large F-mount lens on it.

the advantage with the q is that it's smaller than the competition? which is a real plus in some situations.

i tend to look at everything like it's e-mount, which probably isn't realistic here.

[Kunzite]

In 2013, Ricoh Imaging had 3 entries in BCNRanking's 2013 top 20 best selling mirrorless cameras: Q10 on #7, 4.3% market share, Q on #15, 1.9% market share and Q7 on #17, 1.6% market share. All their Q models made in top 20 sales, with a combined market share of 7.8%..
For the record, no Fuji camera made into that top.

There is a large variety between optical viewfinder systems. Q has a simple direct viewfinder, as an optional accessory; you can barely do framing with it - it's good for a single angle of view and it has parallax errors - but nothing else. It has nothing to do to a rangefinder system, with which you can adjust focus.
However, what we're referring to when we say we like optical viewfinders better than EVFs is a high quality reflex viewfinder, the kind of you can expect in the upcoming Pentax 135 DSLR. It can work with any lens, at any distance, and you can adjust focus with it as well; it's very different to the almost useless Q viewfinder.

[philbaum]

While asking your customers to change to a new system is a big deal (and it's not guaranteed it would work as well as the last time), I don't believe in an EF-mount MILC line.

If they'll reach a point where they would want their full line to be (also) MILC, including pro cameras designed to be used with monster lenses like a 600mm, the solution will be a short registration mount; and compatibility with EF lenses will be offered by adapters. Provided that the EF-M mount is adequate, they could make a camera as large and heavy as they wish, of course we're not talking about the EOS M here.

I don't think its about asking your existing customers to change to a new system. The problem you or I would be trying to fix, if we were CEO's of Canon , is how to make Canon imaging products more attractive to buyers. The Oct CIPA shows that DSLRs are down 25% in units and 13% in currency from the same month last year. My thinking was that if Canon offered at least a parallel line in MILC cameras using the same mount, they would improve their sales. They may not be as "pretty" as the Sony or Samsung lines - but they would have the advantage of offering access to that large store of lenses. And these new EF Milc bodies would offer full electronic controls of the Canon lenses.

Well, they need to do something to increase sales. And at least from the Photokina interview, the thought of making a "large sensor" MILC seemed to be one of the Canon ideas.

---------- Post added 12-25-14 at 12:51 PM ----------

it's amazing how something as useless as an ovf, could still be a preferential choice for some people.

old-skool nikon guys are probably the worst... they can't list even one single advantage to an ovf over an evf; all they know is that they must have it.

the q viewfinder is optical, $250? it's a rangefinder type of configuration? pentax doesn't get it at all.

with that kind of a track record, is pentax capable of engineering a ff mirrorless camera.

---------- Post added 12-25-2014 at 08:59 AM ----------


.

Yesterday was the first time i had picked up a Samsung mini and a NX300. They seemed to be very well built, and the AF focusing on the NX300 seemed very quick. Didn't have time to do anything in depth, but it was a pleasant experience. Then i went over and picked up the Nikon D600 and thought: OMG - Nikon is in trouble with the younger generations. I use my Nex cameras more often than my Pentax DSLR, and i think thats why the dim OVFs are the first impression I get of any DSLR.

The photography market is going to be tough going for the next few years in any case. We;ll just have to see how the players fare with their various strategies.

[Kunzite]

I don't think the cause of the DSLR apparent decline is completely understood. Why the decline, could it be because they're mature technology and we already have the cameras we want, combined with a MILC offensive at the lower end of the spectrum? How much of it is because people are preferring MILCs instead? Why are they preferring MILCs - of which many are viewfinderless: small size, perhaps price? How many are doing it because of the EVF? If we're talking about a large, high end camera, very different than the current MILCs, will it still be successful? Will DSLRs stabilize, or continue falling? Will MILCs plateau as well? Unfortunately, I have many questions and too few answers.

Since most MILCs don't have a viewfinder, and even for those with an EVF that's not their most redeeming feature, I doubt that replacing the reflex viewfinder system of a large, pro-level DSLR (i.e. matched with that 600mm lens ) with an EVF would do any good; actually that would be a complete disaster IMO.
Full electronic control of EF lenses is already offered by the EF to EF-M adapter.

By the way, in a trip some time ago I was able to see Andromeda through the K-5IIs' dim OVF. Try that with an EVF...

[philbaum]

I agree, there's lot of things we don't understand about the current changes in the photographic industry. But guess what, the changes will occur whether they are fully understood or not. In fact, many cultural changes are not well understood until the process is over. CEO's are paid the big bucks to make the correct decisions when all the facts aren't know. If they are correct, they get to keep their jobs. If incorrect, they get to look for a new job.

[mecrox]

I agree, there's lot of things we don't understand about the current changes in the photographic industry. But guess what, the changes will occur whether they are fully understood or not. In fact, many cultural changes are not well understood until the process is over. CEO's are paid the big bucks to make the correct decisions when all the facts aren't know. If they are correct, they get to keep their jobs. If incorrect, they get to look for a new job.

An EVF is only half the story, IMHO. Dropping in a high-power mobile processor is the other half, perhaps. Then you are looking at something with the power to process high frame rates, 4k video, on board apps, wifi and mobile OS and all the rest. Simply swapping OVF for EVF isn't going to connect with a new generation of buyers if the result still a "dumb box" of very limited abilities once the shutter has been clicked. Software and connecting the camera to how folks live is just as important. Samsung and Sony are on the scent here, but so far the traditional camera companies haven't picked up the trail. Or they've tried to pass it off as a second-best sideline, as in the EOS-M, and direct folks back to their legacy business. Maybe they will get their heads round things in 2015. The R&D costs could be a big challenge for the smaller brands.

Had a good example of this yesterday when endless fafffling was needed to get our Christmas shots off the card, into a tablet, processed and on to share with the wider family on social media. Nothing connects up and different software from third parties is required for each step of the way, plus a cheap Chinese card-tablet adapter. For a camera company, presenting your customers with this tangle of string is plain madness. Of course someone in this situation will forget about the camera and simply use a phone.