Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I was looking at the mirrorless growth and how the miniature size and weight is such an advantage.
Weight and size can be reduced but to what point? Too small and you get a camera very awkward to hold well and correctly and steady. Also with larger lenses it becomes more so. Too small and real estate is lost for real useable dials preferred over endless menus to change settings on the camera quickly.
So with these and other thoughts I was thinking what would be a good size for a FF Canon mirrorless camera.
I got my FTb and put it next to my EOS 7D and it was quite a bit smaller even if you added a grip to the side for a large battery. With modern metals being used etc. it could be relatively light, more compact yet, and here is the kicker, the EF mount would stay the same for the mirrorless. It could be made a bit less wide side to side but thickness could stay the same and where the lens mounts the body has about a 1/4" extension already that I doubt most people ever noticed anyway for the mirror space on a relatively thin body.
So bottom line a Canon FF mirrorless could be made smaller and lighter very easily and still maintain the native EF mount and have the requisite realestate for dials and still be comfortable to hold with large lenses because of having real estate to hold onto.

(Download)

cochese

I agree 100%

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Size and"feel" will differ from person to person. Smaller ain't necessarily better. Lighter is a differtent thing. and may be "better" if sturdyness is not compromised. I am a big handed guy, as a result smaller cameras feel wrong. The reason why I bought brand X inStead of brand Y is It "felt" better in my hands and that was a more important feature than this doohicky or that gizmo.

BebuLamar

They should have different models.
1. A large one about the size of the 1D for big heavy glasses.
2. A small one about the size of the Canon A1 for normal glasses, 24, 28, 50, 85 f/1.8 lenses type.

BB4A

I don't disagree that weight can be an issue, but I question the balance of a light body with no correlating reduction in the weight of the lens. As is the case with boberic, I like the feel of "bigger" camera bodies (I primarily use Canon's 7D Mkii and 5D Mkiv, for my mobile, hand-held activities), and I don't think they are too heavy to hold all day. The lenses contribute most of the weight and any balance problems to my personal equation. I think a lighter body attached to the same lenses would actually start to present balance and front-heavy problems.

I'm involved in designing sports equipment where the two main components are made from (1) magnesium alloy for the first item, and (2) carbon fibre (graphite) for the second item. The first item is constructed in magnesium alloy not to make it smaller, but to keep it lighter and better balanced at the size it needs to be, to do the job in conjunction with the very light carbon fiber item it is attached to?

Summary - I'm considering R&D consulting with a photographic equipment manufacturer, on the ultra-light and hyper-rigid combination of nano-silica rod infused carbon fibre telephoto lens bodies.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Interesting.
My comments were just observing older film cameras like the Canon were smaller than the current crop of advanced DSLRs and no one really complained they were too big. I will leave the specifics to the design engineers. My point is a mirrorless FF can easily be made smaller and lighter than the current crop of DSLRs and still use the current EF lens mount with absolutely no penalty. Just a little bit of thought that so far seems to be lacking in the industry with adapters etc that just seem silly when great example exist from the film days. PS Olympus OM1 was pretty small with a FF "Sensor" and mirror so the mirror had to clear the back of the lens.

mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

sounds good, but from the rumors that I read, Canon will provide a new set of lens for the FF Mirrorless and then offer adapter for the EF lens

Largobob

Please consider this: Inertia can be your friend....

Inertia (mass) - that which causes an unwillingness or resistance to the change of velocity (speed or direction). Meaning: a more massive camera is less subject to shutter/mirror vibration, user unsteadiness, wind....or any other disturbance that would cause degradation of the image. (i.e. camera shake). The larger camera body also offers a degree of stability (counterbalance) for those with large lenses or bigger hands. Remember: F = m v. (It takes a larger force to change the velocity of a larger mass.)

Sometimes I think we want our cake and eat it too. Everything in life is a tradeoff. Having a multitude of options is good. Choosing the right option can be the problem. Crop sensor; Full Frame; aliasing filter or not; medium format; large format; image stabilization or not; Cannon, Nikon or other?

Personally, I've yet to see any breathtaking image coming from a mirrorless camera. When I do, then let's talk.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I use a Sony A7RII, which, after my Nikon D800, felt tiny and insubstantial. It did not take long to get used to it, and I can use it easily with very large and heavy lenses. With IBIS, the intertia question is moot. It is a godsend, and works much better than I expected with my non-stabilized lenses. I would like a few more buttons, but since they are programmable I have it worked out very nicely now. And with small lenses, the camera can fit into a pocket. I find it nearly perfect.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

At one time, film SLRs were quite a bit smaller, and we learned to cradle the lens with the left hand. The big grip that you grab came with Canon T90 in the late 1980's, and things have been different ever since. If people were willing to go back to a two-handed hold, they would value mass less.

BebuLamar

A mirrorless FF using EF mount lens can not be as small as a 35mm Canon like the FTb. Since it uses the EF lenses which has the flange distance even a bit more than that of the FD lens. Without the mirror there must still be empty space between lens and sensor. From the sensor to back there is no digital camera can be as thin as a film camera.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

If you're committed to a standard like that, you should use a "view" camera like Ansel Adams used.

Largobob

Had one. Just talking physics here. Hard to contradict the laws of physics.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

"Breathtaking" is art, not physics

Largobob

Perhaps. My original comment was simply about the impact of "Inertia" on the photographic imaging process. Sorry if it somehow got your panties in a wad.