amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Primarily because the lenses need to be able to produce a large enough image circle, there's little to no size/weight advantage with FF mirrorless.

There are other things mirrorless can offer, though:

1. Quieter operation.... no mirror slap and shutter noise.
2. Less internal vibrations... also thanks to eliminating those moving parts.
3. An electronic shutter may be able to offer faster shutter speeds and higher frame rate (there are still some limitations, though).
4. An electronic viewfinder can be an advantage in some situations, such as low light conditions (but it also can be a disadvantage in others, such as shooting sports).

Right now, I don't know that the different focusing system required is either an advantage or disadvantage for still photography. The "old school" phase detection sensor array in DSLRs has been developed thoroughly and can be very high performance, but isn't used in most mirrorless, AFAIK. In the past MILC have used a contrast detection method that employs the same sensor that's being used to capture images. That method is rather slow (the same was used in most DSLRs' Live View mode). But now both are using Dual Pixel AF in many cases, which is a form of image-sensor-based phase detection... pairs of individual pixel sites embedded in the sensor are able to give as good or nearly so as the array of discrete AF sensors used in DSLRs.

With a simpler design that... or example... only requires a single AF system, you'd think that MILC would be cheaper. But they're certainly not. That's because they are the "latest and greatest" thing... hot sellers, driven by market demand and keeping prices up there. Eventually when MILC are more main stream and there's more competition, I'm sure prices will come down.

Right now, only Sony is producing a FF MILC. And if sales reports are true, they are taking good advantage of their head start on the market.

Both Canon and Nikon are at least talking about producing FF MILC.

Nikon will likely be the first to do so, since they have largely abandoned their Nikon 1 MILC line. They took a unique approach building their MILC around an especially small 1" sensor.... with a 2.7X "lens factor".... while most other manufacturers built around APS-C (1.5X or 1.6X lens factor). I'm sure Nikon's thinking was that the smaller sensor would allow them to build especially compact cameras and lenses. But unfortunately no one else has followed their lead and there's no third party support for the system, to speak of. As a result, there's only a very limited selection of lenses.

Contrast that with Olympus, who also designed around a unique sensor (micro 4/3.... 2X lens factor.... smaller than APS-C but bigger than 1"). The difference is that Oly partnered with Panasonic and others on cameras and lenses.

Like Nikon, Canon has seen limited success with their mirrorless, even though they used a more "traditional" APS-C size sensor (same 1.6X as are used in their APS-C DSLRs). IMO, Canon's mistakes have been too timid an approach to MILC, misjudging their popularity and appeal, or being too protective of their market position with DSLRs, not wanting to erode that (which Nikon was guilty of doing, too). But, thanks to using a format that's more in line with other manufacturers, Canon has enjoyed more third party support.... helping to shore up their own weak MILC-specific lens system. It's taken them 3 or 4 years, but Canon has also moved to make their MILC better performing to appeal to a wider range of users. The earlier models of the Canon M-series seemed more a "step up" from a point-n-shoot or camera phone, than a line that advanced users and pros might want to use. Implementation of DPAF on the latest models, the addition of electronic viewfinders and some other tweaks have probably "saved" the Canon M-series from an early demise, like the Nikon 1. I understand Canon is still using firmware in their M-series that's more akin to their Powershots than their EOS, though. That's certainly going to need to change if they produce a FF MILC.

Where both Canon and Nikon might go wrong with FF MILC is if they insist on designing the camera with a short-register lens mount that either requires unique design lenses or adapters with their extensive, existing line of lenses. Since there is little to no size advantage to FF MILC, they would be best served to make their respective FF MILC fully compatible with the lenses they already produce (EF Canon and FX Nikon). Sure, the new camera might erode their FF DSLR sales.... But at least they'd give a new lease on life to the two largest systems of lenses (and possibly other accessories). And it would be far better to keep their customers buying and using their system, than see them go to a competitor who's offering what consumers are demanding.

BTW... why stop at FF MILC? There's medium format MILC already available! Hasselblad X1D has been available since 2016 and Fujifilm introduced the GFX last year. Both these cameras themselves manage to save some size and weight compared to MF reflex cameras.... but like FF MILC, it's partly offset by lens size anyway. They do use a shorter register lens, too, calling for unique line of lenses. but MF MILC can get away with it because someone who is buying a $6000 to $9000 camera is likely to also outfit it with a kit of expensive lenses and not be put off by need for adapters on others (some of which are available). Medium format (be it film or digital, reflex or mirrorless) has never enjoyed extensive selection of lenses anyway.

Finally, something that's not discussed a lot is that mirrorless struggle a bit with ultrawide lenses. Due to the extremely short lens register (distance between the lens flange and the image sensor plane), in the corners and at the edges the light rays from wide angle lenses arrive at the sensor at an extremely acute angle. That can make for issues maintaining sharpness and preventing strong vignetting in those areas of the image. This is more pronounced with smaller formats. Most MILC have a lens register around 18mm (including Sony full frame E-mount).... less than half the distance used by most DLSRs, which tend to be around 42 to 46mm. Full frame MILC that are designed to use existing, DSLR lens systems can avoid this potential problem. So I really hope that full frame MILC from Nikon and Canon (especially, since I use their system) are designed with the same lens F-mount and EF/EOS lens registers to be able to utilize existing lenses and not require a new line of lenses be developed or adapters be used on the existing lenses. There's so little size/weight savings possible with FF MILC, it makes no sense to take the route that Sony chose.

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

Following this logic, the ultimate solution would be a phone camera

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX

Forget the weight. Other than physical pain or handicaps, I would never base a camera or lens choice on a few ounces here or there. The important considerations are quality of lens optics. Mastery of light. Elegance in composition. Camera system flexibility and variety. And of course sensible pricing. Hassablad has all those, but very few ( mostly pro Advertising firms) will pay the outrageous $25k to $50k price tags. Too many better choices at sensible prices. Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Olympus, Pentex, ...they're all excellent equipment choices. The rest boils down to the skill of the artist and a defined budget.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

None for me at the moment.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

It’s to bad you couldn’t say all of in fewer word,
As your long dissertations was boring at best. Have a nice day!

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

As far as the weight issue, figure you have to carry extra batteries around all day for your mirrorless. My DSLR can shoot over a 1000 shots without recharging.

BHamp00 Loc: Las Vegas

Judging from the comments to the leading post, it appears to me that there are many folks that are die hard FF DSLR users that will never go to FF Mirrorless. I have been a Nikon user since 1971 and currently have 3 FF Nikons (D810 D750 & DF) and dozens of Nikon lenses. I also have 2 FF Sony's (A7II & A7RIII) with half a dozen or so lenses that are mostly Zeiss or Sony/Zeiss. The Zoom lenses I chose for the FF Sony's were constant aperture f4's over the f2.8's to maintain a smaller handling package. If I have a need for longer reach lenses (200-500) or say a 24-70 or 70-200 f2.8, I'll go to the Nikons. I also love my crop sensor Nikons (D500's) and Sony's (A6000 & A6300). The A6300 with a Sony/Zeiss 16-70 f4 is a great handling package that I go to quite often. I will likely use the FF Sony's more often as I become more comfortable with their characteristics, however, I don't see myself selling my Nikon gear. BTW the Zeiss lenses have provided some spectacular results. I'm not a pro but an advanced armature that reads to much and has way too much GAS.

(Download)

Kuzano

My response to that question is that the only real reduction in a full frame Mirrorless is the loss of the mirrorbox itself, with a bit of reduction for EVF instead of optical viewfinders. Most FF shooters still seem to want Optical over EVF in spite of the advantages of EVF. Hence no significant reduction in weight and size. In the lens systems, the weight is predominantly unchanged between the two systems. The full frame (24-36mm) still requires the same Optics in glass, which requires the same mechanisms and housing length.... No improvement in lens weight and size if supporting good, high quality glass. Also AF to power quick focusing remains a high requirement. Although the "big pants" boys threaten to fill our camera bags with full frame mirrorless, it will be doubtful if weight and size will be much improved.

With camera's in the APS-c and 4:3 sensor range, almost all parts of the system contribute to smaller lighter camera's, and the tech matches or even improves the results to the point that FF does not, for some shooters offer much in the way of advantages. YouTube is full of videos about professional photographers who have switched from FF to smaller sensor mirrorless cameras.

It's going to be interesting to see if one or two of the "big pants" boys offers up any time soon, a true mirrorless FF system that is not more expensive than their Pro DSLR's and is practical for those people having, for physical reasons, to lose the weight of their current Full Frame DSLR equipment.

I truly think, with the hesitation they have played in the mirrorless, and their lack of appreciation of a new market, Both Nikon and Canon will totally fail in the market by simply taking the mirror box out of the camera's they now produce and sell. Isn't that really what mirrorless means. No mirror box and no Optics in the viewfinder. Same weight and lens system as their current Full Frame sensor camera's.

Are you really standing in line for that?

gwilliams6

No chimping ever needed with modern EVFs. You don't lose your connection with your subject ,and even miss a shot like you risk doing when you stop, take you eye away from the viewfinder and chimp. I switched to mirrorless from DSLR and would never go back. I am a pro of four decades, and yes pros are using mirrorless in greater numbers every day. No chimping ever again for us pros. Cheers.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

There are a couple older Sony cameras that were bad, but I go for days before I need to change batteries. Opinions are usually wrong.

gwilliams6

fotoartist the new Sony mirrorless batteries last a very long time. Let me explain. The new Z batteries in Sony A9,A7RIII and A7III are 22800 mah, just as much or more mah than any DSLr battery. All camera batteries are tested by CIPA. CIPA battery testing formula tends to favor the way DLSRs use batteries. Even with that in mind the CIPA rating for the new Z-battery in the A7III is 710 shots. That number is truly conservative. Most users get anywhere from 1000 to 2500 shots on one battery charge and up to three hours of 4k video shooting on one charge. There is no longer any battery issue with the recent Sony mirrorless. That argument is dead in the water now. Cheers

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Unfortunately, there are enough current Nikon and Canon users that will follow them blindly, no matter how good (or bad) it will be.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

OK. My Sony friends who complain all the time must have older batteries. I'll tell them to update their batteries and stop complaining.

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

I have Canon glass there for I'll stay with Canon. Also thinking my current 6d2 is only 105 grams heavier the current Sony A7 models and not alot bigger either. Technology wise both have advantages AND disadvantages. ALSO important to me is that I really enjoy my 6d2.....

tdekany Loc: Oregon

They need new cameras in order to use them.