Impressionist

Can well empathize with your feeling. Many years ago I was quite confident Minolta would soon reward my loyalty with a DSLR like Canon had and soon after Nikon. Took a few years but they did finally come through. Try buying a new Minolta now. I do know Sony and have a few but not quite the same. Sony didn't shine until the mirror-less. Something to think about while waiting.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

There is little point to seeking full frame mirrorless cameras, because their lenses cannot be very significantly smaller or lighter than their dSLR equivalents. Some Sony lenses are bigger and heavier!

If you want smaller and lighter as kit attributes, look at Olympus and Panasonic.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Hilarious!

Even THEY know it would be pointless. If Canon wanted to make a decent mirrorless camera, they would have made it five years ago.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

It'd eat too much into their DSLR profit margin.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

So true! Same goes for Nikon, which is why the Nikon 1 is a completely different, much smaller format, with its own lens line. Its best feature is style, not performance.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

They killed Nikon 1 earlier this month, didn't they?

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2016/08/nikon-1-possibly-discontinued/

ddonlewis

Sam, Let me first say that large corporations primary goal is to make money for there stockholders, and they are very critical and ruthless in this regard. If we look at photos that are being printed by labs we find that 39% come from cell phones, 31% from DSLR, 25% from point & shoot, and 3% from mirrorless. If we look at camera sales in total we find that 42% are Canon, 31% are Nikon, 11% are Sony, 9% are Fuji, and 7% all others. The numbers basically tell the board room leaders that mirrorless sales are significant, but relatively small. Remember that a lot of the Sony, Fuji, other sales could be point and shoot. The number of overall sales of cameras has been going down in recent years with more and more people using cell phones. Yes, enthusiasts will always be using a camera of sorts, but you can buy some amazing DSLRs in the $400-600 range, while mirrorless can cost as much or more than a DSLR with the current limited choice of lenses and limited battery life. So in my opinion I see Canon and Nikon to continue on the fringes of the mirrorless market in the near term because of the comparatively lower demand. We'll see.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

It seems that Canon is in fact working on something along these lines, as they put forward some lens patents for ff mirrorless cameras lately, so they are at least working on it!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Good riddance.

I think it's great we have three distinct mirrorless formats. Each has its advantages and trade-offs. Users can pick what's important to them.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There is no Canon mirrorless FF and I rather doubt there ever will be. Canon has never seemed very committed to mirrorless at all... was one of the last manufacturers to introduce one. And, I don't think patents mean much... Canon holds dozens... maybe hundreds of patents on products that never got beyond the design stage. It's purely a guessing game... but I just think would be quite a stretch for Canon to make a mirroless in FF (though stranger things have happened).

Does your shooting actually require full frame? A lot of people think it does, but are just caught up in the "hype" about FF and/or evaluating their images way too large. For what they ultimately do with their photos a crop sensor camera would serve just as well, yet can be smaller and lighter.... and mirrorless... though that currently has some limitations in the Canon M-series.

Unless you print really big - I mean larger than than 16x24 - a modern APS-C camera can produce final products hard to distinguish from FF. If you inspect your images for sharpness, focus and fine detail at "100%" on your computer monitor, with a 22 or 24MP camera that's roughly equivalent to enlarging it to make a 40x60 inch print and then viewing that from only 18 or 20" away. OF COURSE it will look like crap!

So, depending upon what you do with your images, you may be lugging around bigger, heavier camera and lens than you really need.... Not really getting any benefit from the extra size and weight... and higher prices for that FF gear.

Galen Rowell did landscape photography with a compact 35mm film camera when most people were using medium and large format, precisely so that he could easily carry it while hiking and running trails. His photos appeared on many dozens of magazine covers and elsewhere, still can be purchased as very large prints (up to 32x48").

Most modern APS-C cameras can out-resolve even the best 35mm film. Lenses may be another factor (as well as "protection" filters, technique and other things).

BTW, not all APS-C DSLRs will offer size or weight savings. A 7D-series camera is virtually the same size and weight as a 5D-series. 5DIII body only weighs about 30 oz. A 7DII weighs 32 oz.

Canon 6D is their lightest weight FF camera... at 24 oz., body only.

Do you need the battery grip? There would be some weight savings shooting without it. Most of the more recent ones also can be used with a single battery, to save weight.

Do you really need the GPS module? I think I read that the new 5D Mark IV will have built in GPS.... but if it's like other camera's with that feature, you should expect greatly reduced battery life any time GPS is enabled.

The lightest and most compact Canon APS-C is the SL1/100D.... that weighs 13 oz. Designed to be as compact and light as possible, the SL1/100D doesn't even have the option of fitting a battery grip (one reason I'll never own one, since I frequently use the vertical controls of a grip). The mirrorless Canon M3 (with newer 24MP sensor) body weighs almost exactly the same... 12.9 oz. At the other end of the Rebel series model line, the most advanced T6s/760D weighs 16 oz., body only.

My points...

1. Do you really need FF? Maybe yes, maybe no. Only you can say.

2. There are some ways to lighten your load a bit, even now.... or with another FF DSLR.

3. If APS-C might serve instead, you'd have lots more choices... both DSLR and Mirrorless. BTW, lenses can be smaller and lighter (and less expensive) with APS-C, too.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Perhaps when their global shutter sensor is developed to a point that makes it cost effective. Also the miserable EVF currently used in mirrorless just is lame compared to actually seeing in real time through the lens. The mirrorless is still behind the DSLR no matter how its proponents scream otherwise. I am sure when the weaknesses of mirrorless are solved to a professional standard that Nikon and Canon will step into that arena. But until then mirrorless will remain an amateur level product with a cult following.
They are excellent cameras,don't get me wrong on that. They take incredible photos but just can't compete with real time viewing and professional standards.

DaveHam Loc: Reading UK

Having tested - for half a day only - the Hasselblad mirrorless I think you will find it has just brought the camera type into the position where it can offer a viable alternative (ignoring cost). Yes it has limitations and I suspect Hasselblad, who appear to be in the throws of some organisational or delivery crisis with their mainstream medium formats will probably experience similar problems with the X1D but it does show what can be achieved.

The proponents of mirrorless currently live with poor focus systems, terrible battery life and a host of other niggles; the return for this seems to be having a lighter camera. If the X1D can lean toward making mirrorless mainstream then the major manufacturers will have little option but to go with the demand this will create.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

A good observation. There are really only two significant variables, one is the technology and the other is the user. When consumer digital cameras first came out they showed significant promise of convenience but the quality was generally crappy in comparison to film. When we look at today's mirrorless cameras the technology is plenty good enough for many people but still does not equal that of most DSLRs in many respects. They are very convenient however, especially for people that want a lighter weight system which suits many in the aging demographic of this forum.

It will be interesting to see how good, mediocre, or bad the upcoming Canon M5 will be. We won't have long to wait. As for mirrorless cameras replacing DSLRs or killing the DSLR market, that happens at a human pace of change, not a technology pace of change and many members of this forum probably won't be around to see that day arrive.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

I feel your pain, Sam.
I've been shooting mostly Nikon for about 40 years. Last year I decided to take a European-Mediterranean cruise. Didn't want to carry my heavy Nikon gear so I bought a Sony a6000. This was a tough decision because I only know Sony audio gear and frankly think its not near the quality I want.
That Sony a6000 took a lot of great photographs (I got it six months early to get used to it.)
I came back and went back to my Nikons. Sold the Sony, but I did become convinced that it was a great alternative, with a couple weaknesses.

This year, I was heading for Death Valley to shoot the wildflowers. So I decided on the new Sony a6300. The quality is great and the images I get are spectacular. The weaknesses of the a6000 have been fixed.

I looked at the A7 line, but I am not enamored of the so-called full-frame camera. Both camera and lenses are costlier and heavier. However the Sony camera quality is excellent.

Now I know that Canon people, like Nikon people (Like myself) are zoomed in on the brand. But there are equally good products in the Sony line as well as the Fujifilm line. Both Nikon and Canon have botched the mirrorless market. Smaller sensors, no viewfinders (or add-on EVF). I think everyone else has jumped ahead on the MILC arena. Get an a6000 (The price is right) and play around with it. If you don't like it, you can sell it for almost what you buy it for. If you do like it, rent an A7 (For the full-frame) and try that. Again, if you hate it, well you aren't out much rental.

Maybe in a few years Canon and Nikon will get their heads out of . . . but right now. "Blahhhh"

(From a 50 year veteran of Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, Linhoff and more)