July 19, 2018, 04:04:47 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 10
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon make a full size mirrorless crop camera?
« Last post by justinB on July 18, 2018, 08:37:58 PM »
I think that eventually the rebel lineup will be all mirrorless

Eventually we will all be dead.

Not me. I plan to live forever.
32
Lenses / Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming
« Last post by Etienne on July 18, 2018, 08:33:56 PM »

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream.   ::)
A bit of history here...

The EF mount (EF stands for Electro Focus) came out in 1987. The primary design feature of the mount was that all communication to and from the lens be done through serial data streams and that there be no mechanical couplings such as levers... It replaced the FD mount, which had levers and a couple of dedicated pins. FD mount was not conducive to automatic focusing. Canon had realized that it was a dead end, and eventually Nikon also realized that mechanical linkages were passe….

Fast forward to today, where the EF mount is still in primary use.... The mount still works well, but as computing power and data communication speeds have increased, the slow communications between lens and body have started to limit system performance. Canon has patented a new version of this mount which will allow for the negotiation between camera and lens of higher data rates. How this works is you turn on the camera, it sends a query (using the slow EF link speed) to the lens asking what the max supported lens link speed is. If there is no answer (legacy EF glass), then it continues at the EF link speed. If it responds by saying it supports a faster speed, then both switch to that faster speed. We expect to see this very soon, be it on new EF bodies, or if it is a new mount...  Canon has stated that there will be an "elegant" solution with a new mirrorless mount, and the odds are exceptionally high that this will be part of it....


As far as mount size goes, you can make the flange shorter, but as a result the lens will have to bend light from regular and telephoto lenses more, and the result will be more chromatic aberration and there will be more vignetting as a result of the light hitting the sensor at a greater angle. For wide angle lenses, you are better off as there will be less vignetting and less chromatic aberrations.... a classic example of trade-offs... There is no A is better than B, they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. You can not say that the current EF mount is not optimal without acknowledging that whatever any possible new mirrorless mount is, that it will also not be optimal. You can not cherry pick your conditions.

There are very good reasons to keep the existing EF mount, just as there are also very good reasons to create a new mount. A lot of people argue that size is the over-riding criteria, yet when you include fast or long lenses into the system, the system savings are negligible. If you want a small system that is still of good quality, Canon should look at releasing some F5.6 or F6.3 L glass in whatever mount they pick.... That's where the real size savings will come from.

From you own argument, you CAN have the best of both worlds with a new mount. You can use native mirrorless mount lenses for focal lengths less than 50mm, and use EF lenses with an adapter for telephoto lenses thus minimizing the bending you suggest is necessary.
In fact, Canon could choose to design longer focal length lenses by just adding extra space to the existing EF lens design and the new mount, therefor there is NO disadvantage to the shorter flange distance. ALL advantages point to a new mount with a shorter flange distance.
33
Lenses / Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming
« Last post by Don Haines on July 18, 2018, 08:26:56 PM »

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream.   ::)
A bit of history here...

The EF mount (EF stands for Electro Focus) came out in 1987. The primary design feature of the mount was that all communication to and from the lens be done through serial data streams (thus allowing auto-focus) and that there be no mechanical couplings such as levers... It replaced the FD mount, which had levers and a couple of dedicated pins. FD mount was not conducive to automatic focusing. Canon had realized that it was a dead end, and eventually Nikon also realized that mechanical linkages were passe….

Fast forward to today, where the EF mount is still in primary use.... The mount still works well, but as computing power and data communication speeds have increased, the slow communications between lens and body have started to limit system performance. Canon has patented a new version of this mount which will allow for the negotiation between camera and lens of higher data rates. How this works is you turn on the camera, it sends a query (using the slow EF link speed) to the lens asking what the max supported lens link speed is. If there is no answer (legacy EF glass), then it continues at the EF link speed. If it responds by saying it supports a faster speed, then both switch to that faster speed. We expect to see this very soon, be it on new EF bodies, or if it is a new mount...  Canon has stated that there will be an "elegant" solution with a new mirrorless mount, and the odds are exceptionally high that this will be part of it....


As far as mount size goes, you can make the flange shorter, but as a result the lens will have to bend light from regular and telephoto lenses more, and the result will be more chromatic aberration and there will be more vignetting as a result of the light hitting the sensor at a greater angle. For wide angle lenses, you are better off as there will be less vignetting and less chromatic aberrations.... a classic example of trade-offs... There is no A is better than B, they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. You can not say that the current EF mount is not optimal without acknowledging that whatever any possible new mirrorless mount is, that it will also not be optimal. You can not cherry pick your conditions.

There are very good reasons to keep the existing EF mount, just as there are also very good reasons to create a new mount. A lot of people argue that size is the over-riding criteria, yet when you include fast or long lenses into the system, the system savings are negligible. If you want a small system that is still of good quality, Canon should look at releasing some F5.6 or F6.3 L glass in whatever mount they pick.... That's where the real size savings will come from.
34
Lenses / Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming
« Last post by CanonFanBoy on July 18, 2018, 08:24:45 PM »
Speaking for myself, I'm hoping I'm wrong, that EF will be the standard for years.  But a pro FF body might be as good a justification as any to go with the next generation.

I think a pro body is a far smaller market than the EF picture as a whole. Far smaller. Change everything for one body? Nawwww. But we'll see soon enough.

Mirrorless is the future. Canon is going to redesign and optimize the mount for the new format, just like they did when they introduced EF in the first place. There's no way that they will limit their future by committing mirrorless to an old mount.


Wasn't EF designed to allow for auto-focus? Um... tell me how an EF mount holds Canon back in the mirrorless race? Please? What is it about an EF mount that is incompatible with Canon mirrorless (yet to be announced) cameras?

That's right. Sorry. I forgot that all mirrorless cameras have to be designed like a Sony... because it saves lots of room in the bag.  ::) Not.


Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream.   ::)

1. No, my argument (Not really an argument, but a rational) has nothing to do with my personal desires concerning new lenses. So there's that. I own 41 lenses already. I'm pretty much set. I also own a mirrorless camera and that is the root of my rational. The form factor presently sucks. Bad. Full frame or M43, it sucks.

2. Show me proof that lenses are less expensive to manufacture because they will be closer to the sensor. Some of Sony's lens prices are in the stratosphere compared to present Canon L glass. So there's that one. Saying the lenses will be less expensive is a purely manufactured fantasy on your part. Maybe Sony has something for less, I don't know... but since you brought it up and said it, prove that they cost less because they were built for mirrorless. Where did you get that idea from? A blogger? Vlogger?

3. EF wasn't designed to "optimise" the then current mount for auto-focus. There was no auto-focus. Canon had a reason to change the mount. While Canon may change the mount for mirrorless you cannot show me a reason why Canon must do so for mirrorless unless you, like many others, believe that a new mirrorless camera has to be built like a Sony.

4. My wishful thinking? I have none of that. I won't be going mirrorless so don't have a horse in this race. I put about 2,500 clicks a year on my 5D Mark III and don't shoot video at all. I've have had it for nearly 3 years. It will probably go another 10 years or more. Between now and then I will buy another EF mount DSLR to put away... so I'm probably set for life. There is absolutely nothing mirrorless can offer me above what I already have. If it could, then switching would not be a problem. Money is just money... not near as fun as what one can do with it.

5. Maybe the space saved by eliminating the mirrorbox will be used for heat sinks for really good 4k video instead of an excuse to make an ergonomic nightmare of a camera. A bigger battery would be better too. Mirrorless eats battery power up.

So my thoughts are based upon practicality in the current market atmosphere. EF ain't going away and there is absolutely no reason for it to go away. Mirrorless doesn't have to look like a skinny and awkward to hold Sony. It also doesn't have to leak water or overheat.
35
Lenses / Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Last post by bdbender4 on July 18, 2018, 08:20:01 PM »

One kit you carry with a small camera bag and the other you push around in a wheel barrel! LOL

I'm a wheel barrel type of guy!

Durf, good on ye', now that is funny! And I got rid of my heavy stuff, as I said. Small bag now.

I am still confused by all the Oly stuff, though. 

Am I the only one on this thread with an M5? Canon did a good job with ergonomics on this camera.  Far from perfect, and fewer buttons and dials than a FF Pro DSLR, for sure.  And not enough good lenses yet for a system. But a pleasure to use, at least for me.  I didn't have Oly or Sony, but in my case the M5 booted my Fuji setup out the door.

AND the M5 has another message from the present/future: a really good touch screen setup, that works when you use either eye on the viewfinder.  You can set it up to not nose poke! And now being left-eyed due to fairly recent eye surgery, this is a big deal.
36
EOS Bodies / Re: White Counting at World Cup Final
« Last post by 3kramd5 on July 18, 2018, 07:25:08 PM »

I don't have any meaningful clues how to detect Sonies from that distance.
Some very unusual lens is seen (white, but very strange shape).

It looks like the Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 with the hood on backwards.
.


The camera looks like an a9 as well.
I couldn’t get that specific, but the angular VF hump looks like a Sony mirrorless body. A9 is a reasonable bet.
37
pbd, he was referring to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx8J125s4cg

I too have the 15" 2015 mbp maxed out. This new model should outperform it based on the specs, but in real world use the throttling may notch it down some so I wouldn't see much of a difference.

And then there are posts like this.

https://youtu.be/YCDb9EVlKl0?t=452

Which seem to cast the critics a little shade.
38
Lenses / Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming
« Last post by Etienne on July 18, 2018, 07:02:03 PM »
Speaking for myself, I'm hoping I'm wrong, that EF will be the standard for years.  But a pro FF body might be as good a justification as any to go with the next generation.

I think a pro body is a far smaller market than the EF picture as a whole. Far smaller. Change everything for one body? Nawwww. But we'll see soon enough.

Mirrorless is the future. Canon is going to redesign and optimize the mount for the new format, just like they did when they introduced EF in the first place. There's no way that they will limit their future by committing mirrorless to an old mount.


Wasn't EF designed to allow for auto-focus? Um... tell me how an EF mount holds Canon back in the mirrorless race? Please? What is it about an EF mount that is incompatible with Canon mirrorless (yet to be announced) cameras?

That's right. Sorry. I forgot that all mirrorless cameras have to be designed like a Sony... because it saves lots of room in the bag.  ::) Not.


Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream.   ::)

39
Lenses / Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming
« Last post by CanonFanBoy on July 18, 2018, 06:42:29 PM »
I cannot see how the version II white super teles could be discontinued. I mean they can of course but it will not look very ethical on Canon.

From what I understand, it's standard procedure for Canon to discontinue parts & service for any lens seven years after a new version is released. Nothing to do with ethics, but rather the economics of making & stocking all those old parts.  Having said that, I think ten years would be a bit more reasonable.
If the new versions are not really NEW design like the 70-200 ones then they make new versions as an excuse to stop supporting the current ones. This is HUGE Ethics issue. Now the 70-200 2.8L IS II is a new design of version I. Version III isn't. Hope you can see that!

It's not the case of an "excuse." Like most manufacturers, Canon stops servicing discontinued products once they run out of parts to perform that service. What no one here knows is whether or not the 70-200 III is simply a refresh with new lens coatings and body paint. If that's the case, it's likely that Canon would continue to provide service for the II version for many years if (and that is an important "if") the parts are interchangeable.

Since the new big whites haven't even been released yet, we don't know how different they will be from the existing versions. So speculating about how long they will service the current versions is way premature.

I don't see it as an ethical issue either. You bought the lens, Warranty is over. Eventually Canon decides it is time to move on. You didn't purchase a lifetime service guarantee for that lens and one wasn't offered.
40
Lenses / Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming
« Last post by CanonFanBoy on July 18, 2018, 06:39:29 PM »
Speaking for myself, I'm hoping I'm wrong, that EF will be the standard for years.  But a pro FF body might be as good a justification as any to go with the next generation.

I think a pro body is a far smaller market than the EF picture as a whole. Far smaller. Change everything for one body? Nawwww. But we'll see soon enough.

Mirrorless is the future. Canon is going to redesign and optimize the mount for the new format, just like they did when they introduced EF in the first place. There's no way that they will limit their future by committing mirrorless to an old mount.


Wasn't EF designed to allow for auto-focus? Um... tell me how an EF mount holds Canon back in the mirrorless race? Please? What is it about an EF mount that is incompatible with Canon mirrorless (yet to be announced) cameras?

That's right. Sorry. I forgot that all mirrorless cameras have to be designed like a Sony... because it saves lots of room in the bag.  ::) Not.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 10