April 25, 2018, 06:54:34 PM

Author Topic: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]  (Read 24680 times)

3kramd5

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2001
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #135 on: March 18, 2018, 04:23:21 PM »
AFAIK, that was possible because film behaves differently than digital sensors. Film chemistry will react with light hitting it at any angle, while digital sensors need light to hits close to perpendicular, and that requires more distance between the back element and the sensor.

... all it requires is a little bit more thought and innovative solutions to the design of microlenses over digital imaging sensor. Leica has finally solved it by now (after messing around for about 10 years).

I expect you’re crediting Leica where, if anything, it’s due to CMOSIS.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #135 on: March 18, 2018, 04:23:21 PM »

Rocky

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 820
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #136 on: March 18, 2018, 06:04:52 PM »
Talys, I am just giving you the technical information of the limitation and advantage and of the EF, EF-S and other shorter mounts.  I have not avocatingany new mount yet. As for proffessional lens must be big and large, I will strongly disagree. Have you looked at the Lieca 50/0.95? As for tapppered lens, Canon is just doing that on the 50/1.2.  Which optical book that you have found the term "flange focal distance"?  The only reason why almost all lenses have the rear element recess into its own mount is to protect the rear element. May be Canon should pay Leica royalty to do off-set micro-lens and start building smaller shorter focal length lenses for their FF mirrorless camera and use adapter for the longer EF lenses with the new FF body.

Talys

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Canon 6DII
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #137 on: March 18, 2018, 06:40:01 PM »
Talys, I am just giving you the technical information of the limitation and advantage and of the EF, EF-S and other shorter mounts.  I have not avocatingany new mount yet. As for proffessional lens must be big and large, I will strongly disagree. Have you looked at the Lieca 50/0.95? As for tapppered lens, Canon is just doing that on the 50/1.2.  Which optical book that you have found the term "flange focal distance"?  The only reason why almost all lenses have the rear element recess into its own mount is to protect the rear element. May be Canon should pay Leica royalty to do off-set micro-lens and start building smaller shorter focal length lenses for their FF mirrorless camera and use adapter for the longer EF lenses with the new FF body.

Rocky, I'm not disagreeing with you at all from a technical design perspective.  The truth is that I am absolutely no expert at this, with not even a fraction of the knowledge of many of the regulars of this board.  I don't even have the engineering curiosity to want to learn that.  All I go by is my observations, which don't include Leica lenses other than what I've seen on forums, because I don't have any friends with Leica equipment.

When I posed the question about mount design, I was looking for someone who has more knowledge than me to indicate what Sony is doing wrong, and what Canon could do right, to result in a full frame package where the total size is a significantly smaller, including the most popular zooms and primes that a lot of us own.  It is unhelpful if that includes lenses that are missing things like IS and certainly AF, because this is something that the overwhelming majority of the customer base wants, so I think that Leica is a poor example anyways.  In other words, if you want a Leica, buy a Leica, because nothing else is really like it.

All I have to go on myself is my observations of Canon, Sony, and Nikon lenses, and how the lens + camera package doesn't vary by much.

Also, I didn't say that there weren't ANY professional lenses where the distance between the sensor and the first glass element couldn't be shortened, only that this is the case with most of them, and certainly nearly all of the best-selling pro/enthusiast zooms by every major full frame manufacturer. 

From my (limited) understanding of lens design, the optical formula is the optical formula, and requires a certain distance between the first glass element and the sensor. Unless there is a different formula where that is shortened, any space you take out from between the edge of the mount to the sensor needs to be added back in to the space between the start of the lens and the glass.   My understanding is that the existing optical formulae are pretty good, and while there can be tinkering around the edges, the only really significant innovation to shorten the length of lenses has been diffractive optics, which isn't necessarily useful to all focal lengths, and apparently, can't be done on the cheap.

Finally, regarding the 50/1.2 design.  Yes, it tapers to the mount.  And if you really want to push it, you can say that every superzoom also tapers towards the mount.  My issue isn't with the taper (what do I care what shape the lens is?); it's with the taper interfering with my fingers, because (a) of how quickly it flares out and (b) the positioning of the grip. 

If the camera body designer of the A7/A9 simply added a half inch between the camera mount and grip, I wouldn't care about the taper in that direction.  And if the camera body designer likewise added a half inch vertically so that a part of my wrist didn't bite against the bottom of the camera without a grip, I wouldn't care about that, either.

But that isn't the case: the reason to build a smaller mount (for Sony) was to shrink the camera body in the Alpha to the minimum size possible.  The net effect is that the camera becomes, for me, very uncomfortable -- without having any significant benefits, because all of the small lenses that fit on the 46mm throat with short FFD are not lenses that I want to own.


Rocky

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 820
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #138 on: March 18, 2018, 07:40:43 PM »
Talys, I am just giving you the technical information of the limitation and advantage and of the EF, EF-S and other shorter mounts.  I have not avocatingany new mount yet. As for proffessional lens must be big and large, I will strongly disagree. Have you looked at the Lieca 50/0.95? As for tapppered lens, Canon is just doing that on the 50/1.2.  Which optical book that you have found the term "flange focal distance"?  The only reason why almost all lenses have the rear element recess into its own mount is to protect the rear element. May be Canon should pay Leica royalty to do off-set micro-lens and start building smaller shorter focal length lenses for their FF mirrorless camera and use adapter for the longer EF lenses with the new FF body.

Rocky, I'm not disagreeing with you at all from a technical design perspective.  The truth is that I am absolutely no expert at this, with not even a fraction of the knowledge of many of the regulars of this board.  I don't even have the engineering curiosity to want to learn that.  All I go by is my observations, which don't include Leica lenses other than what I've seen on forums, because I don't have any friends with Leica equipment.

When I posed the question about mount design, I was looking for someone who has more knowledge than me to indicate what Sony is doing wrong, and what Canon could do right, to result in a full frame package where the total size is a significantly smaller, including the most popular zooms and primes that a lot of us own.  It is unhelpful if that includes lenses that are missing things like IS and certainly AF, because this is something that the overwhelming majority of the customer base wants, so I think that Leica is a poor example anyways.  In other words, if you want a Leica, buy a Leica, because nothing else is really like it.

All I have to go on myself is my observations of Canon, Sony, and Nikon lenses, and how the lens + camera package doesn't vary by much.

Also, I didn't say that there weren't ANY professional lenses where the distance between the sensor and the first glass element couldn't be shortened, only that this is the case with most of them, and certainly nearly all of the best-selling pro/enthusiast zooms by every major full frame manufacturer. 

From my (limited) understanding of lens design, the optical formula is the optical formula, and requires a certain distance between the first glass element and the sensor. Unless there is a different formula where that is shortened, any space you take out from between the edge of the mount to the sensor needs to be added back in to the space between the start of the lens and the glass.   My understanding is that the existing optical formulae are pretty good, and while there can be tinkering around the edges, the only really significant innovation to shorten the length of lenses has been diffractive optics, which isn't necessarily useful to all focal lengths, and apparently, can't be done on the cheap.

Finally, regarding the 50/1.2 design.  Yes, it tapers to the mount.  And if you really want to push it, you can say that every superzoom also tapers towards the mount.  My issue isn't with the taper (what do I care what shape the lens is?); it's with the taper interfering with my fingers, because (a) of how quickly it flares out and (b) the positioning of the grip. 

If the camera body designer of the A7/A9 simply added a half inch between the camera mount and grip, I wouldn't care about the taper in that direction.  And if the camera body designer likewise added a half inch vertically so that a part of my wrist didn't bite against the bottom of the camera without a grip, I wouldn't care about that, either.

But that isn't the case: the reason to build a smaller mount (for Sony) was to shrink the camera body in the Alpha to the minimum size possible.  The net effect is that the camera becomes, for me, very uncomfortable -- without having any significant benefits, because all of the small lenses that fit on the 46mm throat with short FFD are not lenses that I want to own.
Canon and Nikon lenses are forced to be big due to the large flange distance. They are not good example either. IS and AF hardly impact the size of the lens. It is evident with the FD, FL and EF are almost the same size, given the same focal length and the same speed. Leica short focal length lenses are smaller due to the short flange distance.

dak723

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 772
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #139 on: March 18, 2018, 07:54:46 PM »
Talys, I am just giving you the technical information of the limitation and advantage and of the EF, EF-S and other shorter mounts.  I have not avocatingany new mount yet. As for proffessional lens must be big and large, I will strongly disagree. Have you looked at the Lieca 50/0.95? As for tapppered lens, Canon is just doing that on the 50/1.2.  Which optical book that you have found the term "flange focal distance"?  The only reason why almost all lenses have the rear element recess into its own mount is to protect the rear element. May be Canon should pay Leica royalty to do off-set micro-lens and start building smaller shorter focal length lenses for their FF mirrorless camera and use adapter for the longer EF lenses with the new FF body.

Rocky, I'm not disagreeing with you at all from a technical design perspective.  The truth is that I am absolutely no expert at this, with not even a fraction of the knowledge of many of the regulars of this board.  I don't even have the engineering curiosity to want to learn that.  All I go by is my observations, which don't include Leica lenses other than what I've seen on forums, because I don't have any friends with Leica equipment.

When I posed the question about mount design, I was looking for someone who has more knowledge than me to indicate what Sony is doing wrong, and what Canon could do right, to result in a full frame package where the total size is a significantly smaller, including the most popular zooms and primes that a lot of us own.  It is unhelpful if that includes lenses that are missing things like IS and certainly AF, because this is something that the overwhelming majority of the customer base wants, so I think that Leica is a poor example anyways.  In other words, if you want a Leica, buy a Leica, because nothing else is really like it.

All I have to go on myself is my observations of Canon, Sony, and Nikon lenses, and how the lens + camera package doesn't vary by much.

Also, I didn't say that there weren't ANY professional lenses where the distance between the sensor and the first glass element couldn't be shortened, only that this is the case with most of them, and certainly nearly all of the best-selling pro/enthusiast zooms by every major full frame manufacturer. 

From my (limited) understanding of lens design, the optical formula is the optical formula, and requires a certain distance between the first glass element and the sensor. Unless there is a different formula where that is shortened, any space you take out from between the edge of the mount to the sensor needs to be added back in to the space between the start of the lens and the glass.   My understanding is that the existing optical formulae are pretty good, and while there can be tinkering around the edges, the only really significant innovation to shorten the length of lenses has been diffractive optics, which isn't necessarily useful to all focal lengths, and apparently, can't be done on the cheap.

Finally, regarding the 50/1.2 design.  Yes, it tapers to the mount.  And if you really want to push it, you can say that every superzoom also tapers towards the mount.  My issue isn't with the taper (what do I care what shape the lens is?); it's with the taper interfering with my fingers, because (a) of how quickly it flares out and (b) the positioning of the grip. 

If the camera body designer of the A7/A9 simply added a half inch between the camera mount and grip, I wouldn't care about the taper in that direction.  And if the camera body designer likewise added a half inch vertically so that a part of my wrist didn't bite against the bottom of the camera without a grip, I wouldn't care about that, either.

But that isn't the case: the reason to build a smaller mount (for Sony) was to shrink the camera body in the Alpha to the minimum size possible.  The net effect is that the camera becomes, for me, very uncomfortable -- without having any significant benefits, because all of the small lenses that fit on the 46mm throat with short FFD are not lenses that I want to own.
Canon and Nikon lenses are forced to be big due to the large flange distance. They are not good example either. IS and AF hardly impact the size of the lens. It is evident with the FD, FL and EF are almost the same size, given the same focal length and the same speed. Leica short focal length lenses are smaller due to the short flange distance.

The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.  Bigger than Canon and Nikon because they need to add distance at the end of the lens due to having a too sharp angle of the light reaching the outer portions of the sensor.  There have been numerous patents from Canon and Sony (and probably others) to create curved sensors and other solutions to have the light reach the outer portions of the sensor at a better angle.  If they are successful, then perhaps we will see some smaller lenses, but probably not until then.  Unless Leica makes them and you are willing to pay big $$$.

3kramd5

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2001
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #140 on: March 18, 2018, 08:45:27 PM »
The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.

Do you know that for a fact, or is it just supposition?

What of the throat diameter? It seems that both pieces of geometry affect the incident angle.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6760
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #141 on: March 18, 2018, 09:06:12 PM »
The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.

Do you know that for a fact, or is it just supposition?

What of the throat diameter? It seems that both pieces of geometry affect the incident angle.

One can not compare apples to oranges.... Determining effect of mount on lens length, when you are talking different lens designs, different years, and different manufactures is, to say the least, non deterministic.....

Control the variables! Look at the Tamron 70-300.... Same optical formula for the Canon, Nikon, and Sony mount.... same length of lens....
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #141 on: March 18, 2018, 09:06:12 PM »

3kramd5

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2001
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #142 on: March 18, 2018, 09:19:51 PM »
The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.

Do you know that for a fact, or is it just supposition?

What of the throat diameter? It seems that both pieces of geometry affect the incident angle.

One can not compare apples to oranges.... Determining effect of mount on lens length, when you are talking different lens designs, different years, and different manufactures is, to say the least, non deterministic.....


I agree.


Quote
Control the variables! Look at the Tamron 70-300.... Same optical formula for the Canon, Nikon, and Sony mount.... same length of lens....

You didn’t control the variables affecting optical formula, you eliminated them  ;D

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6760
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #143 on: March 18, 2018, 09:48:43 PM »
The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.

Do you know that for a fact, or is it just supposition?

What of the throat diameter? It seems that both pieces of geometry affect the incident angle.

One can not compare apples to oranges.... Determining effect of mount on lens length, when you are talking different lens designs, different years, and different manufactures is, to say the least, non deterministic.....


I agree.


Quote
Control the variables! Look at the Tamron 70-300.... Same optical formula for the Canon, Nikon, and Sony mount.... same length of lens....

You didn’t control the variables affecting optical formula, you eliminated them  ;D

I figured that the thing to do was to find a lens that could be mounted on all three bodies, and that meant tamron, as Sigma lists Sony months as “future”  othe bthat I looked at. What I think they have done is to keep most of the lens the same, but to vary the last group to focus on the flange distance for that particular mount....
The best camera is the one in your hands

dak723

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 772
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #144 on: March 18, 2018, 10:44:35 PM »
The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.

Do you know that for a fact, or is it just supposition?


I am not an optical engineer, so I suppose it is supposition.  Others are making the same suppositions...

https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

http://ilovehatephoto.com/2015/02/23/3-detailed-reasons-not-to-switch-to-sony-full-frame-mirrorless-system/

Yes, the articles are a couple years old, but I don't believe that the problems associated with a short flange distance have been adequately solved yet.  My own experience with both the Sony A7 and A7 Ii was that the corner performance was noticeably poor with their kit 28-70 zoom (I tried 2 different copies).  Using a Canon lens with the adapter to create the longer Canon flange distance gave noticeably better results.  This was not a scientific test as I used different lenses, but the Canon lens was an old 28-70 (non-L) lens from the 1980's.

It should be noted that the 18mm flange distance for the APS-C Canon M cameras has difficulties as well as many of the M lenses exhibit some of the worst vignetting that some of the lens testing sites have ever seen.  Shortening the flange distance and creating a greater angle for the light to hit the sensor seems to create problems.  I would say that that is fact.

Talys

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Canon 6DII
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #145 on: March 19, 2018, 12:13:39 AM »
The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.

Do you know that for a fact, or is it just supposition?


I am not an optical engineer, so I suppose it is supposition.  Others are making the same suppositions...


It is not supposition to say that given an optical formula, the focal point is a fixed distance from the last glass element, and that you can't change that distance without changing the optical formula.  I mean, that's a fact.  It's physics.

It's not absolute that every pro Sony lens is bigger than every Canon lens. Obviously this isn't so.  But many of them are this way, including really important ones that are core pro zooms, such as 24-70/2.8.  At the end of the day, a whole bunch of random, pro Sony lenses will have a total length greater than the same Canons.

More pertinent to the question is that the difference in flange focal distance between E mount and EF mount is totally irrelevant in the context of the total camera size, when it comes to the vast majority of professional lenses.  Because at the end of the day, what is 1 centimeter, when a 24-70/2.8 is 11cm (canon) - 13cm (sony)?  Does anyone really care THAT much?

A dramatic savings in size would be instead a 70mm long lens with a maximum diameter of 50mm that's 24-70 f/2.8.  If that were possible, I'd absolutely be interested in a much smaller body size that was balanced with that.

Anyways, the photo below is not supposition.

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6760
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #146 on: March 19, 2018, 12:57:26 AM »
canon, Sony, Nikon, whoever......

They can design a lens to be shorter, but at the cost of optical performance. One of the reasons for going FF is superior image quality, so why would any of the major players compromise?

For those who value compactness higher, there are crop cameras....
The best camera is the one in your hands

Talys

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Canon 6DII
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #147 on: March 19, 2018, 01:36:44 AM »
canon, Sony, Nikon, whoever......

They can design a lens to be shorter, but at the cost of optical performance. One of the reasons for going FF is superior image quality, so why would any of the major players compromise?

For those who value compactness higher, there are crop cameras....

Bingo!!!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with an APS-C body.  If you want a smaller camera+body package... why not buy one of those? :D 

It just makes so much more sense to me, and it is the primary reason that I can't understand the obsession over "I want a full frame mirrorless and I want it to be tiny".

Even putting quality aside, I don't think it's possible to have large aperture and a large focal range without having a large range -- because after all, you need to let in all that light.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #147 on: March 19, 2018, 01:36:44 AM »

Talys

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Canon 6DII
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #148 on: March 19, 2018, 02:03:50 AM »
Relevant to this topic is an interview posted on DPR:

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1807023531/canon-interview-increased-competition-allows-us-to-level-up

Some interesting tidbits below.  I find it interesting that Canon thinks that viewfinder and autofocus are two stumbling blocks transitioning from DSLR to mirrorless, and this is exactly what I feel after giving the A7R3 a go.  The EVF is wonderful, but not quite there.  And the autofocus is very good, but also, not quite there in some circumstances.

Also, they said no 4k DPAF in M50 because of price point.  And new professional camera for Tokyo 2020 (and by that, I'm sure they mean 1D series, since 5D is referred to as an enthusiast camera in the same article).

The whole thing is worth a read.

Quote
How important is it for Canon to add higher-end mirrorless products to your lineup?

At Canon we have what’s called a ‘full lineup strategy’. This means that we want to satisfy all of the demands in the market, so we have mirrorless and also DSLR, which combined makes an EOS hierarchy. We want to fill the gaps to satisfy customer demands across the board.

The new M50 is an entry-level model, because that’s where the high-volume sales are. We want to establish ourselves in this market, and then move forward [from there]. In accordance with the full lineup strategy, we will be tackling [the mid-range and high-end mirrorless market] going forward.


In the past, you’ve said that you won’t introduce a high-end mirrorless product until there would be no compromises compared to DSLR technology. Are we getting close?

In the EOS hierarchy we have cameras from entry-level to professional with different features. When it comes to mirrorless cameras, we have entry-level models, and we’ve just about started on the mid-range class. What that tells you is that Canon is confident about mirrorless technology within this range of products.

But if you look at the enthusiast and high-end product class, in terms of both autofocus and viewfinder [experience], we still believe there’s some work to be done before we can achieve the level of satisfaction that our users are looking for before they could confidently move from DSLR to mirrorless. That’s where we are right now. We’re still on the path to development.

Clearly, the transition to mirrorless will be a big challenge, technically. When you look ahead to further mirrorless development, are you envisaging a new lens system?

It’s been more than 30 years since we launched our EF lens mount, and we’ve sold more than 130 million EF lenses during that time, so we can’t simply ignore that many lenses in the market. At the same time, when we look at trends in mirrorless technology, we’re considering the technical advancements that are possible. It’s a difficult question to answer, but maybe let your imagination suggest some possibilities!


The move from FD to EF in 1987 was bold but also controversial given the legacy of FD lenses and the lack of compatibility between the two platforms. Do you think that situation will happen again?

That’s a difficult question to answer. There was a lot of discussion and debate about that shift, in 1987, and we’re going through the same thing now. We want to nurture and support our [existing] EF customers and we’re in discussion about that at the moment.

Because we’re already using an electronic interface, the shift will be more gradual [than it was in 1987] so [we would better able to] maintain compatibility.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2018, 02:09:44 AM by Talys »

AvTvM

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3165
Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #149 on: March 19, 2018, 04:59:40 AM »
So the EF mount(44 mm flange) is a "Blessing In the sky" for Canon to minimize the effect of incident angle. EF-S lense take advantage of the smaller mirror of the APS-C camera. The EF-S lenses get deeper into the camera body to allow easier lens design

often quoted, but not true. Or only true "in theory". In practice, Canon has not bothered to produce a single EF-S lens that protrudes into the mirror box! Not even the EF-S 11-22, much less so any other EF-S lens.

EF-mount parameters were perfectly chosen by Canon (back in in 1987) and are perfectly suited for FF mirrorslappers, no discussion at all. It was the cornerstone for Canon to take market leadership back from Nikon (and their outdated, not so well chosen 1950's F-mount ... with its ridiculously narrow throat width).

But EF-mount is definitely not the best solution for digital mirrorless FF camera systems. Only a shorter FFD will allow full leverage of mirrorless concept, including but not limited to very compact camera and lenses in the most frequently used focal length range ... with extremely high IQ. 

Sony has gotten FF mirrorless mount (FE) wrong. They made the mistake of pressing E-mount, which [like Canon EF-M] was designed for APS-C image circle only into forced FF-service [then called FE mount]. As a result of this [too narrow throat width coupled with slightly too short FFD] they are faced with severe limitations to lens design. This makes their FE lenses way more complex, way fatter and way more expensive than for a "really right" mirrorless FF mount.

Not even i think Canon will be "so stupid" to repeat Sony's FE mistake. :-)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]
« Reply #149 on: March 19, 2018, 04:59:40 AM »