July 21, 2018, 06:03:49 AM

Author Topic: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development  (Read 32116 times)

Mikehit

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2632
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #180 on: April 16, 2018, 09:29:14 AM »
Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the  f value means and how it is calculated?

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.

So if they had chosen the right mount (whatever that is) how much saving in size/weight do you predict if they had done it 'properly'? Let's work on a 16-50 (approx) f2.8 as a start.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #180 on: April 16, 2018, 09:29:14 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22829
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #181 on: April 16, 2018, 09:54:05 AM »
Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the  f value means and how it is calculated?

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.

So if they had chosen the right mount (whatever that is) how much saving in size/weight do you predict if they had done it 'properly'? Let's work on a 16-50 (approx) f2.8 as a start.

With a really right mount, a 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom lens would be 3 cm long, 5 cm in diameter, and have no moving parts.  And be optically perfect.  Because that's how physics works in the AvTvM Universe.   

And cost less than €100.  Because that's how business works in the AvTvM Universe. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AvTvM

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3165
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #182 on: April 16, 2018, 10:21:15 AM »
Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the  f value means and how it is calculated?

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.

So if they had chosen the right mount (whatever that is) how much saving in size/weight do you predict if they had done it 'properly'? Let's work on a 16-50 (approx) f2.8 as a start.

nope, I don't look at a white-unicorn 16-50/2.8 for a mirrorless FF camera. I look at a 16-35/4 and at a 24-70/4.0 ... and at a 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 ... all of those could be really compact, optically very good and comparatively "inexpensive". 

"really right" mount for mirrorless FF? My guess (!) based on comparing specs for various camera systems and mount parameter combinations:
Throat width: open diameter as big as possible
FFD ... probably around 22-25 mm
would be good, allow for compact camera bodies and compact lenses with decent IQ ... and big camera bodies + big lenses are also possible ... no problem.  :-)

AvTvM

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3165
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #183 on: April 16, 2018, 10:25:57 AM »
Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the  f value means and how it is calculated?

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.

So if they had chosen the right mount (whatever that is) how much saving in size/weight do you predict if they had done it 'properly'? Let's work on a 16-50 (approx) f2.8 as a start.

With a really right mount, a 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom lens would be 3 cm long, 5 cm in diameter, and have no moving parts.  And be optically perfect.  Because that's how physics works in the AvTvM Universe.   

And cost less than €100.  Because that's how business works in the AvTvM Universe.


No. A 16-50/2.8 lens for mirrorless FF was "Mikehit universe".

I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ... :-)

Mikehit

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2632
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #184 on: April 16, 2018, 10:55:34 AM »


nope, I don't look at a white-unicorn 16-50/2.8 for a mirrorless FF camera. I look at a 16-35/4 and at a 24-70/4.0 ... and at a 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 ... all of those could be really compact, optically very good and comparatively "inexpensive". 

"really right" mount for mirrorless FF? My guess (!) based on comparing specs for various camera systems and mount parameter combinations:
Throat width: open diameter as big as possible
FFD ... probably around 22-25 mm
would be good, allow for compact camera bodies and compact lenses with decent IQ ... and big camera bodies + big lenses are also possible ... no problem.  :-)

So tell me, what approx size/weight would your lenses be.
16-35/4
24-70/4.0
24/2.8
35/2.0
50/1.8
85/2.4

Because 'really compact' and 'comparatively inexpensive' are so bland as to be meaningless. You are the one making statements about how everyone is doing it wrong which means you have an idea of what they should be achieving.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22829
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #185 on: April 16, 2018, 11:02:56 AM »
I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ... :-)

Then you should already be happy.  The Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a 22% lower volume than the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS, the Sony is 28% lighter than the Canon, the IQ is comparable, and you can get a new Sony FE 24-70/4 on the gray market for $900. 

Given that the lens you want actually exists, why haven't you bought one?  Oh, and please explain how your earlier statement, "*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount," makes sense in light of the size comparison of the Sony vs. Canon 24-70mm f/4 lenses. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

BillB

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 644
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #186 on: April 16, 2018, 11:16:52 AM »


*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.
[/quote]

It seems to me that for some lens designs, minimum size and weight might be achieved with the EF, the FE, or your magic mount parameters, i.e. designs with longer minimum focal lengths.  (call them Class A).  Then there may be lens designs where minimum size and weight can be achieved using FE or your lens mount parameters, but not EF mount parameters i.e those in which the EF mount requires designs with a size and weight penalty (such as retrofocal designs) but the FE mount and your mount do not (call them Class B). There may also be lens designs where your mount parameters could avoid designs with a size and weight penalty that would be required by the EF and FE mounts. (Class C).

So why are you saying that the only usable lens designs are Class C designs?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #186 on: April 16, 2018, 11:16:52 AM »

stevelee

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 661
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #187 on: April 16, 2018, 11:42:20 AM »
Spassky, another great player, from a somewhat later era, said that if your opponent makes a mistake, often it is best to give him the chance to make another one.

Occasionally I find myself at the end of a bridge hand with one losing card too many. I could admit defeat and throw in the hand, but usually I will just play it out and hope that an opponent will throw away the wrong card toward the end, so I give the opponents that opportunity. What is obvious about the hand from my perspective is more ambiguous from the view of a defender.

BillB

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 644
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #188 on: April 16, 2018, 11:46:44 AM »
I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ... :-)

Then you should already be happy.  The Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a 22% lower volume than the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS, the Sony is 28% lighter than the Canon, the IQ is comparable, and you can get a new Sony FE 24-70/4 on the gray market for $900. 

Given that the lens you want actually exists, why haven't you bought one?  Oh, and please explain how your earlier statement, "*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount," makes sense in light of the size comparison of the Sony vs. Canon 24-70mm f/4 lenses.

Might be a good idea to check the Sony 24-70 on Photozone before picking one up though.  .

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22829
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #189 on: April 16, 2018, 11:58:42 AM »
Might be a good idea to check the Sony 24-70 on Photozone before picking one up though.  .

I've used one on an a7RII, and I found it to be a decent lens.  It's not quite up to my 24-70/2.8L II, but neither is the Canon 24-70/4.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Jack Douglas

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5402
  • http://www.gohaidagwaii.ca/blog/eagle-photography-
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #190 on: April 16, 2018, 05:25:21 PM »
Sometimes I get the feeling that Dilbert is still posting. ;)

Jack
1DX2   11-24 F4   24-70 F4   70-200 F2.8 II   300 F2.8 II   1.4X III   2X III   400 DO F4 II 

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/profile/647784/

AvTvM

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3165
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #191 on: April 16, 2018, 07:16:37 PM »
I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ... :-)

Then you should already be happy.  The Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a 22% lower volume than the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS, the Sony is 28% lighter than the Canon, the IQ is comparable, and you can get a new Sony FE 24-70/4 on the gray market for $900. 

Given that the lens you want actually exists, why haven't you bought one?  Oh, and please explain how your earlier statement, "*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount," makes sense in light of the size comparison of the Sony vs. Canon 24-70mm f/4 lenses.

nope. Sony 24-70/4 is a bit longer than Canon EF 24-70. But its gotta be shorter on a proper mirrorless mount.

Talys

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1706
  • Canon 6DII
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #192 on: April 16, 2018, 08:45:26 PM »
I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ... :-)

Then you should already be happy.  The Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a 22% lower volume than the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS, the Sony is 28% lighter than the Canon, the IQ is comparable, and you can get a new Sony FE 24-70/4 on the gray market for $900. 

Given that the lens you want actually exists, why haven't you bought one?  Oh, and please explain how your earlier statement, "*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount," makes sense in light of the size comparison of the Sony vs. Canon 24-70mm f/4 lenses.

nope. Sony 24-70/4 is a bit longer than Canon EF 24-70. But its gotta be shorter on a proper mirrorless mount.

If you take the lens caps off, they are almost identical in length, so much so that the difference just becomes whether you're measuring to the mount or contacts, as the two lenses are recessed differently.

If that matters, you're being silly, because the only size that should matter is the total camera size, and most certainly the Sony is (and feels) smaller. Once you get to 2.8, though, the Sony is much longer (about an inch?) and more importantly, it kind of feels awkward on the Sony body, in my opinion (and does not feel any smaller) 

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone I'd going to build your unicorn, but based on your prolific posting, Canon will probably not build anything closer to what you want than what Sony already has, certainly not within the near future.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 08:52:21 PM by Talys »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #192 on: April 16, 2018, 08:45:26 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22829
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #193 on: April 16, 2018, 09:10:19 PM »
Even if Canon builds his unicorn, he'll just move the goalposts and keep on bitching and complaining.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Kit Lens Jockey

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #194 on: April 16, 2018, 09:18:14 PM »
So anyway, is this camera going to have sensor image stabilization when it finally comes out, or what? One of the biggest features that has me eyeing up an A7 III is its ability to turn all of my lenses into IS lenses.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development
« Reply #194 on: April 16, 2018, 09:18:14 PM »