July 22, 2018, 02:39:33 PM

Poll

Presuming the FF mirrorless mount is thinner than EF, how many new mount lenses will eventually get made?

Very, very few lenses:  just the 2-4 lenses that maximize size savings (35 f/2.8, pancakes, etc.) -- everything else requires the EF adaptor
9 (15.3%)
A small number of standard options (e.g. standard zoom, wide zoom, a few primes, perhaps a macro)
12 (20.3%)
A decent spread but nothing exotic or fast (similar to what we have on EOS M today)
7 (11.9%)
Same as Option 3 (similar to EOS M) but with a few staple pro/fast zooms and primes added
13 (22%)
The core of EF high runner lenses (or similar) will be offered in the new mount
5 (8.5%)
Almost all of EF will be remade in the new mount, save perhaps the ancient/exotic/nutty ones
13 (22%)

Total Members Voted: 59

Voting closed: July 17, 2018, 12:08:57 PM

Author Topic: FF Mirrorless Poll: if new mount is thin, how many new lenses will we see?  (Read 3752 times)

fullstop

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
should not "2 electrical contacts/pins suffice? for anything? with the right lens mount/communications protocol? ;-)

with DP-AF sensors and position/orientation/acceleration sensors, Canon cameras should have all needed information to totally AI-analyze a scene in CPU/s? including distance information for every single pixel!

future EF-X lenses could be built "fairly dumb"? all thats really needed is "move AF element/s forwards or backwards by X amount"?

plus possibly power zoom (surely a horrible thought for many fellow forum dwellers who already cringe with focus by wire) - "move element/s forward/backwards by x amount".

only in-lens IS might require more real-time data transfer/bandwidth than easily possible. no?

but it could also be done with multiple pins as in today's EF lenses. yes? :-)

canon rumors FORUM


Kit.

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
should not "2 electrical contacts/pins suffice? for anything? with the right lens mount/communications protocol? ;-)
That would be expensive or unreliable. In practice, you need at least 4 (ground, power, rx, tx).

with DP-AF sensors and position/orientation/acceleration sensors, Canon cameras should have all needed information to totally AI-analyze a scene in CPU/s? including distance information for every single pixel!
No, it also needs information about the lens.

And unsharp image is unsharp image, dual pixel or not.

fullstop

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 522
ok, thx! So 4 contacts, fine! Still a potential 50% saving on current # of pins. LOL  ;D


re. "lens info", yes camera needs basic lens info - but that's static data, maybe 1 Byte? Actually even a unique lens code should suffice? Effectively hindering 3rd party mfgs to "spoof" Canon lens codes with their own products might be a bit more complex. :-)

Do lenses really need "any intelligence built in" at all? Could it not all be handled by camera, that just needs to send simple commands to lens' aperture/iris, AF drive, IS system [if built in] and zoom position [if zoom lens]? "Actuator" move element/s X in direction positive or negative Z by amount x, do it now, do it fast, report back, verify, closed loop? 

I would prefer all the AI / command center and user controls over it in camera body and lenses as simple as possible [including no lens rings, no manual focus facility at all, but very robust and IP67 sealed] and less expensive. I only buy/own 1 camera [at a time], but multiple lenses. Same line of thinking why I prefer to have FF sensor in camera and more compact and economical, slower aperture lenses instead of crop sensor and faster, more complex and expensive lenses [e.g. f/2.0 instead of f/1.4 primes or f/4 zooms instead of f/2.8]. :-)

Kit.

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
ok, thx! So 4 contacts, fine! Still a potential 50% saving on current # of pins. LOL  ;D
Canon uses different motor and digital power and ground contacts, which makes digital less noisy. It also has a separate camera-driven clock line, which historically was making the electronics slightly cheaper.

Then, there are separate pins to detect the presence of teleconverters.

re. "lens info", yes camera needs basic lens info - but that's static data, maybe 1 Byte? Actually even a unique lens code should suffice? Effectively hindering 3rd party mfgs to "spoof" Canon lens codes with their own products might be a bit more complex. :-)
The current approach seems to store more info about individual parameters of the lenses (measured at the test bench). Anyway, making newer lenses incompatible with older cameras just because of the protocol is not a solid business idea for Canon, because it would definitely decrease its customer loyalty.

Do lenses really need "any intelligence built in" at all? Could it not all be handled by camera,
Ideally, the lenses should be able to report what they are and where they are. The rest is possible to be done in the camera, if the camera and the lens share that same model of "what and where".

I would prefer all the AI / command center and user controls over it in camera body and lenses as simple as possible [including no lens rings, no manual focus facility at all, but very robust and IP67 sealed] and less expensive.
That's basically saying "I don't want to be able to meaningfully use telezooms".

USsp40uk

  • Canonflex
  • *
  • Posts: 2
If they have new lenes my name for the new lenses EF-M(L) as follows:

new M-EF M(L) adapter
35mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.4
200mm f/4
400mm f/4
10-22mm f/2.8
16-35mm f/4
70-200mm f/4-5.6
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6

Some new and improved M lenses.

Antono Refa

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 600
If they have new lenes my name for the new lenses EF-M(L) as follows:

new M-EF M(L) adapter
35mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.4
200mm f/4
400mm f/4
10-22mm f/2.8
16-35mm f/4
70-200mm f/4-5.6
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6

Some new and improved M lenses.

Mirrorless (= short flange distance) FF allows size reduction only for wide (= focal length shorter than FF diagonal) & slow lenses.

That means most of those lenses will be as big as equivalent DSLR versions, probably longer by flange distance difference.

As example, the ultra wide zoom for EOS-M (crop sensor) isn't the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. It's the 1/3rd stop slower & 1mm longer on the wide side, Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6.

Therefore I wouldn't expect 35mm f/1.2 & 10-22mm f/2.8 either.

The smaller 16-35mm f/4 is likely, though.

Hector1970

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 804
    • Flickr
It will have a brilliant 50 1.2 that weighs 2KG

canon rumors FORUM


dickgrafixstop

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 354
Whatever the new camera is, it had better use EF lenses elegantly. If it requires an adapter, the implementation had better be transparent.   If it requires a complete abandonment of EF, then the door is open to switch to anything else.  The FD to EF "upgrade" came with a significant advantage - autofocus.  The EF to "whatever" change would appear to offer nothing as compelling - not significant size/weight reduction, improved image quality or anything else.  Canon is a great brand but photographers are a fickle bunch - witness the number of "why I'm switching" videos posted on-line, significantly improved third party lenses being adopted and the impatience even this forum shows.

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 7233
  • USM > STM
Whatever the new camera is, it had better use EF lenses elegantly. If it requires an adapter, the implementation had better be transparent.   If it requires a complete abandonment of EF, then the door is open to switch to anything else.  The FD to EF "upgrade" came with a significant advantage - autofocus.  The EF to "whatever" change would appear to offer nothing as compelling - not significant size/weight reduction, improved image quality or anything else.  Canon is a great brand but photographers are a fickle bunch - witness the number of "why I'm switching" videos posted on-line, significantly improved third party lenses being adopted and the impatience even this forum shows.

Why on earth would Canon make EF not work with this platform? 

As for what a new mount enables lens design-wise, other than size (specifically the ability to build a handful of lens + body combinations that are tinier than their FF SLR counterparts), we do not know.  Advanced communication to the mount, better IS, smoother video pulls, next-gen Nano USM with the ability to have a stills (fast) and video (steady pulls) mode, who knows?
 
- A

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2246
  • Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.
Whatever the new camera is, it had better use EF lenses elegantly. If it requires an adapter, the implementation had better be transparent.   If it requires a complete abandonment of EF, then the door is open to switch to anything else.  The FD to EF "upgrade" came with a significant advantage - autofocus.  The EF to "whatever" change would appear to offer nothing as compelling - not significant size/weight reduction, improved image quality or anything else.  Canon is a great brand but photographers are a fickle bunch - witness the number of "why I'm switching" videos posted on-line, significantly improved third party lenses being adopted and the impatience even this forum shows.

How many "why I am switching" youtube videos are there... 100? 1000? Clicks = $$$ Controversy = more $$$$$ People switch, almost switch (some videos titled that), and switch back. Then there's the "Should I switch" "should you switch" and should we all switch" crowds. Some are sponsored switches. I don't think there is any great avalanche of switching significance either way. Heck, I've owned 12 different car brands. My likelihood of switching camera brands is zero. This forum? Several have threatened to switch for years. Never do. Some have switched and stayed. Some have switched back.

The CR forum population is filled with all kinds, but seems to be mostly filled with top end gear sort of guys... far less likely to switch (in my opinion) than the more fluid Rebel owners.

Then there's the troll or two that probably don't own what they pretend to own. That's just part of being a troll.

I think the new camera will take EF lenses without any kind of adapter. I'm as right or wrong as anyone else. We'll see soon. If an adapter is needed? Oh well. Not the end of the world. Canon will get it right either way.
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 36x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

stevelee

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 666
I have quit buying Oldsmobiles.

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2246
  • Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.
I have quit buying Oldsmobiles.

Plymouth is doomed!
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 36x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

Talys

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1707
  • Canon 6DII
I have quit buying Oldsmobiles.

Plymouth is doomed!


I quit buying Fords, and look, they stopped making cars.  :D

canon rumors FORUM


stevelee

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 666
 ;D

BillB

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 651
# votes for first and second choices:  9 +12 = 21

# votes for third and fourth choices:  7 + 13 = 20

# votes for fifth and sixth choices:  5 + 13 = 18

spread pretty equally across board

canon rumors FORUM