Is there any reason EF mount lenses couldn't fit mirrorless cameras?

[ScottyP]

1.)  Assuming that a manufacturer wanted to make them work, and was not hoping instead to sell 2x as many lenses (or to make a smaller body), is there any reason a mirrorless camera body couldn't use everyone's nice, expensive, existing "L" glass?  I mean, is there any basic mechanical/operational difference necessary for a mirrorless lens vs. a traditional lens? 

2.)  If there is no difference, do you think Canon will nevertheless choose to make new mirrorless bodies incompatible with EF lenses?

[neuroanatomist]

They'll work.  Canon has already patented what looks to be an EF-to-mirrorless adapter.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As noted, you could use the patented adapter.  Of course, Canon could make a mirrorless camera that used them, but the camera could not be any smaller, which is one of the appealing things about a mirrirless camera.  The EF and EF-s lenses are designed for a fixed distance from the lens mount to the sensor, while mirrorless bodies often have about 1/2 that distance which makes a camera body much thinner.  They often also have a smaller sensor, so the lens diameter is smaller.  All this adds up to a much smaller camera body.  But, you will be able to adapt a EF lens.  This is a huge advantage for Canon, since they have a huge number of excellent lenses available, and specialized smaller lenses will be likely limited to three or maybe four at the start.

[Jettatore]

One thing to note here, is that for any infant system to have it's best shot at thriving, it should be built from scratch without any compromises or hindrances of compatibility to an older system.  One thing that appears in Leica's marketing mumbo jumbo is how they didn't compromise the M system because the camera was completely blah blah blah, here read it yourself..

"The 18-megapixel CCD image sensor, specifically designed and developed for this camera, enables the capture of the full 35-mm film format without any compromises. All M lenses mounted on the M9 or M9-P offer the same angle of view they had when using film material. This means that the high resolution and unique imaging quality of the now-digital M9 and M9-P are capable of fully exploiting the enormous potentials of M lenses. Or, in other words: in the case of the M9 and M9-P, it wasn't a matter of modifying the lenses to match the image sensor, but rather the other way around. This results in images particularly rich in details. Natural. Authentic. Without compromise."

So, in theory, to be even less without compromise, a mirrorless format might do well to be completely designed around new lenses and bodies without any consideration to compatibility to the EF or EFS mounts.  This would probably be wise weather Canon goes for FF or for a crop variation because EF lenses in particular dwarf those of FF Leica or crop micro 4/3rds and crop Nikon 1 series mirrorless efforts.  There is also to date (but this won't hold forever with new in camera softwares) no great reasons other than ultra small sizes and weights to go fully mirrorless.  So compatibility with large and or heavy lenses should be IMO the absolute last thing on Canon's list if they choose to enter this market.  Could you imagine hooking up a 24-70L to a small micro 4/3rds system or a Nikon 1 body, or even a Lieca, it would be a disaster.

[Rocky]

One thing to note here, is that for any infant system to have it's best shot at thriving, it should be built from scratch without any compromises or hindrances of compatibility to an older system.  One thing that appears in Leica's marketing mumbo jumbo is how they didn't compromise the M system because the camera was completely blah blah blah, here read it yourself..

"The 18-megapixel CCD image sensor, specifically designed and developed for this camera, enables the capture of the full 35-mm film format without any compromises. All M lenses mounted on the M9 or M9-P offer the same angle of view they had when using film material. This means that the high resolution and unique imaging quality of the now-digital M9 and M9-P are capable of fully exploiting the enormous potentials of M lenses. Or, in other words: in the case of the M9 and M9-P, it wasn't a matter of modifying the lenses to match the image sensor, but rather the other way around. This results in images particularly rich in details. Natural. Authentic. Without compromise."

You have totally misunderstood The Leica statement.  Leica M lenses are of 27.8 mm back focus fringe distance. Some lenses also have element that are pushed into the lens mount.  Traditional film does not care about the incident angle of the light ray. CCD and CMOS sensor like to have incident angle as close to 90 deg as possible. Some Leica lenses has incident angle less than 45deg.  In order to be able to use existing lenses., Leica have to have offset micro lenses. That is what Leica mean" to tailor the body to the lenses". It is not a compromise. It is a technical break through. If Leica does not take this approach, the alternative will be increase the fringe distance of the camera and start to build the lenses that is based on SLR.  that will make everything a lot bigger. There is nothing wrong on the existing approach. It keep the body small and all the Leica lenses are still usable.
In fact, Every body in the DSLR business does not make new lenses for the DSLR. They just use the existing 35mm film lenses. The EF-S lenses exist in due to cost cutting mainly (in some occasion is due to the need of wide angle lenses) We do not have EF-S lenses until in the pass few years. and EF-S has been in existance for  more than 25 years.

[Jettatore]

Your response to mine doesn't make any sense Rocky, I'm not talking about your technical explanation either, I'm talking about your logic.

1. Leica states clearly, what they meant, and I didn't mis-interpret anything. 

"All M lenses mounted on the M9 or M9-P offer the same angle of view they had when using film material......   ....M9 and M9-P are capable of fully exploiting the enormous potentials of M lenses. Or, in other words: in the case of the M9 and M9-P, it wasn't a matter of modifying the lenses to match the image sensor, but rather the other way around."

2. They had a good system for film, and they made a digital body to perfectly match that classic lens system.

3. To get a new, digital, mirror-less (possibly not rangefinder) system even smaller.  It might be better to re-design both the lenses and the body, and not just the body as in the above Leica example....

That's all I said, and while I think your technical explanation was sort of out of left field it was interesting and worth reading none the less.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Couldn't Canon make a mirrorless camera with EF mount and a shorter flange distance?

Lenses for the mirrorless camera would not focus on other cameras with EF mount, so some special designation like EF-ML would be required, but regular EF & EF-S lenses would mount using an extension tube with contacts.

[Hillsilly]

Yes - Would seem like a smart idea to base it around the 25mm extension tube.

[preppyak]

Couldn't Canon make a mirrorless camera with EF mount and a shorter flange distance?

Lenses for the mirrorless camera would not focus on other cameras with EF mount, so some special designation like EF-ML would be required, but regular EF & EF-S lenses would mount using an extension tube with contacts.

But why make it EF mount at all then, since an EF adapter is basically just an extension tube. I mean, look at the patent, it's an extension tube with electrical contacts



The only reason to make it EF mount would be so people could use EF lenses right away with no adapter...once you add anything between the lens and the camera, you might as well optimize it for the target market (in this case, small camera with small flange distance). If the EF-ML lenses don't work on DSLR's anyway, there is no reason to build them around an existing idea, especially if something completely new is simpler and smaller

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Couldn't Canon make a mirrorless camera with EF mount and a shorter flange distance?

Lenses for the mirrorless camera would not focus on other cameras with EF mount, so some special designation like EF-ML would be required, but regular EF & EF-S lenses would mount using an extension tube with contacts.

But why make it EF mount at all then, since an EF adapter is basically just an extension tube. I mean, look at the patent, it's an extension tube with electrical contacts



The only reason to make it EF mount would be so people could use EF lenses right away with no adapter...once you add anything between the lens and the camera, you might as well optimize it for the target market (in this case, small camera with small flange distance). If the EF-ML lenses don't work on DSLR's anyway, there is no reason to build them around an existing idea, especially if something completely new is simpler and smaller

If the mirrorless camera uses EF mount with the same flange distance, the camera would necessarily be bigger (at least thicker), and it would be harder to design ultra wide lenses for it.

If the mirrorless camera doesn't use the EF mount at all, Canon would have to quickly release a big set of lenses, or the camera would be of limited interest.

Canon can choose an existing bayonet, say Sony E-mount, but then (a) owners could buy non-EF lenses, which is not as profitable to Canon, and (b) the camera wouldn't be as attractive to existing EF lens owners.

Furthermore, lenses with larger focal lengthes and/or max apertures wouldn't be any smaller, similar to the situation with crop bodies & EF-S lenses, so there isn't much sense in designing & manufacturing new models, when it's possible to use existing EF lenses with a simple adapter.

[Rocky]

Your response to mine doesn't make any sense Rocky, I'm not talking about your technical explanation either, I'm talking about your logic.

1. Leica states clearly, what they meant, and I didn't mis-interpret anything. 

"All M lenses mounted on the M9 or M9-P offer the same angle of view they had when using film material......   ....M9 and M9-P are capable of fully exploiting the enormous potentials of M lenses. Or, in other words: in the case of the M9 and M9-P, it wasn't a matter of modifying the lenses to match the image sensor, but rather the other way around."

2. They had a good system for film, and they made a digital body to perfectly match that classic lens system.

3. To get a new, digital, mirror-less (possibly not rangefinder) system even smaller.  It might be better to re-design both the lenses and the body, and not just the body as in the above Leica example....

That's all I said, and while I think your technical explanation was sort of out of left field it was interesting and worth reading none the less.

Leica was doing APS-H in M8  and FF in M9. They have already made the camera as small as it can . Look at the NEX-7  it is almost as wide as the M9 with APS-C sensor. Leica stays with the range finder because the AF in mirrorless is slow until the Nikon-1 comes out last year. also look at the size of Nikon-1 and the size of the sensor. Proportionally, Leica has a SMALL body.  May be what you mean is to suggest Leica to make a smaller sensor mirroless.
Speaking of logic does not make sense. You do not complain about SLR camera maker going into DSLR without new lenses, but you demand range finder camera maker going into digital to give up their range finder and with a new set of lens at the same time. What kind of logic is that ??

[Jettatore]

Leica was doing APS-H in M8  and FF in M9. They have already made the camera as small as it can . Look at the NEX-7  it is almost as wide as the M9 with APS-C sensor. Leica stays with the range finder because the AF in mirrorless is slow until the Nikon-1 comes out last year. also look at the size of Nikon-1 and the size of the sensor. Proportionally, Leica has a SMALL body.  (sure)

May be what you mean is to suggest Leica to make a smaller sensor mirroless. (I don't and never did suggest that Leica should do anything, and would only expect them to continue to do what they are doing.  I don't see where you 'assumed' that I alluded Leica should do anything different?)


Speaking of logic does not make sense. You do not complain about SLR camera maker going into DSLR without new lenses (I'm not sure I even understand what your saying here, but to clarify my end, I think if Canon wants to go into Mirrorless, it should be a completely new system design, both the camera and lenses and I would prefer FF format), but you demand range finder camera maker going into digital to give up their range finder and with a new set of lens at the same time. What kind of logic is that ?? (I suggested nothing of the sort, that was a pure and erroneous assumption on your part)

Read the above notations in the Quote.

I quite like the looks of the entire Leica system outside of it's (for me) unattainable and undesirable price range.  I merely brought any of this up, to suggest, that perhaps an even 'more uncompromising' system (for Canon) could be had from not just designing the camera/sensor but also in tangent with a new lens system entirely, as perhaps an even superior approach to what Leica is doing.  Also, since you are just running me around in circles to prove what valid point, I don't know or at this rate care, let this please be the last of it.  Best regards.

[Jettatore]

I can sort of see your confusion, it's just in the way I worded things and the way you interpreted them.  That point 3, was referring to Canon and not Leica (I thought this was more obvious considering it referenced new & mirrorless and the topic of this thread is about Canon doing a new & mirrorless system).

Sorry for any confusion but my original intention in posting, no matter how convoluted or obviously worded it may be, has been the same on this one from the start.  I hope you can see that, but if not at this point I really don't care and have no interest in doing any further Abbot and Costello routines with you, or anyone else.  Thanks.