We were wrong, all of your Canon mirrorless dreams are likely coming true soon

[Kit.]

And I'll repeat my question in return: Why is a lens tube with a passthrough for AF contacts to drive the EF lens (with the same damn DPAF routines it works fine with on a current SLR) not going to work?

At the moment, Canon uses the same EF mount on all its FF products (including mirrorless). Introducing a "diversity" would be a nuisance.

On the other hand, an adapter can have an EF cine lock (so you don't need to rotate the lens to install it).

 

[ecpu]

At the moment, Canon uses the same EF mount on all its FF products (including mirrorless). Introducing a "diversity" would be a nuisance.

On the other hand, an adapter can have an EF cine lock (so you don't need to rotate the lens to install it).

Does not having to rotate the lens to install it offer any advantage? I haven't seen that before.

 

[ahsanford]

You can usually find gently used (>10k shutter) 5DSR's for $1800-$2000. Not sure why they lose so much value or why so many people dump them early.

Total speculation, but I think a confluence of factors might be driving it:

• Resolutionaholics from Sony and Nikon (at the time) only had 36 MP to call on
  
  
• Medium format people were intrigued with an sub $4k FF rig -- with a sea of more affordable glass -- that could pull in detail levels that their aging medium format systems could. Replacing those bodies is super pricey, so perhaps some medium format guys slummed it in FF to save a buck instead of getting a needing a loan to get the latest Phase One setup.
  
  
• Canonites didn't have other options between 22 and 50 MP for a couple years

This uniquely led to a weird collection of folks giving the 5DS a go. But all those camps have more options now and maybe folks have returned to their prior mounts or the 5D4.

- A

 

[Mikehit]

That is an interesting theory and entirely possible... what I can't understand though is why Sony sensors hit these dizzying heights in terms of performance compared to Canon - the "market leader". Canon should be able to match this performance easily... I would think.

People often forget that in tech development, luck is a large part of it: the right person in the right environment having the right idea at the right time. You can design in 'blue sky research' and 'innovative environment' all you want, and you can have a development route to fulfill what you see as a technological objective, but it still comes down to an element of luck. Don't forget that companies are probably looking at 4 or 5 ways of doing the same thing at any one time and you may end up prioritising an option that is not as good in the long run: think of Canon's risky (in marketing terms) development of the EF mount and leaving behind a successful FD mount whereas Nikon took the much less end-user-friendly mount to maintain back compatibility but relatively quickly showed it was messy and arguably the least best option.

And I think people write of Canon too easily. In DPAF sensors, they imaging is done only by a 'half pixel' and yet Canon has still managed in the 5DIV to get a sensor whose DR and noise is within a stop of Sony's. I wonder what Canon could do if they put all that technological goodness into full-sized non-DPAF pixels?
This is probably where Canon have been heading for a long time with their sensor in being geared to what they see as the most significant step to developing FF mirrorless.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Well here's my question regarding adapters. I've often wondered if the typical movement of the lens once locked in place can affect image quality. I have no doubt that a long lens without adapter will have slightly better performance but maybe it's insignificant??

I've been accused of obsessing about small things and told to just get out and shoot since they are insignificant. I remind myself of that, but CR thrives on making "insignificant" the be all and end all, like DR. Turns out that insignificant is dependent on personal needs and is significant for someone so I won't argue that point.

Jack

 

[nchoh]

Which is not a mirrorless-exclusive function...

I’m patiently waiting for someone to show me what a mirrorless camera can do that an SLR in lockup fundamentally can not, aside from “be narrower.”

Eye detect AF requires mirrorless (full time or live view), Eye controlled AF does not.

 

[Jack Douglas]

People often forget that in tech development, luck is a large part of it: the right person in the right environment having the right idea at the right time. You can design in 'blue sky research' and 'innovative environment' all you want, and you can have a development route to fulfill what you see as a technological objective, but it still comes down to an element of luck. Don't forget that companies are probably looking at 4 or 5 ways of doing the same thing at any one time and you may end up prioritising an option that is not as good in the long run: think of Canon's risky (in marketing terms) development of the EF mount and leaving behind a successful FD mount whereas Nikon took the much less end-user-friendly mount to maintain back compatibility but relatively quickly showed it was messy and arguably the least best option.

And I think people write of Canon too easily. In DPAF sensors, they imaging is done only by a 'half pixel' and yet Canon has still managed in the 5DIV to get a sensor whose DR and noise is within a stop of Sony's. I wonder what Canon could do if they put all that technological goodness into full-sized non-DPAF pixels?
This is probably where Canon have been heading for a long time with their sensor in being geared to what they see as the most significant step to developing FF mirrorless.

Right on, and some would say throw away DPAF because "they" don't need it. And so it goes.

Jack

 

[RGF]

My dream would be able to order my 10 Oct

 

[Kit.]

Does not having to rotate the lens to install it offer any advantage?

For video rigs and maybe macro rails, yes.

On the other hand, it may increase the risks of releasing the lens accidentally.

 

[BillB]

And I'll repeat my question in return: Why is a lens tube with a passthrough for AF contacts to drive the EF lens (with the same damn DPAF routines it works fine with on a current SLR) not going to work?

I just can't connect the dots between: Same AF routines, Same AF system, same mount now in two pieces, and 'selling my stuff' or performance going to hell.

Educate me, please. I don't say this to win an argument -- I'm honestly asking you why it wouldn't work, and work well. I think it would. Are you worried that the adaptor will not be precisely machined and incorrectly go-on the thin mount in some cock-eyed fashion?

- A

Surely, it comes down to the tradeoffs involved in introducing a new mount. Where are the benefits from bringing out a new mount and are they worth it? The EF adapter may not be a big deal, but needing to use an adapter could be quite annoying to someone who sees no benefit from the new mount, maybe annoying enough to avoid buying a new camera. From Canon's point of view the question is whether the introduction of a camera with a new mount will bring in more money than a new camera with the EF mount.

 

[privatebydesign]

Total speculation, but I think a confluence of factors might be driving it:

• Resolutionaholics from Sony and Nikon (at the time) only had 36 MP to call on
  
  
• Medium format people were intrigued with an sub $4k FF rig -- with a sea of more affordable glass -- that could pull in detail levels that their aging medium format systems could. Replacing those bodies is super pricey, so perhaps some medium format guys slummed it in FF to save a buck instead of getting a needing a loan to get the latest Phase One setup.
  
  
• Canonites didn't have other options between 22 and 50 MP for a couple years

This uniquely led to a weird collection of folks giving the 5DS a go. But all those camps have more options now and maybe folks have returned to their prior mounts or the 5D4.

- A

Interesting because the price for new ones really hasn't moved much at all since it's launch years ago.

 

[scyrene]

Surely literally people do spend money like this. I know them.

I am not wealthy and my friends are not wealthy (we all are working 30 to 40 somethings that have day jobs and do well enough) -- we don't live in downtown penthouses or gated communities, we pay bills and make ends meet. But my friends occasionally do blow it out on a big Christmas / b-day / anniversary gift for their family. Now, it's budgeted, it happens once every 5-10 years, and it's never the expectation to get a gift of that scale, but it's also not uncommon to plan to get that item and just use Christmas / b-day / anniversary as the occasion to do it.

So no, people actually do this! Maybe not insane enthusiasts like the folks who buy a new body every 12 months -- this might be a 'forever camera' in that they end up owning it for 10+ years, but they are out there.

- A

Ah right, wow! Thanks

 

[ahsanford]

Surely, it comes down to the tradeoffs involved in introducing a new mount. Where are the benefits from bringing out a new mount and are they worth it? The EF adapter may not be a big deal, but needing to use an adapter could be quite annoying to someone who sees no benefit from the new mount, maybe annoying enough to avoid buying a new camera. From Canon's point of view the question is whether the introduction of a camera with a new mount will bring in more money than a new camera with the EF mount.

To my knowledge (and there may be odd one-off exceptions), every single digital FF mirrorless ILC on the market does not employ the flange distance necessary to occupy a traditional FF mirror in front of it:

• Leica M
• Leica SL
• Sony A7/A9
• Nikon Z6/Z7

Said another way: all of them are 'thin' mount w.r.t. your standard Canon EF / Nikon F sort of distance.

This could be for a host of reasons, but one is that a percentage of the market thinks smaller is better (no need to re-litigate 'but large FF lenses will still be large lenses', I think we all know that here). In other words, it would appear that every manufacturer that has entered this market has surveyed the lay of the land, sussed out the market needs, and pegged that it has to be a thin mount to distinguish it from a full SLR mount.

Did they do this because it went from 'no need for that added space / I smell an opportunity here' (say at A7 I launch timeframe) to 'but everyone is thin it and we have to follow suit now' (say at Z6/Z7 launch timing)? No idea. They may have data saying adapting lenses is a huge hit for all we know.

Does Canon have to follow suit and go thin? I think they ought to or a nontrivial slice of the market (however nutty) will blow the product off entirely. But a full EF option to go alongside the thin option could be end game move to scoop up Nikonians in droves.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Interesting because the price for new [5DS rigs] really hasn't moved much at all since it's launch years ago.

Every time I think this is representative of high demand / ability to defend price, I remind myself that companies can hold a sickeningly high line on product price with official resellers if they want to. Canon could be insisting on maintaining this price despite a diminishing sales demand and we would never know (save for the odd Amazon's sales ranking list, which changes constantly).

Consider: Nikon Df is still in production (5 years out) at full asking price.

Sony RX1R II, Leica Q are similar.

FTR, I often have cited the above that some products magically maintain price brilliantly over time. The truth is the company might refuse to ever sell it for less and we may never know how well it is selling as a result.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

And let's face it, the 'public acceptance optics' of a full EF mirrorless -- if it was the only FF mirrorless they offered -- would be radioactive:

• Canon is resting on its laurels
• Canon is lazy and cheap
• Canon is afraid of change
• Canon cares more about existing customers than making new ones

...even if it was 50 MP x 10 fps, had IBIS, eye AF, and killer 4K.

And I'm just not talking fanboys at DPR or PP would go nuts over this. I think the entire industry would. It would be like Canon sort-of launching a new platform. Canon needs to unlock the power of a mirrorless setup (just the main power train of liveview + focusing setup + EVF and all that that would enable), but I think it also needs to speak to folks who want a smaller system and less to lug around.

So I think thin mount offering has to happen... but I hope a full EF mount happens as well. If Canon can have so many FF SLRs, they can have more than one in mirrorless, surely.

- A

 

[nchoh]

That is an interesting theory and entirely possible... what I can't understand though is why Sony sensors hit these dizzying heights in terms of performance compared to Canon - the "market leader". Canon should be able to match this performance easily... I would think.

How did you reach the conclusion that Sony sensors have hit dizzying heights?

 

[scyrene]

And I'll repeat my question in return: Why is a lens tube with a passthrough for AF contacts to drive the EF lens (with the same damn DPAF routines it works fine with on a current SLR) not going to work?

I'm not an evangelist on this issue, but my understanding is as follows: don't extension tubes impact AF performance? They're just a tube with contacts either side. I've always been led to believe adding an extra layer of contacts makes AF slower? As for image quality, didn't Lensrentals cover that - basically adaptors are always going to introduce slight misalignment which *may* introduce softness in parts of the image. It may be neither of these have enough impact for most people in real shooting situations (maybe including me, I've not enough experience with adaptors to say with any authority), but the issues simply aren't there with a lens mounted directly on the camera. Another minor thing: it also introduces an extra weak point - this may again be irrelevant to most people (and depends on the lens/body combination), but I've had a extension tube shear off - thankfully I was lucky and the lens and body survived.

I'm happy to be corrected with real data - e.g. do EF lenses mounted on the M-series with the Canon adaptor work just as well as on a DSLR? Or is that comparing apples to oranges?

 

[Random Orbits]

That right there is the point....if the mirror needs to be in "lockup" to utilize these features, one can't help but wonder why not just remove the mirror.

Because it takes a lot more power. Same battery in D850, CIPA = 1840. In a Z7, CIPA = 330. Battery life is one reason why I went to a DSLR many years ago...

 

[peterzuehlke]

I love the 5DS for this high res situations. Heaven would be 50mp mirrorless...

Hasselblad and Fuji make those. (and larger format might give you something extra too)

 

[ahsanford]

How did you reach the conclusion that Sony sensors have hit dizzying heights?

Yeah. They did hit dizzying heights... like 6 years ago. EXMOR went on-chip before everyone else and pooped on other folks' base ISO DR at that time.

There was at one point (according to DXO, so ) a 2.5 - 3 stop base ISO DR difference between similar market segment cameras between SoNikon rigs and Canon rigs. That is largely over now. Sony still makes a better sensor (someone is going to throw 5D4 + DPRAW at me momentarily) but Canon has largely closed the gap.

- A