Great catch!
Upvote
0
Circular polarisers are widely used, for example, in landscape/architechture photography, mirrorlessness or DPAF are irrelevant to CIR-PL filters.Do you really need a circular polarizer on a mirrorless camera with DPAF?
I agree that an adapter to use R (FF) lenses on M (APS-C) bodies makes the most sense, and is a requirement. But that begs the question...assuming the EOS R accepts EF lenses natively (because otherwise an EF-to-R adapter would be listed), what makes RF lenses different than EF? If they are different because they can result in a smaller lens/body combination by protruding into the body, they’d also protrude into the space within the RF to M adapter. But in that case, where is the room for the CPL and ND filters that are part of the adapter?EF-M and EF-R are the new systems going forward for mirrorless. Adapters are for M-bodies to accept R lenses. In the interim, while Canon builds out a "complete" R lens line, there will be a EOS-R cameras that take both EF and EF-R lenses.
... that's my guess.
The lack of an adapter suggests a dual mount. It would make for a spectacular marketing fail to force customers to buy new lenses with thei cameras.
In fact, Canon did that back in the 80s, when they came up with the completely new EF mount that was not compatible with the old mount. It was a risky bet but it worked. Btw our Canon gear never has trouble with lens connection failures, our Nikon gear (serveral cameras) produces quite frequently such errors. The advantage of the Nikon (D)SLR mount is its compatibility with older lenses but that comes with a price. I think, besides the much bigger diameter of the Z mount this could have been another reason why Nikon now pulled the plug.The lack of an adapter suggests a dual mount. It would make for a spectacular marketing fail to force customers to buy new lenses with thei cameras.
I have a Sony A6000 with 16-50F4, 10-18F4 and 35f1.8 and for a whole bunch of reasons would rather go back to Canon, I used to have a 70D and 450D with some decent lens and all of my favourite pics are pre SonyWhy? I only see if you still have alot of Canon EF lens. It's going to be harder for Sony users with alot of native lens. Beside, Sony is releasing their A7SIII soon too
This stuff came from Nokishita, they're a Japanese site and are never wrong, in fact most of what they post are controlled leaks.ok lets pump the brakes a bit. no ratings on these rumors. CR explicitly stated they're just going to post anything, regardless of quality. so there's a good chance a lot of that list is fiction. sorry, but a lot of those items seem like fanboy dreams, not reality.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the 70-200 f/2.8 III rather than the 70-200 f/4 IS II. I was under the impression that the f/2.8 was coatings and a paint job while the f/4 was much more? Unless the 2.8 was shown to receive more adjustment as well?Roger Cicala has a post on his tear down of the 70-200 F4 on the Lensrental site. It''s more than coatings and a paint job.
That wasn’t Kit.’s point – he was suggesting that a circular polarizer is not required, i.e. it could be a linear polarizer instead. However, while that would be true for CDAF, I think a linear PL wold be a problem for DPAF. The problem occurs when the the angle of polarization conflicts with the orientation of the beam splitter for PDAF. The fact that DPAF uses millions of really tiny beam splitters and off-sensor PDAF uses a few larger beam splitters doesn’t negate the problem.Circular polarisers are widely used, for example, in landscape/architechture photography, mirrorlessness or DPAF are irrelevant to CIR-PL filters.Do you really need a circular polarizer on a mirrorless camera with DPAF?
The original list comes from Nokishita though, they usually don't get a lot of things wrong, save for the occasional detail.ok lets pump the brakes a bit. no ratings on these rumors. CR explicitly stated they're just going to post anything, regardless of quality. so there's a good chance a lot of that list is fiction. sorry, but a lot of those items seem like fanboy dreams, not reality.
On the contrary. "RF 35mm f/1.8 M IS" - that implies there's no IBIS unfortunately, doesn' it? I'm disappointed. I was hoping to eventually buy it and mount my 24-70 on it and make it stabilised. The only faint hope is in that 'M'. What is it, 'M'? An RF-mount lens also mountable on EF-M? That doesn't add up.
According to Bryan Carnathan's review of the 2.8 III you're right:Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the 70-200 f/2.8 III rather than the 70-200 f/4 IS II. I was under the impression that the f/2.8 was coatings and a paint job while the f/4 was much more? Unless the 2.8 was shown to receive more adjustment as well?
Not sure about the F2.8, but given the changes to the F4, I think it's likely there were some major upgrades in the construction, if not the optical quality of the F2.8Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to the 70-200 f/2.8 III rather than the 70-200 f/4 IS II. I was under the impression that the f/2.8 was coatings and a paint job while the f/4 was much more? Unless the 2.8 was shown to receive more adjustment as well?
Can you explain a bit more? I would love a XC15/20 interchangeable upgrade!
This was such good marketing from Nikon, really. The Z mount is only huge next to Nikon's own F mount and Sony's E mount. It's just one mm wider than the EF mount.I think one of the real longterm strengths of Nikon's Z concept is the extremely short flange distance combined with a much wider Z mount. This very smart solution promises gorgeous lenses coming up for this mount.
Given there is some possible mention of an adapter maybe RF really will be a new mount. However I thought I would offer this link to anyone confused by the notion that Canon might keep the EF mount - it's a Voigtlander lens made for Nikon F-mount (as Nikons allow mirror lock up) that gets the rear most elements right up to the sensor. The result is tiny size and outstanding quality in a 15mm lens.
http://blog.16-9.net/1236-2