Patent: New big white lens designs for the EF mount

[Kit.]

And someday DSLRs will be rarer than mirrorless.

Haven't they always been?

Of course, you can disagree that DSLRs will become a small percentage of ILC cameras at some point in the future (I haven't said when, bit I am thinking within the next 15 years).

So, you are talking about the fourth or fifth future generation of ILCs? And even more if those are generations of Sony ILCs?

I'm not even sure that ILCs would still be a thing by then.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

The demise of the EF is based upon , well..nothing. It''s the mirrorless folks need to reinforce the lie they have been telling us for the past year that DSLR's are dead. It will be a slow death, maybe by 2035.

You must work for Kodak.

 

[Kit.]

You must work for Kodak.

Unlikely. All Kodak DSLRs, iirc, were made by Canon.

 

[SteveC]

Actually, all cameras that can't place phone calls have long since become niche products.

Good point.

If you look at ALL picture taking that's true.

If you look at the subset of "dedicated cameras" then you can again see, within that set, there are "mainstream" options and "niche" options--again that's within that context.

And that was the context I was thinking of. But it's good to be reminded of the Bigger Picture every once in a while.

And yes, I forgot the wildlife shooters; I was mentally bucketing them with "action" but many of their concerns are quite distinct.

As for what Canon wants, I think you're likely at least partially right. I suspect they want to make a mirrorless that will be satisfactory to everyone, but they won't be bummed out about it if it never happens; they'll just crank out Ms, Rs, and EFs. They're big enough to survive doing that; other smaller companies will have to choose one or the other.

 

[mb66energy]

Canon could have made 2 versions of the new whites, with EF and RF mount.

Shurely they could - but for what reason? If you are EOS R user and have e.g. the
RF 50mm, the RF 28-70. EF 2.8 300 and EF 4 600 you might have the money to
buy two EF-RF adapters to have only one final mount system on your lenses.
And makes it easier for e.g. me who maybe wants to use 2.8 300mm on an
M camera and later on an R camera.
I do not see any advantage to have RF mount for these well developed telephoto
lenses in terms of better IQ or much smaller size except maybe RF 2.8 200 or RF 4 300.

 

[yungfat]

Today's industry-leading EVF is found in the S1R and the just-released SL2. Neither of these are sports cameras. I'm not going to bet on it, but a mirrorless pro R should have an EVF at least this good, especially given what it's used for.

Well, to many people, Sony a9 & a9II already have the best of everything (including EVF) for “ALL” sports shooter.

 

[SecureGSM]

Well, to many people, Sony a9 & a9II already have the best of everything (including EVF) for “ALL” sports shooter.

Yeah, what they lack is a CPS Grade level of service and Spare parts available for at least 5-7 years to support one’s investment into the system.
Ask yourself a simple question: what to do if in five years from now I needed an urgent repair for an expensive lens or a camera and there is no parts available from Sony? When my a 3 years old $3000 Sony TV failed and I needed a replacement main board, Sony told me to buy a new TV unit instead. No spare parts available globally.

 

[Joules]

I do not see any advantage to have RF mount for these well developed telephoto
lenses in terms of better IQ or much smaller size except maybe RF 2.8 200 or RF 4 300.

The RF mount has more electrical contacts than EF, allowing for faster communication between lens and body for quicker AF and more responsive IS. In theory anyway, I suspect we will see some more evidence of this only when a higher spec R body is available to make use of this, especially for IBIS in combination with in lens IS.

 

[mb66energy]

The RF mount has more electrical contacts than EF, allowing for faster communication between lens and body for quicker AF and more responsive IS. In theory anyway, I suspect we will see some more evidence of this only when a higher spec R body is available to make use of this, especially for IBIS in combination with in lens IS.

Thats really a good argument! You are right ... if IBIS helps a lot with these telephoto lenses. And I think it does at least within one degree of freedom: Rotation which can be managed by rotating the sensor but not by shifting lenses or rotating (rotational symmetric) lenses

 

[Pape]

I wonder if those RF extra pins got nothing to do with 2 motor focus system?

 

[wsmith96]

These could perfectly well be RF designs - longer lenses don't tend to have the short BF distance that's an obvious RF pointer. At some point the RF versions will come - maybe to go with a mirrorless 1D X level model

BTW In the US patent application there is a discussion of the focusing mechanism that might suggest we'll see a reasonable drop in minimum focus distance
USPTO

If this does turn out to be an rf design, then your 1dx level r camera is right around the corner.

 

[Joe Subolefsky]

The RF mount has more electrical contacts than EF, allowing for faster communication between lens and body for quicker AF and more responsive IS. In theory anyway, I suspect we will see some more evidence of this only when a higher spec R body is available to make use of this, especially for IBIS in combination with in lens IS.

The new 600III and new 400 already have extra contacts.However the current extenders don’t perhaps they will offer an EF to RF extender for the new big whites that also acts as the adapter and has the extra contacts .

 

[AJ]

I was thinking about long lenses the other day. I was wondering if a teleconverter with an R-mount on the camera side and EF on the lens side would allow for optical improvements. It would be longer then an R-R or EF-EF converter. Rather than cramming the lens elements into a short tube, there'd be more room to play with. Could be helpful for designing 2x TCs.