A hypothesis concerning the RF mount

[.jan]

What if they use a lens element within the camera, like the ND filters in some compact cameras, to keep a short(ish) flange distance for a thin body and RF lenses and also enable proper focusing with conventional EF lenses?

 

[Bekippe]

Exactly. However, I feel like both Sony and now Nikon are still living off the fascination about the size of the first generation A7 cameras. The third generation A7 cameras as well as the Z6/7 are significantly beefier than the first gen A7 cameras (which had abysmal battery life and - at best - mediocre ergonomics). So while a thin camera body is nice in theory, recent camera models show that too thin isn't ideal either. Especially if you want to have a nicely sized grip, you're not gonna get a tiny camera.

That I think is the "innovation" people are missing. Simply following suit with a thin, small body mirrorless is just more of the same. Giving us a full sized mirrorless, with the ability to control the focal plane depth, would be new. Not to mention not having to rebuild the entire lens line from scratch. I think that Canon is happy having the M line dedicated as the small & light, while keeping the FF cameras big.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I don't see anything specifically related to mirrorless in the patents, but they do relate to a modernization of the EF lenses. I doubt that it would lock out reverse engineering of 3rd party lenses, that would likely result in lawsuits similar to the ones filed in the Keurig Coffee maker case where they tried to lockout competing brands of K-Cups.

It could very well appear first on a Mirrorless camera, but should eventually appear on all Canon interchangeable lens cameras. I really think that Canon wants lens interchangeability such that lenses with the new electronics work on older cameras.

I could see a telescoping mount to accommodate EF on a short flange back, it could be threaded and rotate into place. The difficult issue would be alignment.

 

[Respinder]

I would consider it a mistake if Canon doesn't shorten the flange distance in its new mount.
As a sexy fix for EF lenses, someone wrote about a moveable sensor which would be really interesting but I don't understand why an adapter wouldn't work.
Why wouldn't it work? A Canon adapter, made by Canon for Canon, would work flawlessly and be extremely fast.
Canon would then have a new future-proof mount and the adapter would make all or their EF lenses work.

Is there really a reason to have a native EF mount (or an EF-R with an EF flange distance) on a Canon mirrorless? If so, what is it?

If there are any lessons learned from the Nikon Z launch, it is that people will dismiss adapters, no matter how perfect they are, and only look at what is supported "natively". Despite the performance of Nikon's adapter, a common opinion of the Nikon Z is that it has too few "native lenses" - so essentially people overlook the adapter capabilities.

To have a camera natively support two formats - a legacy format (EF) and new format (RF) is far better when compared to an adapter solution.

 

[Richard CR]

I don't see anything specifically related to mirrorless in the patents, but they do relate to a modernization of the EF lenses.

mentioning mirrorless would be meaningless to the patent really

while it may not lock out lens designers where the problem may occur is metabones and the like reverse engineering the RF/EF mount to support Sony FE to EF/RF adapters.

 

[knight427]

I’m trying to rationalize how the following might all be true:

release of enthusiast FF milc
ef mount and rf mount attach natively to body
launch lens is 24-70 f/2

What is RF are lenses are designed as m4/3 lens. The cameras that take RF lenses will autocrop to m4/3 when you want to run light, but take FF EF lenses when you are willing to bow to physics and want to use the full sensor capabilities. So maybe the 24-70 f/2 is actually 12-35 f/2 but Canon will market RF lenses with the crop factor built into the name since you won’t be able to mount an RF lens to non-R cameras.

 

[.jan]

That I think is the "innovation" people are missing. Simply following suit with a thin, small body mirrorless is just more of the same. Giving us a full sized mirrorless, with the ability to control the focal plane depth, would be new. Not to mention not having to rebuild the entire lens line from scratch. I think that Canon is happy having the M line dedicated as the small & light, while keeping the FF cameras big.

Right. And you'd still get a lighter camera, because there's no mirror box and mechanics needed. The body could also be much smaller, because AF and AE systems are on the sensor instead of underneath or above it. And the prisms for FF cameras are huge, so another big and heavy part to save.

 

[mensaf]

All I want to know is if it has 4k with no crop and 120fps @ 1080p. I'm definitely picking up that 32mm f1.4 they're announcing for the EOS-M, but I will definitely consider selling the rest of my EF lenses if the native RF are reasonably fast enough and lighter. I love my 85mm f1.4 IS to death but moving with that thing all day even when attached to the super light M50 is less than desirable. That and weather sealing. I'm getting too excited for this thing, but it's only a few days away now.

 

[bokehmon22]

Damn Canon make this happen. Dual card slot with hybrid mount lens and 24-70 F2. I'll pre-order it.

 

[.jan]

while it may not lock out lens designers where the problem may occur is metabones and the like reverse engineering the RF/EF mount to support Sony FE to EF/RF adapters.

Would that really be a problem? I mean not in terms of mechanics and optics, but more from a market perspective. The FE lens ecosystem is growing, attractive to 3rd party lens makers and can easily adapt existing EF glass. I don't see Canon coming out with a one of a kind lens for RF first, the kind that everyone would want/need. Especially not given the rumored price tag for the first RF camera.

 

[Kit.]

I don't see how it's a new mount. If new lenses and new bodies are both backward-compatible (there is no reason for them not to be), just call it "EF mount".

 

[.jan]

All I want to know is if it has 4k with no crop and 120fps @ 1080p. I'm definitely picking up that 32mm f1.4 they're announcing for the EOS-M, but I will definitely consider selling the rest of my EF lenses if the native RF are reasonably fast enough and lighter. I love my 85mm f1.4 IS to death but moving with that thing all day even when attached to the super light M50 is less than desirable. That and weather sealing. I'm getting too excited for this thing, but it's only a few days away now.

Don't count on lighter glass. Sony's 2.8/24-70 GM is heavier, longer and just 1mm less diameter than Canon's 2.8/24-70 II - and that's with the advantage of being a mirrorless system. I feel like Canon is already p much on top of the game when it comes to keeping lenses compact and lightweight.

 

[traveller]

Things seem to be getting pretty whacky around here.

Craig: are the current sources trusted? I don't see any CR# ratings... does this mean that we're all falling for internet gossip and wishful thinking. What if Canon Rumors' original position turns out to be correct all along?

I don't know, but it's just not feeling like we are less than a week from what would be Canon's biggest product announcement for a generation and indicate the future of the EF mount. Canon are pretty good at playing their cards close to their chest, but it has never been this quiet before...

 

[jeffpoker]

If there are any lessons learned from the Nikon Z launch, it is that people will dismiss adapters, no matter how perfect they are, and only look at what is supported "natively". Despite the performance of Nikon's adapter, a common opinion of the Nikon Z is that it has too few "native lenses" - so essentially people overlook the adapter capabilities.

To have a camera natively support two formats - a legacy format (EF) and new format (RF) is far better when compared to an adapter solution.

I completely understand your point, but in ten years, when most (?) people will have moved to mirrorless (imo), how will people react when they see the limitations of that retro-compatibility? Will people now criticize Canon for that decision?
I'm guessing Canon won't reinvent a completely new mount in just 10 years right?

I'm nowhere near an expert on the subject so keep in mind I'm just speculating here. But I think it's a mistake to limit the future because of the current/past. If Canon keeps that flange distance on their new mount, then every mirrorless camera in the next 20-30 years will be bigger for no reason.
[EDIT] I know size is not the only advantage of mirrorless but for many people, it is one important aspect.

 

[bks54]

Guess 1: Body approach -- An EF lens mounts directly. When an RF lens mounts on the camera, a sliding shaft is engaged which pulls the mounting assembly with the lens further in towards the camera. A mount within a mount, in effect. Hopefully they found a way to do this that does not impact unit cost too much.

Guess 2: Lens Approach -- All RF lenses will have a rear element that extends back towards the sensor once mounted. The basic EF mount stays the same. If a future new lens doesn't need the inward-extending element it will simply be designed as an EF lens. (I don't think telephotos, long zooms, or Big Whites will need the inward extending element, so they will be EF lenses now and in the future). (If an RF lens is mountable at all on a regular EF mount camera it wouldn't hurt anything; the inward-extending element would not deploy, and would not be harmed.)

Guess 3: Modified Lens Approach - In order to make a mirrorless system that is more compact, provide options for advanced and compact wide angle lens design, but also provide for complete backward and forward compatibility of EF and RF lenses, the camera could have an EF compatible short flange design, and new lenses could have in-built capacity to vary the needed distance to the sensor. Long lenses would be designed for long flange distance and have adapter built in which would be extended for EF-R use and retracted for DSLR use. Shorter focal length lenses would be designed for short flange distance in normal position on EF-R but telescope back into mirror box and be usable in live view on DSLRs (and would not be extendable with the mirror down, but could be usable for macrophotography). All new lenses could be designed like this; older EF ones would need an adapter on EF-R (or would not focus closely), and no adapter would be needed when new lenses are used on either system.

 

[dcsimages]

I don't understand the point of mounting an EF lens directly onto the mirrorless camera body. It will be much too close to the sensor. How could it possibly work?

Why are you assuming that the flange to focal plane distance needs to be shorter?

 

[Ditboy]

I don't understand the point of mounting an EF lens directly onto the mirrorless camera body. It will be much too close to the sensor. How could it possibly work?

Essentially It would have to have a built in adapter. Instead of a mirror it would just have air space. This would prevent the boddies from being narrower like the all other mirrorless cameras. But would save weight. The more I have thought about it, the less I have thought Canon needs to introduce a new mount and design lenses with a shorter focus point. Sony has proved that a short flange distance does not make the lenses smaller, in fact in some cases they are larger, so there is no advantage in a full frame sensor body. The size and weight savings can really only be accomplished with an APS-C sensor like Fuji.

 

[RickWagoner]

Maybe Canons full frame mirrorless bodies will be all about the pro set of features first with larger battery packs (lpe6 standard) for longer operation times meaning larger bodies able to carry larger ef lenses naively and Canon EOS-M bodies will be all about smaller mirrorless first with mid level features second.

 

[dcsimages]

Considering that the 5D series is a little too thin for my hands, I certainly wouldn't be interested in a thinner body than that.

 

[josephandrews222]

Essentially It would have to have a built in adapter. Instead of a mirror it would just have air space. This would prevent the boddies from being narrower like the all other mirrorless cameras. But would save weight. The more I have thought about it, the less I have thought Canon needs to introduce a new mount and design lenses with a shorter focus point. Sony has proved that a short flange distance does not make the lenses smaller, in fact in some cases they are larger, so there is no advantage in a full frame sensor body. The size and weight savings can really only be accomplished with an APS-C sensor like Fuji.

Or the M-series!