A hypothesis concerning the RF mount

[scyrene]

sounds interesting too but I wonder if the mechanism would last thousands of actuations and not shift over time. Anything movable has a chance to become misaligned

I'd worry about this too but it occurs to me - we expect the mirror to move hundreds of thousads of times and stay perfectly aligned, so maybe it's not such a big deal (I guess the tolerances are finer with the sensor though). I still doubt the sensor will be mobile in this way though.

 

[scyrene]

Incidentally, given "RF" already has a pretty established meaning in science and technology, I'd be surprised if they chose that name.

 

[nchoh]

So is it safe to say that EOS M was never intended to be developed into a full frame, pro-level system?

In an interview with the Canon team, one of the designers stated that the EOS was not designed for FF.

 

[Yasko]

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.

Exactly. Patents are always as common as possible in order to gibe it the most buck for bang (or vice versa?).

 

[miketcool]

Do (Canon made) extension tubes and teleconverters have these problems? Do adapted EF lenses on EOS-M have this problem?

(Not trying to wind you up -- just curious.)

- A

Yes, teleconverters and extension tubes have these issues. You can feel a slight amount of play which means that over time this introduces wear etc. This is why we use PL (positive lock) lenses in cinema cameras. The locking mechanism locks the lens into the body reducing any play, making for a stiffer and more solid connection.

The idea in EOS-M is that you buy EOS-M lenses instead of relying on an adapter full-time. Wearing metal mounts introduces metal dust inside the body near the sensor. It would be interesting to see someone's Sony mirrorless after a few years of living on adapter mounts to see how the wear looks.

 

[fegari]

I also think the WINNER combination would be a mount that accepts both EF + R lenses nativelly. Keep the body size roughly in the same kind of lueague as current cameras, human sized button and dials. The killer asset of mirrorless is not saving 4 mm on each side of the camera or saving 200gr of weight while losing usability, battery life etc. The mirrorless assest is the EVF, what you see is whay you get and (not quite there yet) much more advanced autofocus capabilities and no longer the need to calibrate each freaking lens...all the rest (tiny cameras etc) to me is not the furure.

So, gimme a camera where I can use all my EF lenses nativelly and design the R lenses with the protuding thing so they fit longer inside the camera.

That way they will sell 10x more cameras than Nikon as there will be no need to replace all lenses (and having to wait 5 years for that). In such way Canon will not need to come up with a complete new line of R lenses right away, and they can make some of those new R lenses (for example) faster than the current EFs or begin releasing the updates of each EF directly into R mount so the transition for people already invested in canon is practically eliminated.

Just DON'T copy SONY nor NIKON!!
**the one drawback I now think of are kinda huge lens caps for those R lenses

 

[Del Paso]

I can't sleep, I can't eat, I can't work. This suspense is killing me.
Let it be September 5, give me my life back!
And give me an EF mount!!!!!!

 

[amorse]

For all we know the new 70-200 f2.8 and other very new lenses have the RF protocol in them and that is why they appeared to have no significant visible changes.

I was wondering about this as well, but I figured that if Canon were to release EF lenses that were or were not compatible with the RF mount, there would be some additional designation to help a user know which lenses will and will not work. Although I guess Canon did suggest which lenses would pair well with a 5DSR without changing any designations...

 

[ecpu]

I can't sleep, I can't eat, I can't work. This suspense is killing me.
Let it be September 5, give me my life back!
And give me an EF mount!!!!!!

lol I'm in the same boat! I dont typically get so worked up about this stuff but I've been wanting to upgrade for many months and just want to know whether I'm getting a Canon MILC or a Sony one. Enough waiting and speculating.

Just launch the damn thing already!

 

[Josh Leavitt]

I suppose the only downsides to the recessed lens idea that retains the EF mirror box space are: 1) vintage glass will not be as adaptable as a traditional (short flange) mirrorless mount, and 2) the recessed lens barrel would further restrict the maximum size of the rear-most elements as it would be smaller than the external barrel diameter (although rear elements aren't overly huge anyway). So there isn't a whole lot to lose. Canon already has the EOS M line for adapting vintage glass anyway.

 

[Richard CR]

Also, everyone should probably bookmark this, because (with all due respect to CR Guy and a wonderful site) this is where the definitive proof will drop in the form of pictures.

I am not expecting a teaser campaign. It will go from fever pitch on rumors to BANG and then we'll have photos.

Of course, keep coming here. CR Guy will get the goods on the spec list and all that.

- A

haha. Poor CR Guy wasn't responsible for this. He's relatively innocent on this one

 

[colorblinded]

The only drawback I can see is the camera body won't be able to be as slim as sony/nikon. But that's only a drawback for those who care about a thin camera body.

But how slim is the new Nikon camera, really? From the pictures I saw, it looks like the grip still extends further beyond the F mount when the adapter is attached.

If that's the case, keeping the overall flange distance and keeping native support for EF mount lenses (which already has a shorter back flange distance than F mount) makes sense if they design mirrorless lenses to extend inwards inside the mount.

 

[3kramd5]

[EDIT] I know size is not the only advantage of mirrorless but for many people, it is one important aspect.

I disagree. Until someone shows me something which a mirrorless camera can do which an SLR capable of mirror lockup can not be designed to do, I’ll argue that size is the sole differentiator, and that whether it is an advantage or not is subjective.

 

[Richard CR]

I suppose the only downsides to the recessed lens idea that retains the EF mirror box space are: 1) vintage glass will not be as adaptable as a traditional (short flange) mirrorless mount, and 2) the recessed lens barrel would further restrict the maximum size of the rear-most elements as it would be smaller than the external barrel diameter (although rear elements aren't overly huge anyway). So there isn't a whole lot to lose. Canon already has the EOS M line for adapting vintage glass anyway.

true. but to be fair with the EF mount you get C/Y, F mount, OM1/2, Pentax and a few others anyways. it's missing FD, Minolta and the rangefinder lenses.

 

[Kit.]

Makes me worry about 10 years from now and EF is starting to look like Nikon F mount -- fragmentation of a system in which every physically connects together but functionality is conditional depending upon fine print, compatibility, etc. Right now, the first time you do something like this,

It is not the first time. I am sure it has already happened more than once. But as it's mostly in software, it is still much cheaper to maintain than the hardware part of the diversity (different versions of autofocus, IS, distance encoding etc.)

 

[Richard CR]

I disagree. Until someone shows me something which a mirrorless camera can do which an SLR capable of mirror lockup can not be designed to do, I’ll argue that size is the sole differentiator, and that whether it is an advantage or not is subjective.

There is nothing in the world to stop Canon from creating an EF mount (or EF-RF mount) slightly smaller than an SL2. Which is pretty tiny.
how much smaller do you really need to go when your lenses are usually pretty large anyways.

 

[traveller]

Well, this post was done by me, not Craig, but Craig wanted it up today to see what the community thought of the concept after him and I discussed it today. it's backed up by patent applications and one of his sources saying EF mount lenses mount on it and others saying it has a new "RF mount".

It's also why there was a pretty big caveat mentioned in the bottom of the post. No one knows much of anything at this point

I was referring to the recent few rumours in general, rather than this one in particular.

Like Canon Rumors, your Canon News site isn’t generally one for posting unfounded nonsense (like some sites out there), but I just get the sense that perhaps both you and Craig are not quite so confident in your sources as would normally be the case in the week before a major announcement.

Perhaps Canon is taking extra effort, as they regard this announcement as especially important? Perhaps we aren’t getting the usual leaks because all we’re getting on the 5th September is a “development” announcement?

 

[ecpu]

I was referring to the recent few rumours in general, rather than this one in particular.

Like Canon Rumors, your Canon News site isn’t generally one for posting unfounded nonsense (like some sites out there), but I just get the sense that perhaps both you and Craig are not quite so confident in your sources as would normally be the case in the week before a major announcement.

Perhaps Canon is taking extra effort, as they regard this announcement as especially important? Perhaps we aren’t getting the usual leaks because all we’re getting on the 5th September is a “development” announcement?

Or, perhaps there is no announcement...

 

[gmon750]

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?

So you're privy on how Canon's full-frame body is designed? Maybe it has a slimmer body, maybe it doesn't.

 

[ahsanford]

I disagree. Until someone shows me something which a mirrorless camera can do which an SLR capable of mirror lockup can not be designed to do, I’ll argue that size is the sole differentiator, and that whether it is an advantage or not is subjective.

1) MLU + Liveview on an SLR does not allow you to hold the camera up to your eye unless you design a hybrid VF or use some comical eye loupe on the back LCD. In short, this (below) isn't what I want to do as my default shooting posture. It's a nice trick to have, esp. with an articulating screen. But I overwhelmingly prefer the VF and a more stable shooting posture.

​

2) An SLR design -- even with MLU + liveview -- cannot adapt other people's lenses. You cannot bolt a Nikkor 14-24 2.8 or 105 f/1.4 on an EF mount... but you might be able to with a thin mount.

I take your point that size is (somehwat idiotically) a huge driver for reducing the flange distance. Who wants all the headaches of a new mount to save 1 measly inch? But to say that SLR + MLU can do everything a mirrorless camera can is simply not so.

- A