A hypothesis concerning the RF mount

[BillB]

Why not wider 24-70 instead? Would it be too big at f2.0? Will EF 24-70/2.8 be still effectively 24mm?

Might be IQ issues at f2, or constraints from the new mount, or weight. Also, there may be an ultra wide zoom in the pipeline.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Remind me, aside from slightly smaller/maybe easier-designed and cheaper lenses for wide angle, what are those benefits?

It's new...! Shiny..! And new..!

Come on man, get with the programme!

 

[Keith_Reeder]

TBut few would doubt that their products (with their A7 III generation) are not making strides towards a point where Sony will finally start flipping a lot of professionals and enthusiasts into their ranks.

Only if (and as "ifs" go, it's a biggie) at the same time that Sony continues to "ascend" (or "catch up", as some of us might put it) Canon's offerings go markedly in the opposite direction...

Remember that it wouldn't just be market share from Canon's dominant MILC position, but from its existing DSLR dominance too...

Is that likely?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

:

View attachment 179999

I suppose I might be able to convert it into an extender to go on the back of my 500mm...

Otherwise - maybe not "Everyone"...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

But which mount should the plug be?

Doesn't matter - Metabones will make an adaptor...

 

[mb66energy]

This sounds like nonsense - if you have two items physically connected then the fastest and absolutely most reliable way for them to communicate is over a direct electronic connection eg plain old copper. Less interference, less hassle and far less battery power than wireless.

The ONLY advantage for wireless connectivity is for lenses that are not physically attached to the body, or for those crazy people like me who occasionally use reversing rings to put lenses on backwards.

My medium deep experience in electronics says that a contact which works for 10 000 cycles is relatively expensive - those well known serial SUB-D connectors were made for 100 cycles and low speed. These were reliable. But do you ever have seen an ethernet connector which has seen more then 100 cycles? Probability is low. Thinking about 10 contacts for 100 MBit (~ 100 MHz) with 10 000 cycles plain copper doesn't work due to oxidation - you NEED gold contacts. If you think 10 000 cycles are more the need for a body - it's 10 lens changes per work day over 5 years.

 

[Kit.]

My medium deep experience in electronics says that a contact which works for 10 000 cycles is relatively expensive - those well known serial SUB-D connectors were made for 100 cycles and low speed. These were reliable. But do you ever have seen an ethernet connector which has seen more then 100 cycles?

Yes. I also saw micro-USB and USB-C connectors that have seen more than 1000 (they are normally rated at 10 000 anyway).

What I haven't seen is consumer wireless that cannot be jammed. Besides, having an RF transmitter complicates certification.

 

[mb66energy]

Yes. I also saw micro-USB and USB-C connectors that have seen more than 1000 (they are normally rated at 10 000 anyway).

What I haven't seen is consumer wireless that cannot be jammed. Besides, having an RF transmitter complicates certification.

It's a comparison of apples with eggs if you compare plugin connectors with those used in camera/lens mounts and 2 data pins with at least 5 or 6 data pins.

Maybe you read the link, weixing delivered with his post:
https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-short-range-wireless-lens-mount-other-accessories/

 

[Kit.]

It's a comparison of apples with eggs if you compare plugin connectors with those used in camera/lens mounts and 2 data pins with at least 5 or 6 data pins.

I am not getting it, sorry.

EF mount is SPI, it has 2 data pins (and 1 clock pin).
USB starts with 4 data pins, but they are differential (and asynchronous), so still the same 2 data signals, just at much higher frequency.

Maybe you read the link, weixing delivered with his post:
https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-short-range-wireless-lens-mount-other-accessories/

It's just a patent (a patentable idea for patent portfolio), and it doesn't mention costs as a factor.

 

[Ozarker]

IBIS systems imply that it is already possible, it's more a question of logistics. Realistically, the same mechanisms that drive the focus group in the lens could drive the sensor plane as well, as long as there are flex cables attached to everything. And those systems actuate far more frequently. Part of the new lens protocol could be a key value to position the sensor. That would open up the lens design for any flange distance that is optimal for the lens, not forcing them to use one constant one for everything.

Movement for IBIS is very tiny. Nothing near 12mm. Probably not even near 1mm (I really don't know.). I very much doubt this will be a case of the sensor being moved back and forth up to 12mm. The distance will, instead, be compensated for in the mount.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

 

[knight427]

Note that two of the assumptions turned out to not be true, that's why I listed them, so grown-ups could understand where I was coming from. Rumors at that point were saying the camera would take EF without an adapter, but there was the new RF mount too. On top that, the 24-70 f/2 (not 28-70) was being talked about, which would be unimaginably huge for a FF sensor. This is why I wondered if perhaps the RF mount would be m43 lenses. It was a simple thought experiment about what that might mean. When it turned out the 24-70 was actually 28-70, this made a whole lot less sense.

Maybe one day you'll go through puberty and understand the difference between a meaningless pissing contest on the internet, and thoughtful discussion. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Ozarker]

Note that two of the assumptions turned out to not be true, that's why I listed them, so grown-ups could understand where I was coming from. Rumors at that point were saying the camera would take EF without an adapter, but there was the new RF mount too. On top that, the 24-70 f/2 (not 28-70) was being talked about, which would be unimaginably huge for a FF sensor. This is why I wondered if perhaps the RF mount would be m43 lenses. It was a simple thought experiment about what that might mean. When it turned out the 24-70 was actually 28-70, this made a whole lot less sense.

Maybe one day you'll go through puberty and understand the difference between a meaningless pissing contest on the internet, and thoughtful discussion. I won't hold my breath.

Wow. I put a "Laughing so hard I'm crying" emoji at what you wrote (without launching into a pissing contest or personal attack) because I thought it was funny and saw your confusion and you launch into a tirade. You want to lecture me on being grown up and awaiting puberty? Wow.

My funny bone was tickled because I happen to own a tiny M43 lens and know it would never fit RF and could never natively fit a huge RF mount. Well, they could put an M43 lens on an RF mount, but what's the point and how nice would that look? But them, how would that adapt to an M43 camera? (BTW: It would't be an M43 lens with an RF mount.). I'm not allowed to laugh at that without you getting pissed? Would you have reacted the same way in person if we were buddies having a Coke? Or is it just the internet that pisses you off? Grow up. I didn't get into or ask for any pissing contest from you. You, however, seem to want one.

BTW: Standard EF lenses (small and light, not "L") could be adapted to RF, still allow FF without the M43 crop factor messing things up. It is the "L" line people are crying about the weight over.

Bless your heart.

 

[FramerMCB]

But which mount should the plug be? You see, one way or another, the mount question stays unresolved for now.

Oh don't fret none over that. We're talking Canon here so it will be HDMI - mini no doubt...