A hypothesis concerning the RF mount

[psolberg]

like others, I miss the CR rating. I know some people here like big cameras, me too, but IMO a compact FF camera is convenient too, even if it has a small grip sony/Nikon style. I would be interested to see what they do with this huge flange distance vs Z and E mounts. The camera will have a snout and be annoyingly larger than it needs to without actually being more useful, unlike say, dual grip bodies with shutter triggers built in. So I would have personally liked to have seen a true A7 whatever competitor in size with better/similar Nikon-like ergonomics, yet retain the short flange. And before you obviously tell me: hey lenses are big, etc, yes, I realize it. But for some applications you don't need big lenses and size-weight matter more, specially as a backup.

as stevewhitemd points above, other advantages exist.

Either way, yeah, interesting.

 

[David Littleboy]

Can someone explain to me why a mirrorless camera can't just have an EF mount? Why can't it be a camera that's like the current cameras, but mirrorless?
With all the great EF lenses, what's the advantage of a new mount?

Lenses in the 10mm to 50mm range can be made smaller and lighter and better. The Nokton 40/1.2 (a seriously lovely lens) is about half the weight of the Canon 35/1.4 II. And the Voughtlander 10, 12, and 15mm lenses are seriously kewl. (All of these are manufactured by Cosina, the Japanese company that also makes (some of?) the Zeiss SLR lenses.) Standard zooms* can also be made smaller and lighter and better. Some of the "better" bit here is that you don't need IS anymore (which is added optical complexity in the lens design), which will happen anyway. Currently the Sony 24-105/4.0 is the lightest and best 24-105/4.0 even though it still has IS in it. (It's expensive, though.) If Canon came out with a short-flange system, IBIS, and a killer 24-105/4.0, they'd be home free, whatever kludgy mount they use. The kludgy mount being described here would probably preclude Canon versions of the Cosina lenses, though. Still, the point that the rear, protruding into the camera, elements of superwides and standard zooms are pretty small means that this kludge just might fly.

*: This is a major irritation here: the 5D2 + 24-70/2.8 II produces amazing images. Every.Single.Time. Like falling off a log. But it's heavy, I really need another 25mm or so on the long end, and it is, not coincidentally, not IS.

 

[MaximPhotoStudio]

If true, EF and RF lens "sexy" mounts are game changers for sure. Let's hope the new camera has dual card slots.

 

[amorse]

At this point I just hope they release it soon so we can postulate about something else for a while

 

[Refurb7]

Not so needlessly, full compatibility with all those EF lenses.

I say "needlessly" because that's what adapters are for: to create compatibility if and when needed. I'd much rather have a smaller, thinner mirrorless camera body, and resort to an adapter when needed to use an EF lens. Keeping the body fat for EF lenses would remove one of the key advantages of mirrorless. It would be a fat DSLR-like mirrorless, built for DSLR lenses. That just seems terribly wrong to me. I sincerely hope Canon hasn't taken that route.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

But that’s for a sensor which doesn’t move. If you can move the sensor, you can align it, in demand, without shims.

I’m not saying that mightn’t be expensive, but it’s doable.

I doubt that anyone would want to align a sensor every time they mounted a lens, being doable and practical are not the same. Moving a sensor 1/2 inch with micron precision ?

 

[3kramd5]

I doubt that anyone would want to align a sensor every time they mounted a lens, being doable and practical are not the same. Moving a sensor 1/2 inch with micron precision ?

if it were not automated, certainly not. If the mount and adapter had targets and the sensor assembly a way to key off them optically and command the actuator, it could happen every time you turn on the camera.

I don’t expect it, just talking technique.

Edit: alternately, you would really only need to align it during mirrorless mode, where orientation matters more than gross location (sensor based focus). In SLR mode, drive it back into a kinematic mount. The hard stops would have to be shimmed on assembly, but then the sensor plate would be able to repeatably return to its “back” position.

Again, I expect neither a moving sensor nor a telescoping mount. Just talking how it could be done.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
"R" for Radio enabled mount? Such as this patent reported in the past: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-short-range-wireless-lens-mount-other-accessories/

Have a nice day.

 

[Quackator]

Perhaps new communications protocol which requires a different interface.

That doesn't need a new interface. Canon uses Motorola SPI,
and that can switch to asynchronous data transfer with a much
higher clock rate. Anything between factor 10 and 100.

I bet that many lenses introduced over the last two to four years
already have this on board. Certainly the new 70-200s.

We have seen the patent, it's just that many people misinterpret it.

The camera asks the lens to identify, and if the lens can do it,
camera and lens will switch to bionic speed. That simple.

Otherwise: selling new lenses.

Canon sells in excess of 10,000,000 lenses a year.
Among the buyers that are users of cameras made
by Sony (adapted), Blackmagic, RED, Arri, Panasonic
(native EF-mount), just to name a few.

Changing the mount would kill this business, and would
damage native user lens sales, because everyone
would wait to see where Canon is headed.

One guy asked about the empty room (where the mirror
box has been). Applying telecentric construction, you need
a certain room between rear lens element and sensor.
You can have that in your camera, or you need to put it into
every lens that has a focal length over ~40mm.

That's fine, if you only use wideangle pancake lenses with
slow max apertures. Use three or more lenses and the
switch to a thinner body makes your bag swell instead
of saving room and weight. Sony is proof for that already .

Canon EF doesn't have the technical shortcomings that
Nikon F had. They are in a completely different boat.

 

[drama]

like others, I miss the CR rating.

Amen. I think the fear of Canon W*tch has got Craig posting any crank's nonsense because it means web traffic. I've seen so much contradictory nonsense about everything from spec to mount, that none of it really means anything. If the point of this site was to be an authoritative voice in what's next, that seems to have gone out of the window in exchange for "will print whatever some loony emails me if it means ad clicks in the run-up to a potential product cycle". Which is a real shame.

 

[PerKr]

Nothing is stopping Canon from doing both full EF mirrorless and new-mount mirrorless in parallell. Not following the stream and make a slim-size (vintage SLR size basically) body doesn't seem like a very good idea in terms of attracting customers. Having select lenses intrude some 25-30mm into the body also seems a bit clunky and limiting in terms of lens size.

 

[Aglet]

It is amusing to watch all the excited buzz and speculation around this rumor from an "I don't care" viewpoint.

As for some of the speculation:
Has anyone seen a patent for moving a sensor along the main axis to adjust register distance?..
I posit that solution as impractical to do just yet for a mass produced product that needs to be that precise AND reliable. The tech exists but don't forget, Canon likes to make profitable products so keeping it simple helps. Existing 3-motion IBIS is enough mechanical complication. The extra volume required inside the body to accommodate this is also unpalatable.

Making the new mount so it's compatible with the EF(-s) mount but augmenting functionality is at least plausible.
Extending the rear elements of a lens into the body can work but then you're going to have a compromise with the entrance angle of microlenses in the periphery of the sensor; shallow angles for rear-extended wide-angles vs closer to perpendicular for legacy long focal lengths. Also, such a design will consume precious mm of flange ID and convergence location which could reduce maximum apertures possible with certain focal lengths... not necessarily a big deal however.

Whatever they do, they better make it good.
Altho Nikon's initial Z products are, IMO, mediocre, the overall design parameters have a lot of potential.
Lots of great stuff to look forward to!

 

[fullstop]

The other two players need to take customers from Canon, which neither has been able to do successfully, even with 'better sensors' and the only FF MILCs

so you think all Sony and Fuji mirrorfree cameras were sold only to new, first-time buyers? ;-)

in reality the vast majority of Sony (and Fuji) mirrorfree customers had Canon or Nikon mirrorslappers before. most went Sony or Fuji only because there were no (or no competitive) mirrorfree cameras available from their preferred maker. Almost every Sony (and Fuji) sale could have easily been a Canon and Nikon sale, had they offered decent mirrorfree cameras with APS-C and FF sensors.

unfortunately unit sales per brand and type of camera are nowhere publicly available, but my impression is that

* since decent EOS-M cameras are available (M5, M6, and especially the up to current specs and affordable M50), the bleeding from Canon to Fuji has come to a stop.
* there is still bleeding from Nikon to Fuji.
* there is a lot of bleeding from both Canon and Nikon to Sony mirrorfree and the earlier trickle has become a sizeable creek by now, momentum has been tilting to Sony. Nikon has now started to build a dam with Z6/Z7.

nokia had a dominant market position and Kodak even more so -for much longer than 15 years. It did not help them to survive, when they did not bring the right products to market, when customers wanted them.

 

[Talys]

Nothing is stopping Canon from doing both full EF mirrorless and new-mount mirrorless in parallell. Not following the stream and make a slim-size (vintage SLR size basically) body doesn't seem like a very good idea in terms of attracting customers. Having select lenses intrude some 25-30mm into the body also seems a bit clunky and limiting in terms of lens size.

If the new mount is EF compatible (ie direct mount sans adapter) there is no reason to also build a body with an EF mount, though. It would still make sense to make EF mount lenses, as there are still a massive number of DSLRs that are EF mount; however, a fully EF compatible mount would mean that future bodies could just be built using the new mount.

 

[mb66energy]

Hi,
"R" for Radio enabled mount? Such as this patent reported in the past: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-short-range-wireless-lens-mount-other-accessories/

Have a nice day.

RF for radio frequency triggered the same thought in my brain - it would be a great solution to connect only the power and transmit the data at high speed without having any thoughts about contact reliability for high frequencies. On the other hand what about interferences of an antenna output signal with the sensor photosites?

EDIT:
After consulting the content of your links website: A range of 30mm and good shielding might keep disturbances away from the sensor - maybe it is a communication of two antennas (body + lens) in a shielded cavity made of metal to (1) protect the data transmission from external influences (other photographer with similar body) and (2) protect the bodies / lens' internal electronics ...

I have designed & built two simple sensor packages which communicate via Wifi and provide a Website for teaching. An acceleration sensor with on board power to measure e.g. acceleration inside a falling body and a thermal imager with 64 pixels (!!! no mega !!!) supplied by a power bank. I enjoyed the flexibility of designing the communications between web server/browser without fiddeling around with long i2c or spi connections. The u-controlers are ESP8266 for 5 EUR/$ with Wifi and webserver on board which is really cheap.

 

[fullstop]

Whatever they do, they better make it good.
Altho Nikon's initial Z products are, IMO, mediocre, the overall design parameters have a lot of potential.
Lots of great stuff to look forward to!

+1 fully agree

 

[tizianof]

Do you have any idea if it's possible for a lens to focus on a different plane, using autofocus system?
Because, if it's possible, maybe with a system specifically designed for that, that could be the explanation of the renewal of many lenses of the last months. That could bring this solution:
- Mirrorless camera with an EF mount closer to the sensor (let's say not as Nikon/Sony, but enough for a compact camera, like 30 mm)
- R means "Reduced" flange
- All the new EF lenses natively supported
- Maybe EF-R lenses, specifically designed

 

[Bennymiata]

I can definitely imagine a new mount that extends out from the body when an EF lens is attached and then goes flat against the body with an R lens. If well made, it should last thousands of lens changes. It could also mean a built-in 30mm or so extension tube for macro photos using normal R lenses.
If Canon manage to bring out something like this, Nikon will do something unpalatable in their pants that Canon came out with such an elegant solution.
As more and more R lenses are sold, the next generation of R cameras may not need the converter on them.

 

[crashpc]

A "Radio Frequency" mount really sounds sexy to me.

Reminds me of good joke:
Americans, Japanese and Russians argue over who had best communication technology in early stages of humanity.
American says: We found stone writing on a stone twenty meters under ground. That means that 1500.b.c. we could write and share...
Russian says: We found a pack of wires fourty meters under ground, so we had electricity and internet 3000 years b.c.
Japanese guy: We tried to dig 250m deep, yet we didn´t find anything. Therefore it´s obvious, that we already had wireless communication as early as 100 000 b.c.

 

[Kit.]

nokia had a dominant market position and Kodak even more so -for much longer than 15 years. It did not help them to survive,

Hello?

Nokia has about the same revenue as Canon. It just doesn't produce its phones anymore (kinda; it still has quite a lot of say over what HMD Global does) after being burned by a stupid marketoid decision to jump to Windows Mobile.