A hypothesis concerning the RF mount

[jolyonralph]

PL might be for PL mount cine lenses?

No. the adaptor clearly states R to M (or M to R), so those are the two mounts involved. the ND and PL are something else.

 

[.jan]

Two: that long flange distance creates another problem, that is, the design of the lens. Particularly for a wide-angle lens, to throw the light onto the sensor becomes difficult, and the design required to do that is complex -- therefore heavy and expensive. Notice how light an EF-M lens is? With the short flange distance (I think 15mm for that series), it turns out that the lens design becomes simpler, therefore lighter and less expensive (yes, you could make it some heavier with weather sealing, construction, etc., and since you're Canon you could always, always make it more expensive).

Three: the width of the mount, that is, the hole in the body where you attach the lens. On an MILC you can make that wider; that means (potentially, all other things being equal) you can have lenses with larger apertures. The new Nikon 50mm f/0.95 S series lens is an example.

I agree with one, but two and three are to be discussed further. Regarding lens design and size there may be an advantage, but EF-M lenses being so light and small is also a point of materials and an overall much smaller mount. The 18-55 EF-S kit lenses or the 10-18 EF-S are also fairly small and light, imagine if they wouldn't have to fit the big EF mount, they'd be even tinier. Which brings me to three, the mount: The EF mount's inner diameter is just 1mm smaller than the Nikon Z mount. I don't think they'd have trouble making a lens like the Noct for EF sized mounts. After all there is a 1.0/50 from Canon.

 

[lightthief]

Small sells when it looks like this:

View attachment 179994​

Yes, this only applies to a handful of lenses, which is all Canon should make with the thin mount.

Make a thin mount offering and a full EF mount offering. Offer 4-6 lenses (f/2.8 primes, f/4 zooms and a pancake or two) for the thin mount and then put it on mothballs.

Viva EF for the proper flagship lens portfolio. No split loyalties/budgets/priorities to two FF mounts.

- A

hello,
i think you are right. Canon need something small.
You faked a 28mm lens inside some bigger DSLRs. Can you do this with a 200D and the 28mm lens, please?
I think, it should be possible to put in a FF sensor in the 200D. Today, it is limited by the OVF and the smaller APS-C mirror.
200D without mirror -> no OVF + a lens design that uses the free space of the mirror box. This could be small.
Am i wrong (and where)?
Thank you!

 

[NicoN]

Macro IS. It will be a 35mm macro with ringlight I suspect.

That makes more sense.

 

[fullstop]

Is all that trouble worth a measly 1/4-1/2"?
I need something sexier than that to sign up for all his trouble. Faster than ring USM on SLR focusing. A modern 50 prime to go on that new mount. Something.
- A

Now it is clear: Canon does read this forum and they listen to you. There you go ...

• EOS R body
• EOS R 24105 kit
• RF 35 mm F 1.8 M IS
• RF 50 mm F 1.2 L USM
• RF 28 - 70 mm F 2 L USM
• RF 24 - 105 mm F4 L USM

 

[Stuart]

That makes more sense.

I'd guess its more of a video/street lens. Unless its intended for vloggers who need face lighting.

 

[jolyonralph]

I don't think they'd have trouble making a lens like the Noct for EF sized mounts. After all there is a 1.0/50 from Canon.

The NOCT probably doesn't need the wider Z mount at all. The wider Z mount is really more important for ultrawide lenses.

There is a third party 50mm f/0.95 lens that works on the Sony FE mount, which is the same dimensions as EF-M

 

[.jan]

The NOCT probably doesn't need the wider Z mount at all. The wider Z mount is really more important for ultrawide lenses.

There is a third party 50mm f/0.95 lens that works on the Sony FE mount, which is the same dimensions as EF-M

Oh, good to know. I read somewhere that it was the F mount's diameter that keeps Nikon from making faster than f/1.4 glass and the whole emphasis of Nikon was on the Noct lens rather than smaller lenses (which btw doesn't seem to be the case with the announced lenses, as none of them look particularly small).

 

[BurningPlatform]

To me it looks like we are going to have a dual mount camera, having the construction that was described in one of Canon patents earlier (not the electric communication patents but the other one that is pictured on Keith's Northlight Imaging pages here: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-eos-r/). Turn the mount selector ring and you change the flange distance.

To me it looks like it would bring additional weight to the body, and some moving parts that I would rather live without. I do not think that this solution would be highly regarded by the internet crowd, though.

But considering there does not seem to be an EF to R adapter on that list...

 

[BillB]

EF stands for Electro-focus.

RF stands for ?

Every other variant of EF is a suffix, ie EF-S and EF-M.

The EF mount has also been used on non-autofocus lenses such as the TS line and the MP-E which don't carry the EF name because they don't electro-focus!

TS is obvious what it stands for MP-E stands for Macro Photo (Exceptional) or Macro Photo (Extendable)


Now, I can see the R standing for 'recessed' but "recessed focus" doesn't make sense, and Canon do tend to use boring and predictable names for their product codes.

EF-R would make a lot more sense for a mount name than RF if the R stands for recessed.

Given the flakiness of the rumors, EF-R would seem to be quite possible. Analogous to EF-S--EF lens works on an EF-R camera, but an EF camera will not accept an EF-R

 

[Guldborg]

What if canon decided to leverage their large mount diameter and produced a camera with the same flange-to-sensor distance as the standard EF mount, allowing EF lenses to mount naturally, but created a new series of lenses where some of the lens would sit inside the camera, effectively shortening amount of lens protruding from the mount?
This would yield full compatibility with the EF lenses, but also deliver on the promise of more compact camera/lens systems from mirrorless.
Just a thought...

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Regardless of your 'impressions', the fact is that over the past few years Canon has gained ILC market share. You can woulda-shoulda-coulda all you want, it doesn't affect reality...and reality exists independent of your refusal to acknowledge it or your inability to comprehend it.

Yes, yes...Nokia and Kodak. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how ILC-with-a-mirror to ILC-without-a-mirror is a paradigm shift (and that wait will exceed my lifespan, because it's not), so those past examples aren't at all relevant (and as pointed out, Nokia remains a successful company...but there's that pesky reality thing again, which you ignore or can't comprehend).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):

"Canon confirmed [...] a new product announced in September"

• EOS R body
• EOS R 24105 kit
• RF 35 mm F 1.8 M IS
• RF 50 mm F 1.2 L USM
• RF 28 - 70 mm F 2 L USM
• RF 24 - 105 mm F4 L USM
• EF-M 32 mm F 1.4 STM
• EF 400 mm F 2.8 L III
• EF 600 mm F4 L III
• M adapter R

Hey AvTvM – what do you think of all those USM designations in the 'credible rumor'? And what about the lack of an EF to R adapter?

 

[lightthief]

I'm sceptical of this EF-depth body with R-mount lenses that sit deep in the body. This suggests the mount is offset part way up the lens barrel.
In addition, those R-mount lenses intended for this first-generation mirrorless will have an outer barrel thin enough to go through the EF mount which means that they will be narrower lens elements than native lenses.

As and when Canon go full-bore mirrorless in 5-10 years time and start to make bodies that are thinner and lighter, I presume they will have a full-on 54mm R mount and Canon will have to design a whole new set of R-mount lenses - and the lenses they buy now will not be compatible with the future mirrorless body.

Or am I missing something?

I'm sure that, in this case, we will get an adapter.

 

[BillB]

Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):

"Canon confirmed [...] a new product announced in September"

• EOS R body
• EOS R 24105 kit
• RF 35 mm F 1.8 M IS
• RF 50 mm F 1.2 L USM
• RF 28 - 70 mm F 2 L USM
• RF 24 - 105 mm F4 L USM
• EF-M 32 mm F 1.4 STM
• EF 400 mm F 2.8 L III
• EF 600 mm F4 L III
• M adapter R
• • ※ The lens name is not the official name, only the part that can be confirmed

(P.S. First post on this forum )

Great first post! I find myself wondering why a new 50mm would need to use the RF mount. A 50mm wouldn't seem to need to protrude past the mount, or might there be some advantage in doing so? Why couldn't a 50mm be a plain old EF? Maybe that is the reason the 50mm was such a long time coming. To do it right, Canon had to roll out a new mount.

 

[.jan]

Great first post! I find myself wondering why a new 50mm would need to use the RF mount. A 50mm wouldn't seem to need to protrude past the mount, or might there be some advantage in doing so? Why couldn't a 50mm be a plain old EF? Maybe that is the reason the 50mm was such a long time coming. To do it right, Canon had to roll out a new mount.

Highly doubt the "had to" part, but a state of the art fast 50mm could drag a lot of people towards a new system - especially if they manage to keep it smaller/lighter and/or cheaper than the Sigma 1.4/50.

 

[Architect1776]

Oh, good to know. I read somewhere that it was the F mount's diameter that keeps Nikon from making faster than f/1.4 glass and the whole emphasis of Nikon was on the Noct lens rather than smaller lenses (which btw doesn't seem to be the case with the announced lenses, as none of them look particularly small).

I think people forget Nikon makes a 50mm f1.2 already and has done so for decades. So where this f1.4 rumor started I am not sure. Also the Canon 7s had a 50mm f0.95 lens on a relatively small diameter mount (Less than most current mounts). In fact Canon made the first lens in this aperture range. https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2012/01/the-incredible-canon-50mm-f0-95/

 

[BillB]

Highly doubt the "had to" part, but a state of the art fast 50mm could drag a lot of people towards a new system - especially if they manage to keep it smaller/lighter and/or cheaper than the Sigma 1.4/50.

Well, it will also annoy people who want to put it on their DSLR and there are a lot of them out there

 

[.jan]

Well, it will also annoy people who want to put it on their DSLR and there are a lot of them out there

Yes and no. Enthusiasts maybe, but professionals who write off and switch to new gear on a regular basis will be more pragmatic. But then again I feel like more enthusiasts than professionals are really demanding a FF mirrorless system.

 

[-pekr-]

Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):

• RF 28 - 70 mm F 2 L USM

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