Are the latest "updates" intended to keep EF on life support?

Jul 28, 2015
3,368
570
Antono Refa said:
Kit. said:
Antono Refa said:
Mikehit said:
CanonFanBoy said:
I wish Canon would announce for one reason: To put all these mount arguments and EF is dead or dieing threads out of our misery one way or the other. This is really getting old.
As I see it the rumours have developed in this way:
Canon is developing FF mirrorless
I think mirrorless cameras have to be smaller to compete with Sony
Smaller flange distance means new mount
And EOS-M isn't a big enough clue here?
A clue for what?

That Canon has no intention of killing the EF mount.

The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series.

If you think back to the introduction of DSLRs, APS-C was introduced because of the technological challenges of making affordable FF sensors so they introduced a cropped sensor. That cropped sensor had to take the EF lenses already in existence which meant that even when they started making EF-S lenses specifically for DSLR they were constrained on how small they could go in designing lenses.
When Canon introduced the M series, they also took the decision that the new camera did not need to accept EF lenses as native, and this gave them the freedom to design smaller lenses in a smaller mount.

So the rationale behind M series and the FF mirrorless are completely independent.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,502
1,878
Antono Refa said:
Kit. said:
Antono Refa said:
Mikehit said:
CanonFanBoy said:
I wish Canon would announce for one reason: To put all these mount arguments and EF is dead or dieing threads out of our misery one way or the other. This is really getting old.
As I see it the rumours have developed in this way:
Canon is developing FF mirrorless
I think mirrorless cameras have to be smaller to compete with Sony
Smaller flange distance means new mount
And EOS-M isn't a big enough clue here?
A clue for what?
That Canon has no intention of killing the EF mount.
Why? I see no connection at all. Neither to "intention", nor to lack thereof.
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
Mikehit said:
The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series.

If you think back to the introduction of DSLRs, APS-C was introduced because of the technological challenges of making affordable FF sensors so they introduced a cropped sensor. That cropped sensor had to take the EF lenses already in existence which meant that even when they started making EF-S lenses specifically for DSLR they were constrained on how small they could go in designing lenses.
When Canon introduced the M series, they also took the decision that the new camera did not need to accept EF lenses as native, and this gave them the freedom to design smaller lenses in a smaller mount.

So the rationale behind M series and the FF mirrorless are completely independent.

With both aps-c and FF, key questions would seem to be whether another mount would permit smaller cameras and lenses, and whether smaller cameras and lenses are a good idea. (The answers might be different for aps-c and FF.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
We can assume that all updates to EF lenses cost money that Canon wants to recover through the sale of lenses over time, however trivial the improvements may seem to some of us.. We can also assume that Canon will be selling EF lenses as long as they are selling DSLR cameras. We can further assume that the lens mount design for the first Canon FF mirrorless will be announced long before Canon has recovered the costs of developing the new lenses or stopped selling DSLR's. I do not regard the current situation as showing that Canon is putting EF lenses on life support, but others might differ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2015
3,368
570
BillB said:
We can assume that all updates to EF lenses cost money that Canon wants to recover through the sale of lenses over time, however trivial the improvements may seem to some of us.. We can also assume that Canon will be selling EF lenses as long as they are selling DSLR cameras. We can further assume that the lens mount design for the first Canon FF mirrorless will be announced long before Canon has recovered the costs of developing the new lenses or stopped selling DSLR's. I do not regard the current situation as showing that Canon is putting EF lenses on life support, but others might differ.

Maybe... the new Series III lenses have a secret bit built in, so when Canon release the thin-mount mirrorless you can send them in, Canon remove the 'little bit' and VOILA a mirrorless telephoto. And much to the bemusement of Canon afficionados, they realise they have been using an adapter all along :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,739
2,255
USA
Mikehit said:
BillB said:
We can assume that all updates to EF lenses cost money that Canon wants to recover through the sale of lenses over time, however trivial the improvements may seem to some of us.. We can also assume that Canon will be selling EF lenses as long as they are selling DSLR cameras. We can further assume that the lens mount design for the first Canon FF mirrorless will be announced long before Canon has recovered the costs of developing the new lenses or stopped selling DSLR's. I do not regard the current situation as showing that Canon is putting EF lenses on life support, but others might differ.

Maybe... the new Series III lenses have a secret bit built in, so when Canon release the thin-mount mirrorless you can send them in, Canon remove the 'little bit' and VOILA a mirrorless telephoto. And much to the bemusement of Canon afficionados, they realise they have been using an adapter all along :)

Clever! Nice to see you back in top form!
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
BillB said:
Mikehit said:
The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series.

If you think back to the introduction of DSLRs, APS-C was introduced because of the technological challenges of making affordable FF sensors so they introduced a cropped sensor. That cropped sensor had to take the EF lenses already in existence which meant that even when they started making EF-S lenses specifically for DSLR they were constrained on how small they could go in designing lenses.
When Canon introduced the M series, they also took the decision that the new camera did not need to accept EF lenses as native, and this gave them the freedom to design smaller lenses in a smaller mount.

So the rationale behind M series and the FF mirrorless are completely independent.

With both aps-c and FF, key questions would seem to be whether another mount would permit smaller cameras and lenses, and whether smaller cameras and lenses are a good idea. (The answers might be different for aps-c and FF.)

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Don Haines said:
BillB said:
Mikehit said:
The introduction of FF mirrorless is a completely different proposition to the M series.

If you think back to the introduction of DSLRs, APS-C was introduced because of the technological challenges of making affordable FF sensors so they introduced a cropped sensor. That cropped sensor had to take the EF lenses already in existence which meant that even when they started making EF-S lenses specifically for DSLR they were constrained on how small they could go in designing lenses.
When Canon introduced the M series, they also took the decision that the new camera did not need to accept EF lenses as native, and this gave them the freedom to design smaller lenses in a smaller mount.

So the rationale behind M series and the FF mirrorless are completely independent.

With both aps-c and FF, key questions would seem to be whether another mount would permit smaller cameras and lenses, and whether smaller cameras and lenses are a good idea. (The answers might be different for aps-c and FF.)

As far as making lenses smaller goes, you have two parameters that you can play with.... radius and length. The radius at the lens mount is constrained by the FF image circle and can not be made smaller without introducing serious vignetting for longer lenses. Since people go FF for "ultimate quality" this is not going to happen. The size of the large end of the lens is constrained by the F number.... To make the radius (filter size) smaller, you have to be prepared to shoot with a slower lens.... and since the FF market is dominated by those same people searching for ultimate quality, it is highly unlikely that they are going to give up fast lenses.....

That leaves you with one parameter that you can play with, and that is lens length. The problem with shortening lens length is that you are then increasing the angles that light is being bent, and that leads to increased chromatic aberrations, which gives you a poorer quality lens, which once again flies in the face of the desire for high image quality. There is a caveat here.... and that is DO technology, which can be used to make a lens shorter..... however, for a fair comparison you have to realize that DO technology makes the lens shorter regardless of whatever mount is chosen, so there is no inherent advantage to gained here..

So, if you want smaller lenses, buy slower lenses. Period! Works on all mounts.

If you are only talking about the dimensions of the lens then this is probably true. However, for many photographers it is the weight that deters them from buying large telephoto lenses rather than the length or diameter. Here there have already been some dramatic improvements - for example the 400mm F2.8L ii is 1.5Kg lighter than the mk 1 lens and yet the image quality is just as good, if not better. At 3.85Kg it is still a very heavy lens though and I am hoping that the new version will be even lighter.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.

The premise of this thread is that Canon is updating its EF lenses as some sort of a ploy before they abandon the EF mount. That's tin foil hat crazy.

You are wasting valuable internet space on a thread that should have been shut down with a simple answer: "No, that's effin stupid."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
Ian_of_glos said:
If you are only talking about the dimensions of the lens then this is probably true. However, for many photographers it is the weight that deters them from buying large telephoto lenses rather than the length or diameter. Here there have already been some dramatic improvements - for example the 400mm F2.8L ii is 1.5Kg lighter than the mk 1 lens and yet the image quality is just as good, if not better. At 3.85Kg it is still a very heavy lens though and I am hoping that the new version will be even lighter.

You are very right! Composite materials have advanced considerably. My back is thankful!
 
Upvote 0
Mar 26, 2014
1,443
536
Kit. said:
Antono Refa said:
Kit. said:
Antono Refa said:
Mikehit said:
CanonFanBoy said:
I wish Canon would announce for one reason: To put all these mount arguments and EF is dead or dieing threads out of our misery one way or the other. This is really getting old.
As I see it the rumours have developed in this way:
Canon is developing FF mirrorless
I think mirrorless cameras have to be smaller to compete with Sony
Smaller flange distance means new mount
And EOS-M isn't a big enough clue here?
A clue for what?
That Canon has no intention of killing the EF mount.
Why? I see no connection at all. Neither to "intention", nor to lack thereof.

The problem is in your eyes, or behind them.
 
Upvote 0

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,673
580
S Florida
unfocused said:
People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.

The premise of this thread is that Canon is updating its EF lenses as some sort of a ploy before they abandon the EF mount. That's tin foil hat crazy.

You are wasting valuable internet space on a thread that should have been shut down with a simple answer: "No, that's effin stupid."

I couldn't agree more with your response, though that one expression is a bit questionable. A few electrons were inconvenienced, that's all...
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
brad-man said:
unfocused said:
People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.

The premise of this thread is that Canon is updating its EF lenses as some sort of a ploy before they abandon the EF mount. That's tin foil hat crazy.

You are wasting valuable internet space on a thread that should have been shut down with a simple answer: "No, that's effin stupid."

I couldn't agree more with your response, though that one expression is a bit questionable. A few electrons were inconvenienced, that's all...

A lot of people seem to be hardwired to accept conspiracy theories....

(no electrons were harmed in the making of this post)
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
brad-man said:
unfocused said:
People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.

The premise of this thread is that Canon is updating its EF lenses as some sort of a ploy before they abandon the EF mount. That's tin foil hat crazy.

You are wasting valuable internet space on a thread that should have been shut down with a simple answer: "No, that's effin stupid."

I couldn't agree more with your response, though that one expression is a bit questionable. A few electrons were inconvenienced, that's all...

It's all fun and games until this happens: http://hmpg.net/
 
Upvote 0
Mar 26, 2014
1,443
536
Kit. said:
Antono Refa said:
Kit. said:
Why? I see no connection at all. Neither to "intention", nor to lack thereof.
The problem is in your eyes, or behind them.
So, there is no problem. You just wanted to look smart, and failed.
Yes, you've failed to explain why Canon would introduce a new mount. Not smart, not at all.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,502
1,878
Antono Refa said:
Kit. said:
Antono Refa said:
Kit. said:
Why? I see no connection at all. Neither to "intention", nor to lack thereof.
The problem is in your eyes, or behind them.
So, there is no problem. You just wanted to look smart, and failed.
Yes, you've failed to explain why Canon would introduce a new mount.
Why are you trying to blame me for your own failures when I'm still here?

Antono Refa said:
Not smart, not at all.
Indeed.
 
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,739
2,255
USA
unfocused said:
People! Stop and look at yourselves for a minute.

The premise of this thread is that Canon is updating its EF lenses as some sort of a ploy before they abandon the EF mount. That's tin foil hat crazy.

You are wasting valuable internet space on a thread that should have been shut down with a simple answer: "No, that's effin stupid."

Thank you for bringing the full weight of your intellect to the discussion.

Why are you so worried about EF going away? Surely Canon will have good adapters. And they'll probably keep repairing the old EF lenses for 7 or more years. Chill!
 
Upvote 0