Canon’s EOS-1D X Mark II equivalent mirrorless is coming sooner than originally thought [CR1]

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,758
3,111
Sony didn’t go out of its way to help sigma and metabones users. As stated above and cited from Sony documentation, it’s for their a-Mount adapters which have mirrors and built-in PDAF.
And does Olympus have an equivalent adapter that has mirrors and built in PDAF?
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
And does Olympus have an equivalent adapter that has mirrors and built in PDAF?
As mentioned above, no idea about Olympus or Nikon. My comments were specific to Sony.

I’m questioning the validity of your second link. They may know how to run tools in order to calibrate for customers, but either their writeup is wrong, or I am.

It makes an assertion that A7 series cameras allow micro adjustments to accommodate displacement errors, which it seems to define as an adapter being too long or short. This doesn’t jive with Sony’s own documentation, and they don’t explain why that necessitates micro adjustments when it is the image sensor itself dictating.

It also makes an assertion that the Nikon Z7 is different from the Sony A7 and some Olympus models, in that Z7 uses phase detect pixels like Nikon DSLRs. But Sony A7 and Olympus use phase detect pixels, and Nikon SLRs (I believe) do not; in mirror lockup they use CDAF.

185310
 
Last edited:

twoheadedboy

EOS R Fanboi
Jan 3, 2018
33
28
Kenosha, WI
I've gone to always shooting primes in the mid-90s, to trinity around 2001, but since 2010 or sometime I've switched to 24-105/4IS and stayed there. The first-gen EF was good but a little soft. The RF is as sharp as it needs to be, though, in my opinion.

I really don't think the 24-70/2.8IS is a must-have for a pro any more. You've got the f/4IS prime on one side, then on the other the 28-70/2 and the f/1.2 primes.

What this means is that on the tele end the 70-200/2.8 is also kind of dead. A 100-300/4ISL or even 100-400/5.6ISL would be the same size, more or less, and get the same kind of bokeh at the long end.

Finally on the wide end a 12-24/4IS would be the logical next move.

In short a new trinity is foreseeable that instead of 17-200 at f/2.8, now it covers more like 12-400 at f/4.

One final note is that with f/2.8 trinities there's not quite as much interest for big fast primes, but with an f/4 trinity suddenly the f/1.2, f/1.4, and even f/1.8 and f/2.0 glass could excite a legitimate interest.

What we really need more than anything is 35/2 and 50/1.8 that stick out no further than the grip, so we can have our R's in our backpack at all times. And with f/4 trinity you could see quite a number sold to even the reporters who today have no interest in f/1.8 given that their limited-range trinity is f/2.8.
I agree, I just know "holy trinity" availability and qualitative analysis is how a lot of people judge a camera. Personally I'm good with a wider range zoom in the middle at f/4 (or even a range, I used a 24 - 85 f/3.5 - 4.5 for a long time in Nikon film, and the STM in EF), supplemented with big glass fixed lenses that are going to be better than f/2.8 zooms anyway (in my case, 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm). And I really like the 70 - 200 f/2.8 because it's the most affordable, hand-holdable, flexible (with teleconverters) solution for the range it covers for action...agree that lighter smaller lenses are fine if you don't shoot sports indoors or at night.

I would love a non-distorted full frame 12 - 24 f/4, particularly if it kept 77mm filter threads (which the 15 - 35 f/2.8 IS isn't doing).
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,758
3,111
As mentioned above, no idea about Olympus or Nikon. My comments were specific to Sony.

I’m questioning the validity of your second link. They may know how to run tools in order to calibrate for customers, but either their writeup is wrong, or I am.

It makes an assertion that A7 series cameras allow micro adjustments to accommodate displacement errors, which it seems to define as an adapter being too long or short. This doesn’t jive with Sony’s own documentation, and they don’t explain why that necessitates micro adjustments when it is the image sensor itself dictating.

It also makes an assertion that the Nikon Z7 is different from the Sony A7 and some Olympus models, in that Z7 uses phase detect pixels like Nikon DSLRs. But Sony A7 and Olympus use phase detect pixels, and Nikon SLRs (I believe) do not; in mirror lockup they use CDAF.

View attachment 185310
I think you may have misinterpreted what they wrote in "This is in order to combat element displacement errors". "Element displacement errors" usually means errors in position of individual elements in the lens such as their tilt angle and decentering not an adapter being too short or long. But how would an adapter affect element displacement - do they mean tilt? So it's all a bit waffley. What we do know is that the Nikon Z7 does need AFMA and some Olympus have AFMA capacity. And that's what puzzles me and the real reasons for it.
 
Last edited:

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
I think you may have misinterpreted what they wrote in "This is in order to combat element displacement errors". "Element displacement errors" usually means errors in position of individual elements in the lens such as their tilt angle and decentering not an adapter being too short or long. But how would an adapter affect element displacement - do they mean tilt?
Yes I would ordinarily assume ‘element displacement’ refers to a lens internally, but in this context (*) they appear to be referring to an adapter putting a lens in the wrong location (and maybe also orientation).


*Edit: I missed the word “or” in my read.

Here is a curiosity: can AF micro adjustment account for a misoriented lens?
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,364
748
Here is a curiosity: can AF micro adjustment account for a misoriented lens?
I don't see how. The only thing it does at so small angles is tilting the plane of focus. Even if it could affect autofocus performance, you would need at least two independent values per lens to correct it across all the focus points (vertical tilt and horizontal tilt, for example). Nikon has only one.
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
527
134
Can you then answer why Olympus, Sony and Nikon have AFMA for phase detect AF and there are reports of it being necessary fo a Nikon? That’s not a rhetorical question.
I was unaware of these brands doing this but then again, I don't own them.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
I don't see how. The only thing it does at so small angles is tilting the plane of focus. Even if it could affect autofocus performance, you would need at least two independent values per lens to correct it across all the focus points (vertical tilt and horizontal tilt, for example). Nikon has only one.
That was my suspicion.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
304
117
I would love a non-distorted full frame 12 - 24 f/4, particularly if it kept 77mm filter threads (which the 15 - 35 f/2.8 IS isn't doing).
A bit different topic but lens distortion is a tradeoff with everything else: improving distortion means either hurting sharpness, size, price, coma, or something.

In the digital world, I've been waiting since about 2000 for a manufacturer to just stop worrying about optical distortion, and fix distortion in software. If you look at how much simpler fisheye lenses are to rectilinear counterparts, the idea should be clear.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,364
748
A bit different topic but lens distortion is a tradeoff with everything else: improving distortion means either hurting sharpness, size, price, coma, or something.

In the digital world, I've been waiting since about 2000 for a manufacturer to just stop worrying about optical distortion, and fix distortion in software. If you look at how much simpler fisheye lenses are to rectilinear counterparts, the idea should be clear.
You lose peripheral resolution when you fix barrel distortion in software.

Also, doing mass-undistortion when importing pictures makes cataloguing software slow.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
493
291
A bit different topic but lens distortion is a tradeoff with everything else: improving distortion means either hurting sharpness, size, price, coma, or something.

In the digital world, I've been waiting since about 2000 for a manufacturer to just stop worrying about optical distortion, and fix distortion in software. If you look at how much simpler fisheye lenses are to rectilinear counterparts, the idea should be clear.
Doesn't the m4/3 world do that? AIUI that's what all the complaining about "pre-cooked RAWs" is about. But as Kit. says above, it will decrease resolution, so it wouldn't make much sense on L series primes.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,057
513
If I buy a tough body like 1DX, I want it to work under every condition. An adapter is a liability. You won't understand this if you don't push your kit to its limits.
An EF to RF adapter is less of a liability than an EF 1.4X III or EF 2X III extender. Lots of 1D X Mark II shooters use extenders regularly.


You use tubes only when you need to and 1D series are mostly used for action. If you wnat to use tubes, you can very well go with EOS R which has more MP anyway.
RF mount needs L telephoto lenses (1 or 2) before EOS RX (or what ever it'll be called).
Most action/sports shooters are used to using extenders without considering them a durability liability.


I agree with lenses below 200mm (and I said the same thing in my original post). I'm talking about 300mm+ .
Many 1D X type shooters who use lenses above 300mm already frequently use extenders.

An EF to RF adapter is simpler than an extender, which has optical elements that can become misaligned.

An EF to RF adapter can be just as weather resistant as an EF extender, and has no optical glass in the light path.

It's not even really an "adapter" in the sense that a cross platform adapter has to "translate" between the camera and lens.

EF and RF lenses and bodies are both backward/forward compatible with one another.
There are no top secret protocols to reverse engineer since the RF protocol is built on top of the EF protocol and the same entity owns all of the IP for both of them.


Now go and use that same setup in mud, in desert, put your lenses with your camera in your bag and take them out of the bag etc.. With adapter, you have 1 more place for dirt/dust etc.. to come in and 2 more connections for failure. Professional 1Dx users want reliability. I'm not saying you CANNOT use adapter, I say it is a liability for 1Dx-user profile.

There's only one additional connection. A lens to camera is one connection. A lens to adapter to camera is two connections.

Many professional 1D X users already use extenders in such environments. There's no real practical/functional difference other than the adapter has no optics that degrade the lens' performance.


A TC is exactly an adapter that pros use without a second thought today.
Moreover, "pushing to the limits" for these sports and wildlife pros means high frame rates while firmly locked down on a tripod.
We are not talking combat photography here.
Tripods for wildlife. For sports, you don;t very often see anything more than a monopod for the photographer's heaviest lens.


You leave the adapter attached to the lens, and this will eliminate the additional mount/interface issue?
Maybe I cannot make myself clear: 1Dx is not only about speed, ergonomy and high Iso, it is also about reliability under harsh conditions. Leaving the adapter attached to the lens doesn't have anything to do with it. There is still one more connection that may fail/break. No sane photographer will use that combination at Olympics or in desert or ...
It's exactly the same as the one extra interface that many 1D X users shooting sports/action/wildlife have no trouble using with an extender. Are you saying 95% of pro sports shooters are not sane?



No it isn't, and it is. A TC is a must sometimes. And if you need to use TC with the adapter? Ask sports photographers if they want to use adapted lenses, and see their reaction :)
1Dx is a workhorse, Canikon don't even have rotating mode dial because rotating dials might be prone to failure (low probability but it is there).

When you ask a sports shooter if he wants to use adapted lenses, he's thinking EF glass on a Sony α9 and the resulting reduction in frame rate from 20 fps to 5 fps. There is no such penalty for using an EF to RF adapter between EOS lenses and EOS cameras.

The x-axis is in standard deviations from the mean. I'll take a bet that the Canon standard deviations are much less than the Chinese knock-offs and most will be within spec. But some of those knock offs that are not even outliers will cause problems. There was post that 20µ difference could be noticeable but I am not going to hunt through the posts for it.
The 20µm number came from a post by Uncle Roger (scroll down to the section under "Camera body variation also occurs). It had nothing to do with AF. He was discussing perceived blur from one side of the frame to the other in images taken with wide aperture, wide angle lenses. He also made clear the tolerance is more forgiving for narrower angle lenses.

The reason some mirrorless systems have AFMA is to compensate for lenses that do not move the focusing elements exactly the requested distance when the camera instructs the lens to move. Making lens focus element movements more accurate allows faster autofocus because it requires fewer follow-up measurements and movements. It has absolutely nothing to do with tilt.


Canon always has loan bodies and lenses for major events. The Olympics and World Cup qualify as major! They will have the biggist of the Big Whites available for use by accridited pros.

Most of those loaners are for accredited pros who's own gear breaks during the event.


Tilt affects the plane of focus, so of course AF is affected, but I'm not sure how AFMA comes into play, or why CDAF should be different from PDAF? Unless you're suggesting that AFMA can compensate for tilt?
It can't.


Thank you for that very clear explanation, which is much appreciated. The two articles I quoted were basically correct but your exposition is far better and gets to the crucial points.

So what are the main reasons for requiring AFMA for on-sensor PDAF?
Canon's DPAF does combine characteristics of CD with PD, which is advantageous for accurate AF. Does that and the density of AF points mean that it's going to be slower than rivals with fewer PD detectors combined with CD?
The reason some mirrorless systems have AFMA is to compensate for lenses that do not move the focusing elements exactly the requested distance when the camera instructs the lens to move. Making lens focus element movements more accurate allows faster autofocus because it requires fewer follow-up measurements and movements. It has absolutely nothing to do with tilt.


Where 1Dx series are used. Can be sports, can be anything. The best thing about 1Dx series is they can be used under any condition.
1D-series cameras can be used with extenders under any condition as well. There's no fundamental difference between an extender and an EF to RF adapter except no addition glass.

I have seen it mentioned elsewhere that the AFMA on mirrorless is to speed up the focus acquisition and avoid hunting when the CD comes in. So there must be some aberrations that need to be corrected by AFMA for on-sensor PD. Do you know what these aberrations are?
There are no aberrations that will make the captured image blurry at the same spot on the sensor that it was sharp during AF, because the same exact surface that was used to focus is also used to capture the image. AFMA in mirrorless cameras is to compensate for errors in focus element movement so fewer follow-up measurements/movements are needed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Proscribo and Pape

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,758
3,111
An EF to RF adapter is less of a liability than an EF 1.4X III or EF 2X III extender. Lots of 1D X Mark II shooters use extenders regularly.




Most action/sports shooters are used to using extenders without considering them a durability liability.




Many 1D X type shooters who use lenses above 300mm already frequently use extenders.

An EF to RF adapter is simpler than an extender, which has optical elements that can become misaligned.

An EF to RF adapter can be just as weather resistant as an EF extender, and has no optical glass in the light path.

It's not even really an "adapter" in the sense that a cross platform adapter has to "translate" between the camera and lens.

EF and RF lenses and bodies are both backward/forward compatible with one another.
There are no top secret protocols to reverse engineer since the RF protocol is built on top of the EF protocol and the same entity owns all of the IP for both of them.





There's only one additional connection. A lens to camera is one connection. A lens to adapter to camera is two connections.

Many professional 1D X users already use extenders in such environments. There's no real practical/functional difference other than the adapter has no optics that degrade the lens' performance.




Tripods for wildlife. For sports, you don;t very often see anything more than a monopod for the photographer's heaviest lens.




It's exactly the same as the one extra interface that many 1D X users shooting sports/action/wildlife have no trouble using with an extender. Are you saying 95% of pro sports shooters are not sane?






When you ask a sports shooter if he wants to use adapted lenses, he's thinking EF glass on a Sony α9 and the resulting reduction in frame rate from 20 fps to 5 fps. There is no such penalty for using an EF to RF adapter between EOS lenses and EOS cameras.


The 20µm number came from a post by Uncle Roger (scroll down to the section under "Camera body variation also occurs). It had nothing to do with AF. He was discussing perceived blur from one side of the frame to the other in images taken with wide aperture, wide angle lenses. He also made clear the tolerance is higher for narrower angle lenses.

The reason some mirrorless systems have AFMA is to compensate for lenses that do not move the focusing elements exactly the requested distance when the camera instructs the lens to move. Making lens focus element moves more accurate allows faster autofocus because it requires fewer follow-up measurements and movements. It has absolutely nothing to do with tilt.





Most of those loaners are for accredited pros who own gear breaks during the event.




It can't.




The reason some mirrorless systems have AFMA is to compensate for lenses that do not move the focusing elements exactly the requested distance when the camera instructs the lens to move. Making lens focus element moves more accurate allows faster autofocus because it requires fewer follow-up measurements and movements. It has absolutely nothing to do with tilt.




1D-series cameras can be used with extenders under any condition as well. There's no fundamental difference between an extender and an EF to RF adapter except no addition glass.



There are no aberrations that will make the captured image blurry at the same spot on the sensor that it was sharp during AF, because the same exact surface that was used to focus is also used to capture the image. AFMA in mirrorless cameras is to compensate for errors in focus element movement so fewer follow-up measurements/movements are needed.
Thanks for that Michael. I have read a lot to find out why AFMA is required, and the proposal that it is to correct for lenses that do not respond correctly is a really plausible suggestion. Please let me know where you got the info from so I can follow it up.

Edit: found it here https://blog.reikanfocal.com/2018/10/the-new-nikon-z7-investigating-with-reikan-focal/
 
Last edited:

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
269
59
Blyth, NE England
If I buy a tough body like 1DX, I want it to work under every condition. An adapter is a liability.
Admittedly I'm fishing from a fairly small pool here, but I know enough pros to have a feel for how they work. And I don't know a single one (in wildlife or sport photography) who would hesitate to use whatever he needed to use in order to get the shot: if that was an adaptor or a converter, so be it.
You won't understand this if you don't push your kit to its limits.
Are you a pro that "pushes his kit to its limits"? Unless you're using it as a hammer, I'm going to guess not...

Pro kit is built to be used hard (which is why I choose to use it, even thought I'm not a pro myself): nobody reaches the "limits" of its capabilities unless they're abusing it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,321
315
In support of what has been said above:
Sidelines Pro sport shooters frequently being seen having their pro Canon camera and big white lens combo attached to a monopod let go. Just like that. Let it drop while reaching out for a second camera lens combo. I was shocked first time I seen this with my own eyes.
 

cpsico

EOS RP
Mar 27, 2011
356
10
If we have to go to the hassle of buying new lenses for the system, what is stopping us from going to Sony who has a much more mature product at this point
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,072
If we have to go to the hassle of buying new lenses for the system, what is stopping us from going to Sony who has a much more mature product at this point
My EOS R cane with an adapter that allows me to use my EF lenses ranging from 11mm to 600mm. TS-E. 5x Macro. My flashes and radio triggers work, too. No hassle, and EF is a much more mature system than FE.