sanj said:CR1 today. CR2 tomorrow. CR3 soon. It is matter of time. Cant fight progress. I embrace it.
Visited your site, good stuffs you got there
Upvote
0
sanj said:CR1 today. CR2 tomorrow. CR3 soon. It is matter of time. Cant fight progress. I embrace it.
Could it just be that when you attach an EF (or EF-S) lens to a M-series camera, with its smaller battery, then the latter can't deliver the power to drive the AF system in the lens as quickly as the larger non-M cameras can?neuroanatomist said:Maximilian said:Hi Mikehit!Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy ...
Sorry, but I don't get your point.
A flange distance adapter is not a teleconverter.
A teleconverter has an influence on optical formula, focal length and aperture.
An adapter is only setting the optical formula in relationship to the image plane.
And it has to conduct the electrical signals properly - without altering them.
Problem with EOS M and adapter hitting the AF performance of EF/EF-S lenses is also not clear to me.
But that's a question for Canon development. It seems they've decided to built up the EOS M AF system different to the EOS.
So why should they do so again when aiming at customers with EF lenses?
The exact nature of the problem using the EF mount adapter and why there's a performance hit is not clear to me, either...but what is clear is that such a performance hit does exist. It seems very unlikely that Canon would find that performance hit desirable, therefore there must be some problem they were unable to solve. What makes you so sure they could solve it for EF lenses on a new short-flange mount for a FF sensor, when they could not solve it for EF lenses on a new short-flange mount for an APS-C sensor?
Following that logic, do you believe Canon would release FF MILC bodies – a higher end product, with a generally more demanding and discerning customer base – with a known performance hit for users with a collection of EF lenses who switch to a FF MILC?
Maximilian said:Hi addola!addola said:I was confused about Mikehit's point and what he meant. It's not only "the glass in the converter", it's the distance
...
Either you made a such bad joke about optics that I missed the pointe or you should go back learning about optics and lens optical formula...
Fleetie said:Could it just be that when you attach an EF (or EF-S) lens to a M-series camera, with its smaller battery, then the latter can't deliver the power to drive the AF system in the lens as quickly as the larger non-M cameras can?
Don't I remember hearing that when you attach a big white lens to a 1DX, then the latter can drive the AF system faster, because of the increased power available? I read something similar to that. Could this be the same issue?
That said, I'm not sure what batteries the Rebels and the xxD cameras use, as I've only ever had a 7D and a 5D3.
I just wonder whether the LP-E17 batteries "sag" more under load than the larger batteries of the 7F, 5D series cameras.neuroanatomist said:Fleetie said:Could it just be that when you attach an EF (or EF-S) lens to a M-series camera, with its smaller battery, then the latter can't deliver the power to drive the AF system in the lens as quickly as the larger non-M cameras can?
Don't I remember hearing that when you attach a big white lens to a 1DX, then the latter can drive the AF system faster, because of the increased power available? I read something similar to that. Could this be the same issue?
That said, I'm not sure what batteries the Rebels and the xxD cameras use, as I've only ever had a 7D and a 5D3.
I don't think so. The AF drive difference is because the 1-series batteries output 11.1V, whereas the non-1-series dSLR batteries output 7.2V, regardless of capacity. As for the M-series using a smaller battery, my EOS M/M2 as well as the current M5/M6 use the LP-E17, and that's the same battery used by the T6i/s, T7i, and 77D bodies.
Fleetie said:I mean, what else could it be? The EF-M -> EF adaptor is just plastic/metal, air and straight-through electrical contacts. *Unless* there are electronics in the adaptor that we don't know about (seems unlikely), then it pretty much has to be either a power issue, or a firmware issue, if the camera or lens "knows" that the adaptor is there.
douglaurent said:And even if by then Canon keeps up with a Sony A9R2 or A7R4, the Canon camera will have the disadvantage of less lens options, no speedboosters etc. Sony just released a 16-35/2.8 and 12-24/4. In 1.5 years it's likely they have their native lens lineup complete incl. tele lenses. What Canon advantage is left by then?
addola said:Ahhh, did you just tell me to "go back to learn optical formulas" then proceeded to use the comma & decimal interchangeably?
Ha! Correct me if I am wrong, and I'll be happy I learned something. But first you need to understand what I am talking about:
I was not talking about optical formulas. I was explaining why a teleconverter would cause loss of light regardless of how well designed is the glass elements in it due to the added distance, and that in turn effects the cameras ability to AF.
And as you were talking about extension tubes as I quoted above the rest was wrong.addola said:Think of extension tubes which are about the size of a DSLR-to-Mirrorless adapter.
I didn't compute anything but the transit time of light through 1 cm. I said that a flange distance adapter is not making any change to the basic optical formula and therefore to the basic setting. So if this would affect anything like AF I'd be really surprised.The way you compute light loss is not correct.
I don't want to because I don't need to.addola said:...
Correct me if I am wrong with the formulas above
Comming back here into the discussion and your question, Neuro, about what's the reason for the performance hit and what Canon could do against it, of course I can only make a guess, as I am not in their dev. department.neuroanatomist said:Fleetie said:I mean, what else could it be? The EF-M -> EF adaptor is just plastic/metal, air and straight-through electrical contacts. *Unless* there are electronics in the adaptor that we don't know about (seems unlikely), then it pretty much has to be either a power issue, or a firmware issue, if the camera or lens "knows" that the adaptor is there.
A firmware issue (more of a decision by Canon engineers, actually) seems most likely. When you mount a 1.4x TC, AF slows by 50% relative to the bare lens, and when you mount a 2x TC, it slows by 75%. They slow it down on purpose to improve accuracy. No idea what the technical reason is for the EF mount adapter, but I assume there must be one.
Mikehit said:douglaurent said:And even if by then Canon keeps up with a Sony A9R2 or A7R4, the Canon camera will have the disadvantage of less lens options, no speedboosters etc. Sony just released a 16-35/2.8 and 12-24/4. In 1.5 years it's likely they have their native lens lineup complete incl. tele lenses. What Canon advantage is left by then?
And how many times are you gong to spout this garbage about it being Canon's responsibility to produce a speedbooster so you can fit third party lenses onto their cameras?
If this is your idea of good marketing strategy you are a conceptual retard whose opinions are merely a wishlist of what you want. If Canon followed your suggestions they would go bust.
neuroanatomist said:douglaurent said:What Canon advantage is left by then?
Reputation. Service. In the US, mutliple company service centers vs. one contracted 3rd party service vendor. Much larger consumer user base. Far larger and more varied OEM lens selection. Popularity. A much larger professional user base. Extremely unlikey that they'll just abandon the market.
douglaurent said:Canon's (and Nikon's) reputation, popularity and service seem to be going downhill, and Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are going the other direction.
douglaurent said:Strangely, the feel of a Canon DSLR and a Sony mirrorless camera is pretty similar to the use of CanonRumors and ++++++++Rumors: CanonRumors for example is nearly unreadable on cell phones and does not allow me to change the stupid public "6D" user info I never added - it feels very much like 2010.
The Sony forum, like the cameras, feels like it's 2017. While the Sony mirrorless cameras have lots of refreshing and important features like a third wheel for ISO, the Sony rumors website has lots more little refreshing and important infos about their brand's products.
If something good can be done better, it had to be said.
AvTvM said:Other than that there are no examples, since currently Sony has the only mirrorless FF system on the market. So you are asking me the sort of "proof", the Spanish inquisition demanded from their delinquents.
douglaurent said:Strangely, the feel of a Canon DSLR and a Sony mirrorless camera is pretty similar to the use of CanonRumors and ++++++++Rumors: CanonRumors for example is nearly unreadable on cell phones and does not allow me to change the stupid public "6D" user info I never added - it feels very much like 2010.
The Sony forum, like the cameras, feels like it's 2017. While the Sony mirrorless cameras have lots of refreshing and important features like a third wheel for ISO, the Sony rumors website has lots more little refreshing and important infos about their brand's products.
If something good can be done better, it had to be said.
douglaurent said:Strangely, the feel of a Canon DSLR and a Sony mirrorless camera is pretty similar to the use of CanonRumors and ++++++++Rumors: CanonRumors for example is nearly unreadable on cell phones and does not allow me to change the stupid public "6D" user info I never added - it feels very much like 2010.
The Sony forum, like the cameras, feels like it's 2017. While the Sony mirrorless cameras have lots of refreshing and important features like a third wheel for ISO, the Sony rumors website has lots more little refreshing and important infos about their brand's products.
If something good can be done better, it had to be said.
May be current dual pixel technology is still not as fast?? Base on my experience, my M5 + EF to EF-M adapter + EF lens focusing speed is at least if not slightly faster than my 7D2 live view + EF lens.neuroanatomist said:Fleetie said:Could it just be that when you attach an EF (or EF-S) lens to a M-series camera, with its smaller battery, then the latter can't deliver the power to drive the AF system in the lens as quickly as the larger non-M cameras can?
Don't I remember hearing that when you attach a big white lens to a 1DX, then the latter can drive the AF system faster, because of the increased power available? I read something similar to that. Could this be the same issue?
That said, I'm not sure what batteries the Rebels and the xxD cameras use, as I've only ever had a 7D and a 5D3.
I don't think so. The AF drive difference is because the 1-series batteries output 11.1V, whereas the non-1-series dSLR batteries output 7.2V, regardless of capacity. As for the M-series using a smaller battery, my EOS M/M2 as well as the current M5/M6 use the LP-E17, and that's the same battery used by the T6i/s, T7i, and 77D bodies.
Dylan777 said:sanj said:CR1 today. CR2 tomorrow. CR3 soon. It is matter of time. Cant fight progress. I embrace it.
Visited your site, good stuffs you got there
Bernard said:unfocused said:
- New sensor technology required for the EF mount in a mirrorless application. Don't understand why it would require a new sensor technology.
Maybe they are working on a faster sensor readout. Most mirrorless cameras are slow to update the display, which makes them useless for action.
They could also be working on a better way to clear the sensor. The current options are closing the shutter, clearing the sensor, and opening the shutter for the shot; or EFC which limits DR and creates other artifacts. Neither solution is optimal.