And just how big, heavy and expensive a camera do you require, sir?
Upvote
0
Is a native EF mount coming to a Canon full frame mirrorless camera? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Sony has been working s hard as possible to sell cameras, with more different body types and mounts than anyone else over the years. But yet, other than in mirrorless, as yet a smaller category where there are no major competitors, they haven’t moved the needle one bit.
That’s not just for pros, it’s for anyone.
Upvote
0
Canon has stTed that they aren’t ready for a 1D mirrorless. The technology is t there yet for a top pro model. The viewfinder is a major reason given. If these new models do well, then Canon MIGHT be encouraged to put more resources into speeding that timeline up. But it could easily be another 2, 3 or even more years away.
That’s one product they have to get exactly right the first time.
Upvote
0
Well said. 100% agree. This is a market segment you don't make a sacrificial half-cooked offering to 'show that you are trying' because the internet is screaming YAPODFC. This is a market segment that will only give up their gear for something better than what is presently in their hands.
In fact, if Canon wanted to rattle its sports/wildlife pros and drive them straight into
- A
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, but I want lenses as fast or faster than the ones available for EF today. It’s a part of lens development as important as ever.
If Nikon brings out a new system, with really fast glass available and good ergonomics, and Canon at the same time decides to make small bodies, with few and mostly slow lenses, I will probably go with the Nikon. I’m not that bound to any specific brand. But I do dislike the trend of small cameras, with retro style flat and angular bodies.
Upvote
0
Hello All,
My guess is that a new mirrorless FF EF-X mount will be an “extreme EF-S” with the sensor to mount distance equaling the EF (so EF & EF-S are a native fit) and EF-X lenses will be able to have glass extending into the body further than EF-S. This will give the FF mirrorless a comprehensive lens range from the start while allowing mirrorless lenses to have specific benefits compared to EF lenses.
Not sure if this has been discussed above as I haven’t read all posts.
Regards, Bert
My guess is that a new mirrorless FF EF-X mount will be an “extreme EF-S” with the sensor to mount distance equaling the EF (so EF & EF-S are a native fit) and EF-X lenses will be able to have glass extending into the body further than EF-S. This will give the FF mirrorless a comprehensive lens range from the start while allowing mirrorless lenses to have specific benefits compared to EF lenses.
Not sure if this has been discussed above as I haven’t read all posts.
Regards, Bert
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It has indeed -- Don Haines (and someone else, please forgive me) brought the idea up some time ago:
The thread for discussion on this is elsewhere: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ef-x-mirrorless-concept.35311/
- A
Upvote
0
You are absolutely the king of visual aids (I'm jealous)... but that sure looks weird. The new lens style would have to be narrower to fit past the EF flange and then as wide as the EF flange to seal. I'm not convinced there will be such a hyper-hybrid mount. Then it still really is not beneficial on the tele lengths so it seems like a lot of trouble when a pancake lens will do. Would it be any benefit weight wise? Enough to make a difference? Doesn't look like it unless the lenses are slow... which brings us back to the pancakes. It is looking more and more like a skinny mirrorless and fatty mirrorless are coming. We're sure skinny won't take EF without an adapter and fatty won't take lenses from skinny's line. It will be pure EF and more serious video wise, I think. What do we have? I guess about two months if the announcement takes place at Photokina. I'm not in the market at all, but I can't wait for the wait to be over and everybody can kiss and make up
Oops, I forgot. Then we'll have all the disappointment threads. *sigh*
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Parabolic. After all, if it's good for capturing signs of alien life, just imagine how awesome it will be much smaller stuff that's nearby!
Upvote
0
Because f/1.2 isn't fast enough?
<snip>
I'm sorry, I just don't see how the mount itself is potentially magical. The impact of the mount decision is colossal on a host of fronts: strategic, competitive positioning, user costs, lens inventory, etc. But the mount itself? It's a mount. It's a means to an end and I'm sure Canon will make one that works.
The difference between Canon's f/1.2 lenses and the rumored Nikon's f/0.95 are ~0.6 of a stop.
If that fraction of a stop made a difference for a large enough section of the market, Canon would come out with some incarnation of the 50mm f/1.0
Upvote
0
Farce? Because you say it?
Some married to Canon. Some married to Nikon. Divorce always messy. Waste energy.
Sony want new photographers. Eat Canon/Nikon market growth. Easier.
I didn't say sports photographers change, you did. Stop. Twice you try make me say something wrong. You bad at conversation. Very bad.
Why 1DM good? This possible:
* Frames per second - 20
* Shutter blackout - no
* Shutter noise - no
Canon make 1DM then many used 1DX2 cheap on ebay. You like cheap 1Dx2, yes?
Upvote
0
1.2 is quite OK with me , even if I always like more light and shallower depth of field.
But my point is that i don’t see any reason to build a FF camera, and then cripple it with slow lenses, only in the pursuit of making it small. Nikon seem to be aiming for a low light monster with their new FF mirrorless and large aperture (NOCT?) lenses, which would be my choice of path for Canon as well. EF mount would be my preferred choice, but if they do intend to switch mounts, please make it larger, not smaller.
Upvote
0
Parabolic. After all, if it's good for capturing signs of alien life, just imagine how awesome it will be much smaller stuff that's nearby!
Like a Pringles chip: A Parabolic Paraboloid. No wonder we've been seeing those curved sensor patents.
Upvote
0
You are absolutely the king of visual aids (I'm jealous)... but that sure looks weird. The new lens style would have to be narrower to fit past the EF flange and then as wide as the EF flange to seal. I'm not convinced there will be such a hyper-hybrid mount. Then it still really is not beneficial on the tele lengths so it seems like a lot of trouble when a pancake lens will do. Would it be any benefit weight wise? Enough to make a difference? Doesn't look like it unless the lenses are slow... which brings us back to the pancakes. It is looking more and more like a skinny mirrorless and fatty mirrorless are coming. We're sure skinny won't take EF without an adapter and fatty won't take lenses from skinny's line. It will be pure EF and more serious video wise, I think. Then again, how many will get in bed with Skinny only to see their dreams drop dead and then wish they had sided with Fatty when they were trying to satisfy their G.A.S?
What do we have? I guess about two months if the announcement takes place at Photokina. I'm not in the market at all, but I can't wait for the wait to be over and everybody can kiss and make up
Upvote
0
I completely agree with this. I’ve been saying the same thing. There is no reason why Canon can’t make a lens that protrudes behind the mount itself. Yes, it does seem odd, and unprotected, but I doesn’t have to be.
Really, there’s nothing sacred about the mount being the last thing on the lens. After all, rangefinder lenses have been doing this for many decades. It really solves some problems. Without needing strong retrofocus designs, new high speed wideangles can be made smaller again. Cannons mount is already pretty big. I just looked at mine. There’s a lot of room in there.
Upvote
0
Not possible with a round sensor, unless it’s small, to fit an aps-c lens coverage.
Upvote
0
Quite frankly, at this point in time, I think that super fast lenses, meaning anything faster than 1.4, are an unnecessary waste of R&D funding. I don’t know how old some of you guys are, but I’m 68, and remember quite well when a high quality film barely made 64 ASA. Even HSE was just ASA 120 indoors. We NEEDED high speed lenses then, even if they weren’t all that’s great.
These days, the lowest ISO speed is either 64, 100 or even 200. Normal shooting speeds are more often 200, or higher, with many cameras giving very high quality images at 400. We know that in the future, these ranges of highest quality will be pushed even higher.
Considering that it’s almost impossible to guarantee perfect focus even with an f 1.4, going beyond that seems to be fruitless. Going past 1.2 seems to be just a bragging right thing to me. I don’t think anyone can make a really good case for an f 1 lens. The size of it, the weight of it, and the cost of it means that almost nobody will be buying those lenses.
Remember that all of those parameters for 1.4 lenses has gotten just a bit out of hand these days, with attempts to up each other in IQ. An f 1.2 lens will be just that much more in every way, unless people will be satisfied with 3 stops of vignetting wide open, and 2 stops one stop down. I can’t even imagine what a monster an f 1 lens would be.
Leica barely gets away with a rangefinder (simple mount) 50 f 1.2 for $11,000. How much would someone here be willing to pay for an L 50 f 1?
These days, the lowest ISO speed is either 64, 100 or even 200. Normal shooting speeds are more often 200, or higher, with many cameras giving very high quality images at 400. We know that in the future, these ranges of highest quality will be pushed even higher.
Considering that it’s almost impossible to guarantee perfect focus even with an f 1.4, going beyond that seems to be fruitless. Going past 1.2 seems to be just a bragging right thing to me. I don’t think anyone can make a really good case for an f 1 lens. The size of it, the weight of it, and the cost of it means that almost nobody will be buying those lenses.
Remember that all of those parameters for 1.4 lenses has gotten just a bit out of hand these days, with attempts to up each other in IQ. An f 1.2 lens will be just that much more in every way, unless people will be satisfied with 3 stops of vignetting wide open, and 2 stops one stop down. I can’t even imagine what a monster an f 1 lens would be.
Leica barely gets away with a rangefinder (simple mount) 50 f 1.2 for $11,000. How much would someone here be willing to pay for an L 50 f 1?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
