News Flash: Good news for some, bad news for others

efmshark

EOS M50
Jan 19, 2018
32
16
I am amazed by the number of people who don't understand basic optics and physics. If Canon were to introduce a mirrorless camera with native EF mount, they would have to give up on nearly all potential advantages of a mirrorless solution. Reduced flange distance is what makes it possible to manufacture smaller cameras and smaller, simpler lenses.

If you want a Canon mirrorless with native EF mount, you can get the EOS R and leave the EF adapter on all the time and simply use any and all of your EF lenses.
 

efmshark

EOS M50
Jan 19, 2018
32
16
I'm not an adaptophobic, but using a 500mm lens handheld means a tiny body is not workable for me. So unless they bring out a larger mirrorless body or somehow shave the size of he superteles significantly (without massively inflating the price!), I'll stick with DSLRs (no problem so long as they keep making them!).

(This is just my personal position, I'm sure they know what they're doing).
When you use a 500mm lens, the lens holds the camera body, not the other way around. So you're mostly holding and balancing the lens, smaller camera body doesn't make it any more difficult.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,505
392
UK
www.flickr.com
When you use a 500mm lens, the lens holds the camera body, not the other way around. So you're mostly holding and balancing the lens, smaller camera body doesn't make it any more difficult.
Well admittedly I haven't tried mounting it on a body like this (I tried the original EOS-M but that didn't have a grip), but I have never had the 500L on the 5-series bodies and thought 'I really wish the body was smaller'. It just works, and works fine. So I am very cautious about making a change for the sake of it. Many people use the superteles on tripods, so they will likely have no problem.
 

TAF

EOS RP
Feb 26, 2012
343
33
Gee, we were promised a 'sexy' solution and they give us...an adapter.

Although the PL adapter does sound sort of useful, since it would obviate the need to ever again buy a polarizing filter (which is a long term savings). Ditto ND, and other filters. Maybe that really is a long term benefit. I'm coming around to thinking that it is, if they really can hold the front and rear mounts parallel.

So I'm going to reserve judgement until there are some reviews that pixel peep to demonstrate just how good a job Canon does in keeping the front and rear faces parallel. That really is the critical factor.

The real demonstration will be the high megapixel body that is sure to follow. If they stick with the new mount, then they are convinced that they can reliably maintain that registration. If the high megapixel body is EF native, then that would send a message as well.

I look forward to holding one. Ergonomics are the key deciding factor for me. If that grip is comfortable, and the controls fall readily to hand, I'm in for one.

(and being able to adapt my FD lens, as well as my antique large format lenses with minimal effort, is very cool)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,071
I am amazed by the number of people who don't understand basic optics and physics. If Canon were to introduce a mirrorless camera with native EF mount, they would have to give up on nearly all potential advantages of a mirrorless solution. Reduced flange distance is what makes it possible to manufacture smaller cameras and smaller, simpler lenses.
Indeed. People who understand basic optics and physics realize that the benefits of a shorter flange distance apply only to a limited subset of lens designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark D5 TEAM II