Opinion: Changing Canon camera lens mounts. How might the RF mount affect you?

psolberg

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 8, 2012
619
17
That's the only variation that's actually plausible, although it still really doesn't make much sense apart for tripod use and the makers of lens adaptors, it's good business for them.
Even if they adapt it super well, is it going to be function any better than F-mount lenses, having better than 3-axis stabilization? No. But unlike those, will they support dual IS? No. Will they work like with DPAF? No, not even close. Is it going to be better for video overall? Probably not for 95% of the people and the rest have other choices than the EOS R.

Sony is supporting this idea because they didn't really have much choice and now it is simply better to use a native lens but they still sell cameras.
Nikon on the other hand sells other cameras and wants to sell lenses (any types that they make) and XQD cards.
We can't make predictions on what kind of performance we'll see or what kind of performance future Nikon bodies may have using canon glass or Nikon glass. It may perform better, worse, the same, or depend on the lens and the quality of the reverse engineer as well as the fabrication of the adapter in question.

There is also the question of where is Nikon going to take their AF system: 2017 saw patents for basically DPAF from Nikon as well as other multi-pixel PD patents. Obviously the recycled D850 sensors they used didn't have the needed tech, but it is a given DPAF or similar will happen, in addition to Nikon execs already saying "absolutely" when asked if there are pro bodies coming... So whatever issues today due to the camera or sensor tech, are less important than physical and electrical ones which tend to be baked in the mount standards and much harder to work around. But as we determined, EF-Z is one of the simplest adapters outside protocol conversion. But that's tomorrow's body talk, and speculative. how about today?

Even if Nikon has similar lenses and perform better, it doesn't rule out real cases for the adapter today:
1) you may shoot canon and wish to have a D850 sensor behind that glass. you may prefer the color science of Nikon to that of sony, and if the EOS-R body tomorrow isn't to your liking or the sensor lags behind again, you don't have to settle for sony. You don't have to sell your EF glass and buy Nikon F glass. you can always sell the Z body when canon catches up or keep it and get the next one.

2) you may want some lenses canon has that Nikon doesn't, or that they have but are too old, or no longer AF. There are not as many as there used to, but still there, specially some of the more niche ones. In particular consider D lenses like the 135 f/2. Nikon never updated it and no way they will. It will be a Z lens...someday. The D will not AF with the Z because it is a screw driver AF lens. What if you wanted it and you find a cheap copy online from a canon switcher? Just buy the canon!, the adapter and BAM, problem solved. You have a 135 f/2 with bloody AF. Is it as good as it would be on a canon body? who cares because it is better than the D lens that doesn't auto focus at all!. Off course you could just buy the 105 f1.4...but that's expensive.

I'm not saying those things will apply to everybody or that they are common. Only that if there is a market, people will seek to address it and that the pin layout isn't going to stop the various adapter shops form trying to address it.
 

cgc

Feb 9, 2016
8
12
I appreciate a lot Keith reviews and analysis on his site.

As he has noted, the Sony FE mount is about the size of EF-M. But no, Sony engineers are not limited by it: in fact it is still wider than 54mm (Canon EF) when "projected" to Canon EF 44mm flange (while at the same time allowing for compact wide angle designs due the short flange). That explains why Sony FE can perfectly run Canon EF lenses.

My take is that Canon well could one day launch a full frame EF-M camera, suitable for more compact lens designs, with the only limitation of not allowing for lenses like 28-70 F2 or 58mm F0.95.

Lens "oversizing" is a bad design choice, it is better to use a bigger sensor instead with a smaller aperture lens. I'll illustrate this with a real example:

* Olympus 14-35mm f/2 Zuiko (123mm x 86mm, 915 grams, 77mm filter)
* Canon 24-70 F4L IS (93mm x 83mm, 600 grams, 77mm filter)

Both lenses have similar outstanding quality. A Canon shooter at F4, 1/100, ISO 400 will achieve the exactly same shot of a Olympus shooter at F2, 1/100, ISO 100. Both in terms of depth of field and total light collected (thus noise) at the full photo level. This is because the Olympus lens uses a sensor with 1/4 the area of a full frame. However, that causes the equivalent lens design to be bulkier, despite the lower range (28-70mm equivalent) and lack of IS.

Nikon Z and Canon RF are mere marketing hype. Who the heck is going to use a 1400 grams standard zoom or prime?. Give me a bigger sensor with not so ambitious (MORE COMPACT) lenses with equivalent optical properties.

I bought the A7R3 in January. I considered myself a Canon user with a Sony body. I was looking at the next Canon movement. Which just has arrived now. The Canon RF yet hasn't IBIS, so my TS-E lenses work even better on my Sony. My Sony camera even allows ETTR in the field (RAW zebras in stills mode). Canon doesn't even offers spot metering off-center. Before Canon launched the RF mount I still felt as a Canon user with a Sony body. Now I feel a Sony user with Canon lenses. I'll definitely buy all that amazing Zeiss and Cosina glass I have discovered the past months (e.g. the incredible Loxia 21mm... where are the FE mount "limitations"?). I'll not buy 1500 grams standard zooms or primes, so I don't actually need the Canon nor the Nikon new mounts.
 
Last edited:

CanonGrunt

EOS 80D
Jan 28, 2012
130
24
I am interested in the new FF mirrorless and already have the M5. I would say that they both will serve a different purpose and will get equal use. When I want small and conveneient, I will take the M5. When I want maximum quality, I will take the R. The M5 is so much smaller and lighter, it will still serve a very big purpose for many, in my opinion. I would have absolutely no interest in using lenses for one system on the other. RF lenses will be way to big and heavy for the M5.

Yeah, and the resale value won’t be that great on the M5. I got it last October from the Canon refurb store too, so it was like 30% off in a sale from the refurb price. It’s worth a lot more to me to keep in my backpack than to sell at the moment. I also got some pretty cool third party EF-M lenses, as well as use my FD lenses on it a lot. The M5 is just a really fun and light little fella to keep around.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
686
289
We can't make predictions on what kind of performance we'll see or what kind of performance future Nikon bodies may have using canon glass or Nikon glass.

Even if Nikon has similar lenses and perform better, it doesn't rule out real cases for the adapter today:
1) you may shoot canon and wish to have a D850 sensor behind that glass. you may prefer the color science of Nikon to that of sony, and if the EOS-R body tomorrow isn't to your liking or the sensor lags behind again, you don't have to settle for sony. You don't have to sell your EF glass and buy Nikon F glass. you can always sell the Z body when canon catches up or keep it and get the next one.

2) you may want some lenses canon has that Nikon doesn't, or that they have but are too old, or no longer AF.

I'm not saying those things will apply to everybody or that they are common. Only that if there is a market, people will seek to address it and that the pin layout isn't going to stop the various adapter shops form trying to address it.
Sure we can, Metabones have been developing adapters since many many years with several versions and yet it still not works that well. And as the cameras and lenses get more 'clever' the drawback of an adapted lens from a different manufacturer gets even more severe.

Canon and Nikon are both fine systems with many lenses to choose from and use. Anybody can switch if he/she wants to but in 99% of the time it's not really needed (for instance, if that little difference in dynamic range matters that much to you, why are you still shooting Canon) but people do it, because it's fun. Also great for YT (especially starting it), generating views and arguments in the comments.

Unless it's a specific case (let's say a particular tilt-shift lens or something that still won't perform the same with the other sensor's AA filter thickness) it is money down the drain with lenses that focus and zoom in the complete opposite direction to the other and introducing an adapter (and an expensive one at that or there will be tolerance issues) that at times will just freeze up the camera.
It's totally for people with more money than sense but, in that regard there is a certainly a market for it...In that case with that much money it"s much better to buy Leica M lenses instead as at least they won't have any operational issues and they also also one of those rare lenses that are actually sized well for these cameras, so there is an actual case for them. Even if they don't perform perfectly, it will be probably a bit better than Sony.

Aftermarket lenses like Sigma ART might get converted or adapted with their own adapter the new mirrorless mounts again and you can use those as well, they do want to shift those to whatever systems, if they are able to make them work. That makes sense.

If one is intending to use manual focus for video or photo, than it might also work ok (but again, in this case why choose that camera and deal with this issue instead of the other that has a way better 'official' adapter with ND and it just works at all times, which is kind of important for most people)
 

psolberg

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 8, 2012
619
17
Sure we can, Metabones have been developing adapters since many many years with several versions and yet it still not works that well. And as the cameras and lenses get more 'clever' the drawback of an adapted lens from a different manufacturer gets even more severe.

Canon and Nikon are both fine systems with many lenses to choose from and use. Anybody can switch if he/she wants to but in 99% of the time it's not really needed (for instance, if that little difference in dynamic range matters that much to you, why are you still shooting Canon) but people do it, because it's fun. Also great for YT (especially starting it), generating views and arguments in the comments.

Unless it's a specific case (let's say a particular tilt-shift lens or something that still won't perform the same with the other sensor's AA filter thickness) it is money down the drain with lenses that focus and zoom in the complete opposite direction to the other and introducing an adapter (and an expensive one at that or there will be tolerance issues) that at times will just freeze up the camera.
It's totally for people with more money than sense but, in that regard there is a certainly a market for it...In that case with that much money it"s much better to buy Leica M lenses instead as at least they won't have any operational issues and they also also one of those rare lenses that are actually sized well for these cameras, so there is an actual case for them. Even if they don't perform perfectly, it will be probably a bit better than Sony.

Aftermarket lenses like Sigma ART might get converted or adapted with their own adapter the new mirrorless mounts again and you can use those as well, they do want to shift those to whatever systems, if they are able to make them work. That makes sense.

If one is intending to use manual focus for video or photo, than it might also work ok (but again, in this case why choose that camera and deal with this issue instead of the other that has a way better 'official' adapter with ND and it just works at all times, which is kind of important for most people)
I acknowledge your points (don't agree with some but we'll leave it at that) but, IMO they an EF-Z adapter is inevitable regardless. I guess we'll have to see when it happens about how good it is and how much it is. For now off course, Nikon/Canon being usual, are not letting 3rd party have access to the specs so it will take some time before they reverse engineer them anyway.