Patent: Canon RF 17-35mm f/4-5.6

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,233
258
So it’s that you lack willpower. Understood.
No it is my lack of intent to maintain a further communication with a person not willing to apologies for an inappropriate language form used Intentionally or non-intentionally. When we hurt someone’s feeling or even cause a confusion we do apologies.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,584
399
Germany
If I was Canon going into R APS-C
Everyone talks about this, but what would the win be over the EF-M? EF-M's only 8 years old or so and hardly in need of being replaced, is it?
Hi Frank!

What's the point quoting me here?
I didn't say Canon needs to or has to, I didn't say that this patent is an indication.
I said it the other way around:

... promotions here in Ger they focus on FF and high perf lenses.
This looks to me as they quit thinking about the APS-C (DSLR) consumer market ...
I was talking about the possible end of APS-C DSLRs (and EF-S lenses) - not about EOS-M.

So what's the point quoting me here?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,059
No it is my lack of intent to maintain a further communication with a person not willing to apologies for an inappropriate language form used Intentionally or non-intentionally. When we hurt someone’s feeling or even cause a confusion we do apologies.
And yet...you keep on maintaining and furthering that communication after stating ‘end of conversation’ and ‘I won’t reply’, which clearly demonstrates your lack of willpower. Sad.

You are also obviously unwilling to admit your mistakes, not that intransigence compensates for a lack of willpower.

I previously stated I was sorry you’d hurt your head, I feel sorry for anyone who suffers an injury. Beyond that, there is nothing for which I should apologize. You seem to believe you were insulted by the affirmative statement that if you had seen something you stated you hadn’t, you might have had a head injury. I suspect that ‘head injury’ is some sort of trigger phrase for you, and once you read it you become unable to perceive the context in which the phrase was used.

Your complete misunderstanding was followed by unfounded accusations. The fact that you refuse to apologize for impugning my strong belief in and practice of the principles of inclusion and diversity means that, by your own stated definition, you are less than a decent human being.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,059
Everyone talks about this, but what would the win be over the EF-M? EF-M's only 8 years old or so and hardly in need of being replaced, is it?
Agreed. A hypothetical win over EF-M would be lens compatibility analogous to EF lenses on an APS-C DSLR. It surprised me that Canon chose mount characteristics that preclude RF lenses mounting to EOS M cameras. I assumed they would want to facilitate APS-C to FF upgrades by allowing EOS M owners to purchase full frame lenses that mounted directly to their cameras. But Canon has ample data (millions of data points from product registrations) to know in detail the frequency at which APS-C DSLR users bought EF lenses and subsequently bought a FF DSLR.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,929
1,238
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Agreed. A hypothetical win over EF-M would be lens compatibility analogous to EF lenses on an APS-C DSLR. It surprised me that Canon chose mount characteristics that preclude RF lenses mounting to EOS M cameras. I assumed they would want to facilitate APS-C to FF upgrades by allowing EOS M owners to purchase full frame lenses that mounted directly to their cameras. But Canon has ample data (millions of data points from product registrations) to know in detail the frequency at which APS-C DSLR users bought EF lenses and subsequently bought a FF DSLR.
My pure speculation on this. I suspect the bulk of APS-C DSLR owners who buy EF lenses are buying telephoto lenses. Heck, Canon even kits some of the Rebels with EF telephotos.

I'm not sure how many M users are likely to buy telephoto lenses, beyond the 55-250 travel zoom. M users are likely driven by size, wanting a compact, high-quality camera. The desire to bolt a huge lens onto an M may be minimal among M buyers. A high percentage of M users may already own a DSLR that they use for times when they want to shoot with a telephoto.

On the other hand, maybe there was just a failure to communicate between the M division designers and the R division designers.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,604
2,059
My pure speculation on this. I suspect the bulk of APS-C DSLR owners who buy EF lenses are buying telephoto lenses. Heck, Canon even kits some of the Rebels with EF telephotos.

I'm not sure how many M users are likely to buy telephoto lenses, beyond the 55-250 travel zoom. M users are likely driven by size, wanting a compact, high-quality camera. The desire to bolt a huge lens onto an M may be minimal among M buyers. A high percentage of M users may already own a DSLR that they use for times when they want to shoot with a telephoto.

On the other hand, maybe there was just a failure to communicate between the M division designers and the R division designers.
I disagree with the first point for one specific reason: the nifty-fifty. I speculate that is the best-selling EF lens among APS-C DSLR owners, and that speculation is supported by the observation that a 50/1.8 has been the #1 best-seller for SLR lenses on Amazon.com for years (it was the 50/1.8 II previously, now it’s the 50/1.8 STM). I think among enthusiasts using APS-C DSLRs, the picture is different, and there are many 70-300 (mainly non-L), 100-400, and possibly even more Sig/Tam 150-600 lenses being used by that segment.

I do agree with the speculative point that for many in the M crowd, the M55-200 (or M18-150) is all the telephoto they’ll generally want in their kit.

It would sure be ‘stupid Canon’ if the design teams for M and R didn’t talk to one another. but having worked for large, R&D based companies (in Pharma, not tech), I will say that that sort of communication failure wouldn’t surprise me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
458
270
[..]
It would sure be ‘stupid Canon’ if the design teams for M and R didn’t talk to one another. but having worked for large, R&D based companies (in Pharma, not tech), I will say that that sort of communication failure wouldn’t surprise me.
Having worked directly for a large silicon vendor and after that with multiple silicon vendors: It would surprise me if there was proper communication. I guess silo mentality transcends business sectors :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,929
1,238
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Having worked directly for a large silicon vendor and after that with multiple silicon vendors: It would surprise me if there was proper communication. I guess silo mentality transcends business sectors :(
Don't forget government and academia too. We used to have a saying in one of the public information offices I worked in, "If it's news it's news to us."
 

Ivan Muller

EOS RP
Oct 25, 2011
356
8
'It would sure be ‘stupid Canon’ if the design teams for M and R didn’t talk to one another. but having worked for large, R&D based companies (in Pharma, not tech), I will say that that sort of communication failure wouldn’t surprise me. '

Perhaps also at the time Canon felt that there was no future for FF mirrorless and thus did not take that into account when designing the M mount and thus concentrated on making it fully compatible with the EF mount. But Canon seems to think things trough and if it was a communication failure, then for us outside of the big corporate world, it would seem quite surprising! Anyway, I rather enjoy my R with my EF lenses and all works mostly well most of the time....