Patent: Canon speedbooster for EOS M

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,360
333
119
Because people complain about what is perceived as a shortcoming - or a "crippling" of a feature...until they actually use it and realize that a crop when doing video is almost always a plus.:p
Yes, and the GH5 video AF is a joke and the GH5s doesn't have video AF...
 

tmroper

EOS 80D
Sep 22, 2016
142
45
It's funny how everybody raves about the GH5/s and yet it has a smaller 4k sensor than the R.
When you're using a GH5, you're mostly likely using one set of MFT lenses along with it, for both stills and video. The problem with the Canon 4K crop is, you might need a different set of lenses to shoot video with it, and that's an expensive, complicated hassle for non-video professionals. For many, it's preferable to use the same lenses for both stills and video. For others--like actual cinematographers--it's no big deal. But that's the source of the complaints I think.
 

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
It's funny how everybody raves about the GH5/s and yet it has a smaller 4k sensor than the R.
Panasonic is delivering the very best video they can with a puny little 225 mm2 mFT sensor. they cannot utilize more than what is physically available.

Canon uses an FF sensor but is not willing or not able to implement "4k video on late 2018 standards" and only uses a fraction of the 864 mm2 light-sensitive surface at their disposal.

that's the difference. that's why they are criticized.

personally i don't care for video recording at all and would prefer a stills camera without it. but if Canon insists on sticking video recording into each and every of their cameras and make all buyers pay for it, they better do it "really right" instead of "half-assed" ... or swallow the flak they are rightfully getting for it.

it is as if Porsche were to launch a sports car with 380 HP (FF sensor) but it would only use 2 of the 6 cylinders (massive video crop factor) and therefore only reach 120 km/h top speed (sub-par video performance), they would also be criticized. not even their most hardcore fanboyz would call it "a good thing because 1. it is much safer that way, 2. much better for the environment and 3. saves a lot of speeding tickets".

As opposed to Canon fanboyz ... :)
 
Last edited:

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
506
171
I don't think Canon will do an RF mount focal reducer while they only have FF cameras, because it would be unusable for stills. They might not bother making one at all to make their lower megapixel Pro model more attractive, they just want to keep their models as segmented as possible. Unless they decide to move their S35mm Cinema cameras over to the new mount as well, then they might be more inclined to do it.

Looks like that they've made it 0.8x (probably to preserve optical quality), so the 'new' crop factor on the M series is 1.28x for stills and 2x for the M50 4k video.
 

bertzie

I'm New Here
Jan 28, 2015
22
10
lol. you guys don't give up ... but .. Canon APS-C = EOS M. I don't see an "if" here.

I would likely buy an original Canon speedbooster for EF lenses on EF-M. :)
How many EOS-M bodies have a magnesium chassis? How many of them have weather sealing? How many have both? The EOS-M series is not a professional series of cameras, it's a toy built for soccer moms. The final evolution from the powershot series. There are too many professional APS-C shooters out there for Canon not to make an APS-C R camera, and the EOS-M series is simply inadequate for that need. For christ sake, they don't even make a battery grip for any of the EOS-M cameras.
 

bertzie

I'm New Here
Jan 28, 2015
22
10
I don't think Canon will do an RF mount focal reducer while they only have FF cameras, because it would be unusable for stills. They might not bother making one at all to make their lower megapixel Pro model more attractive, they just want to keep their models as segmented as possible. Unless they decide to move their S35mm Cinema cameras over to the new mount as well, then they might be more inclined to do it.

Looks like that they've made it 0.8x (probably to preserve optical quality), so the 'new' crop factor on the M series is 1.28x for stills and 2x for the M50 4k video.
Just because they've pattened it now doesn't mean it's coming out any time soon. Patents give us insight into their planning for the future.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
506
171
Just because they've pattened it now doesn't mean it's coming out any time soon. Patents give us insight into their planning for the future.
If you read back, you can see that it was submitted earlier.
Seems like the perfect accessory to push the EOS M5 Mark II to the market a bit firmer, and to answer some criticism about their lens line-up as well.
 
Reactions: 4fun
Jul 12, 2013
211
37
How many EOS-M bodies have a magnesium chassis? How many of them have weather sealing? How many have both? The EOS-M series is not a professional series of cameras, it's a toy built for soccer moms. The final evolution from the powershot series. There are too many professional APS-C shooters out there for Canon not to make an APS-C R camera, and the EOS-M series is simply inadequate for that need. For christ sake, they don't even make a battery grip for any of the EOS-M cameras.
...with your "it's a toy built for soccer moms" line, you win the internet today. Winner winner chicken dinner!
 
Reactions: Del Paso

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
How many EOS-M bodies have a magnesium chassis? How many of them have weather sealing? How many have both? The EOS-M series is not a professional series of cameras, it's a toy built for soccer moms. The final evolution from the powershot series. There are too many professional APS-C shooters out there for Canon not to make an APS-C R camera, and the EOS-M series is simply inadequate for that need. For christ sake, they don't even make a battery grip for any of the EOS-M cameras.
I agree that Canon will make a APS-C R camera at some point because the M is not a body that will goes well with any sort of large EF lens - and is so small that even a zoom beyond 200mm has not been made for the system. But one can produce very professional results with an M camera and it is far more than a "toy".

Not sure why people on this and other forums feel the constant need to put people down. I use the M to produce professional level photos that are just as sellable as photos I have taken over the years with bigger cameras.
 

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
i still use the 1st gen original M. It has been on many mountains with me in all sorts of weather, summer and winter. Once it fell into deep snow and i accidentally skied over it. Dug it out, wiped it off and it just kept working without a problem, despite no official weather sealing. Still working well today after close to 50k clicks. Proudly wearing a few battle marks. Not bad for a cheap little toy. :)

An upcoming M5 successor might well be (slightly) bigger with a (somewhat) bigger grip, stronger battery, (even) tougher chassis, full weather sealing and a top-notch AF system. And Canon might call it "EOS M7". Are you ready for action, soccer moms, birders and outdoor sports afficionados? :)

No need for an FF-sized, but only crop-sensored EOS R model. EOS R is about FF ... all the way.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Del Paso

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,142
110
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
hmm, if this makes it to the market, it could mean that Canon sees no reason to make specialised fast lenses for EOS-M, just get the booster and slap an EF lens on. But how long will EF lenses live, when RF takes of ....
As long as users see an advantage of using polarizers/ND-Filters/other filters in the EF-RF adapter at least. And while those who have not the money or don't want to buy into a new system every 3 years use their EF lens toolkit. If you use only EF lenses on EOS R bodies you need one adapter. If you begin to mix EF and RF but you use only 2 EF-lenses and x RF lenses you need only two adaptors to have a clean RF mount on every lens. 200 bucks to adapt a 2000 EUR/$ lens flawlessly is a cheap solution to be compatible!
But on the long term you are right And I do not see a EF 1.8 85 IS lens but an RF one one the (far?) horizon.

About EOS-M: I really like the EF-M 32 for its compact size but if I could adapt e.g. the EF 2.0 100 with a 0.7 speedbooster it will become a moderately compact 1.4 70mm lens with a very useful FL (for me at least).
 

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,142
110
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
[...]

no need for an FF-sized but crop-sensored EOS R model.
I am not shure about this - thinking of a photographer who wants to use RF 1.2 50 on a crop sensor due to quality reasons and the need for e.g. 10 fps with tracking. Or if compact lightweight RF 2.x y00mm lenses enter the market: A faster small sensor camera might help sports photographers.
If Canon cannot circumvent the "slow" DPAF sensors by on chip preprocessing or whatever measure they maybe try to reduce sensor size to increase overall speed.
I think that Canon never hesitated to bring strange products on the market - if they survive: o.k and if they die: o.k. too.
 

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
About EOS-M: I really like the EF-M 32 for its compact size but if I could adapt e.g. the EF 2.0 100 with a 0.7 speedbooster it will become a moderately compact 1.4 70mm lens with a very useful FL (for me at least).
There is a caveat: older EF lens designs like EF 100/2.0 and EF 85/1.8 got AF drives designed for use with off-sensor, detached Phase-AF in (D)SLRs. AF performance in live view or when adapted to mirrorfree cameras is ... "very pedestrian".

Newer EF lenses, especially with STM or Nano-USM AF drive are much better suited. I use EF 40/2.8 STM and 50/1.8 STM on EOS-M and they work well. Those 2 would also be my "prime candidates" (pun intended) ;-) for use with a "speedbooster" EF-M adapter.
 

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
I am not shure about this - thinking of a photographer who wants to use RF 1.2 50 on a crop sensor due to quality reasons and the need for e.g. 10 fps with tracking
I don't understand the "crop" part in the sentence. Users able to afford super-premium lenses like RF 50/1.2 will just wait a bit for a higher-grade EOS R model with 10 fps tracking ("mirrorfree 1D-X III"). When needed, they will just flick a switch on the camera and shoot in crop mode on a 50-75 MP FF sensor to get 30 MP "crop" images.
 

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,142
110
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
I don't understand the "crop" part in the sentence. Users able to afford super-premium lenses like RF 50/1.2 will just wait a bit for a higher-grade EOS R model with 10 fps tracking ("mirrorfree 1D-X III"). When needed, they will just flick a switch on the camera and shoot in crop mode on a 50-75 MP FF sensor to get 30 MP "crop" images.
O.k., trying again because I was not precise enough:
Think about a user who needs the RF (EDIT:) 50 1.2 for FF for medium fast to slow photography needs also a way to photograph fast objects and can use 80mm equiv for this purpose. (same for e.g. 2.0 200 vs. 2.0 320 equiv)

IMO you cannot read out a FF sensors APS-C crop area 1.6**2 times = 2.56 times faster because you have the other pixels electronics in the way. And if it just is the capacitance of the read out lines which avoids higher read out frequencies.
Make a real crop sensor and you can do your readout maybe 2... 2.5 times faster.
Additionally a mechanical shutter has only to travel ~60% of the way compared to FF and the moving mass of the shutter blades is reduced by at least a factor of 2 ... if not more because you can use thinner blades too.

To be compatible mount-wise it would make sense (to me) to offer an EOS RF mount APS-C camera for the above mentioned user.
 
Last edited:

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,142
110
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
There is a caveat: older EF lens designs like EF 100/2.0 and EF 85/1.8 got AF drives designed for use with off-sensor, detached Phase-AF in (D)SLRs. AF performance in live view or when adapted to mirrorfree cameras is ... "very pedestrian".

Newer EF lenses, especially with STM or Nano-USM AF drive are much better suited. I use EF 40/2.8 STM and 50/1.8 STM on EOS-M and they work well. Those 2 would also be my "prime candidates" (pun intended) ;-) for use with a "speedbooster" EF-M adapter.
I never felt a large difference between off sensor PD AF and on sensor PD AF (called DPAF in Canon land :) in terms of speed with EF 100 Macro non-IS and EF 70 200 4.0 IS. Only remarkable difference: the AF precision is much higher ... in DPAF. Just tried the EF 2.0 100 minutes ago with the M50 and it works very fast and without hunting - and Servo works flawlessly. No pedestrian feel :) It isn't as smooth as EF-M 32 and for video STM lenses ARE BETTER for sure.
 
Reactions: 4fun

4fun

picture? perfect!
Nov 19, 2018
181
53
@mb66energy ... yes. But I think that niche is extremely small.

Additionally a mechanical shutter has only to travel ~60% of the way compared to FF and the moving mass of the shutter blades is reduced by at least a factor of 2 ... if not more because you can use thinner blades too.
Will be a non-issue once "innovative Canon" finally brings an FF sensor with global electronic shutter ... mirror-free, moving-mechanics-free. Hopefully soon. :)