Patent: Lots of EF-M zoom optical formulas

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,307
78
S Florida
#41
Given, yes. But I don't think that my buying profile is shared by nobody else.

So there definitely is a market for faster glass in good build quality.
Not as big as the mediocre-performance-wide-zoom-range-plastic-mount
market, but certainly not irrelevant.
I believe his point was that Canon has designed the M system for size. No M lens has exceeded 61mm in diameter, which probably precludes any fast (>f/4.0) zooms. As dak723 alluded to above, if Canon wishes to compete in the higher end APS-C market, it will have to do it with the R mount. I believe that they will do so, but what do I know?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,578
633
#42
Given, yes. But I don't think that my buying profile is shared by nobody else.

So there definitely is a market for faster glass in good build quality.
Not as big as the mediocre-performance-wide-zoom-range-plastic-mount
market, but certainly not irrelevant.
Yes, there is a market...thus, the M32/1.4. Fast aperture, metal mount, locking hood, excellent IQ.

I just think any reference to ‘all of us’ wanting something is asinine.
 
Oct 4, 2018
5
4
#43
they should make these lenses instead:

12-24mm 2.8
17-55mm 2.8
55-250mm 4 constant
A 55-250mm f4 would need an entrance pupil of 250mm/4= 62.5mm. It's not just "impossible", it's literally physically impossible to do without exceeding the 61mm Canon M lens diameter.

But clearly, from all of us asking for higher quality and faster lenses, there seems to be a need for such lenses too. All we need is a good fast wide angle to light telephoto (something like a 24-70 3.2 constant let’s say) and a telephoto (something like a 70-200 4.5 constant). Most of us would be willing to put up with bigger size and more weight obviously. I bet these two lenses would be the hottest sellers in the M system.
Why the obsession with constant aperture? As many have pointed out, it's probably impossible to make a f2.8 standard zoom within the 61mm lens diameter (diameter of existing APS-C f2.8 standard zooms: Canon 84mm, Nikon 86mm, Sigma 84mm). But the Fuji f2.8-4 lens is only 65mm in diameter, demonstrating that with some deliberate design choices such a lens can definitely be made within Canon M specs.

I believe his point was that Canon has designed the M system for size. No M lens has exceeded 61mm in diameter, which probably precludes any fast (>f/4.0) zooms. As dak723 alluded to above, if Canon wishes to compete in the higher end APS-C market, it will have to do it with the R mount. I believe that they will do so, but what do I know?
It isn't about the high-end. High-end means FF equivalent of f2.8 (meaning f1.8 for APS-C). It isn't even about the middle-end (meaning constant aperture f2.8 APS-C). It's about the low-but-not-lowest end. Honestly, ~3x f3.5-5.6 kit lenses are a sorry excuse for photographic equipment. Either you offer some truly versatile zoom range, or you offer larger aperture. Fuji already does the latter, with a f2.8-4 kit zoom, and there is no reason Canon can't offer the same for their M system.
 
Jul 19, 2011
226
32
#44
I believe his point was that Canon has designed the M system for size.
Uh.... the sinister hard coded brain link "mirrorless=small".

I bought into the M system because I wanted mirrorless,
not because I wanted small.

Even the R is too small for my taste. And the dials are not where
they should be. Kudos to Canon for trying something new, but....
Please give me back the 5D MkIV ergonomics.

No M lens has exceeded 61mm in diameter, which probably
precludes any fast (>f/4.0) zooms.
I would have preferred them to make the filter threads all the
same size. Couldn't care less for barrel diameter.

As dak723 alluded to above, if Canon wishes to compete in the
higher end APS-C market, it will have to do it with the R mount.
There is no hard reason why there is no proper fast glass
in EF-M. It is simply deliberate market segmentation.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,578
633
#45
Uh.... the sinister hard coded brain link "mirrorless=small".

I bought into the M system because I wanted mirrorless,
not because I wanted small.

Even the R is too small for my taste
It’s not about what you want, it’s about Canon’s stated design priorities for the system. But because you personally want something different, Canon’s design choice is ‘sinister’? That smacks of solipsism.

In any case, the only meaningful way for the market to tell a manufacturer they disagree with the design choices is to vote with their wallet. By buying into the M system, you helped tell Canon ‘good job on your small mirrorless cameras’.

Personally, I bought into the M system for its small size, else I’d not have gone back to APS-C. Other than size (and the lack of need for AFMA), the M doesn’t offer any advantages over my 1D X. The fact that an M6 and 4 lenses takes up the same space as my 1D X + 24-70/2.8 is a major advantage.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
5,811
388
Alberta, Canada
#46
Firstly, I haven't done my homework on this but am starting to sort things out. AlanF has pointed out how pleased he is with the Sony RX10 and I've checked specs and it seems to be amazing. I have no experience whatsoever with the M system but gather it is an alternative to this Sony and I might buy in for similar reasons to Neuro's. I want the best IQ possible with as much of the good performance I like about my Canon FF setup. Of course I understand there are major compromises, just like in FF I've struggled with compromises but overall am a happy camper.

So my question would be, does it make any sense for me at this point to consider an M, perhaps waiting on a newer model and lenses? Wildlife factors in but a lot of my desire relates to travel and compactness and general photography.

Jack
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
809
147
#47
Firstly, I haven't done my homework on this but am starting to sort things out. AlanF has pointed out how pleased he is with the Sony RX10 and I've checked specs and it seems to be amazing. I have no experience whatsoever with the M system but gather it is an alternative to this Sony and I might buy in for similar reasons to Neuro's. I want the best IQ possible with as much of the good performance I like about my Canon FF setup. Of course I understand there are major compromises, just like in FF I've struggled with compromises but overall am a happy camper.

So my question would be, does it make any sense for me at this point to consider an M, perhaps waiting on a newer model and lenses? Wildlife factors in but a lot of my desire relates to travel and compactness and general photography.

Jack
The Sony RX10 would seem to meet your needs better, including zoom to long focal length for wildlife and good tracking AF. Fairly compact considering no extra lenses to carry.
 
Jul 19, 2011
226
32
#48
But because you personally want something different, Canon’s design choice is ‘sinister’?
No, you got me wrong.

Legions of marketing droids have battered the equation
"mirrorless = small" into people's brains.

Still, there is no inevitable reason why mirrorless must be small.
It is possible, but it is no must.

A mirrorless camera can be toolsized, not only toysized.

The marketing hype about small cameras gave us overheating
problems, poor battery life and tiny buttons, while our hands
remained the same size.

And still many people can't even imagine a mirrorless in a decent sized body.
THAT is the sinister part. Marketing damage.

There's no reason why a mirrorless camera can only come in small packages.
 
Likes: Jack Douglas

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,578
633
#50
No, you got me wrong.

Legions of marketing droids have battered the equation
"mirrorless = small" into people's brains.

Still, there is no inevitable reason why mirrorless must be small.
It is possible, but it is no must.

A mirrorless camera can be toolsized, not only toysized.

The marketing hype about small cameras gave us overheating
problems, poor battery life and tiny buttons, while our hands
remained the same size.

And still many people can't even imagine a mirrorless in a decent sized body.
THAT is the sinister part. Marketing damage.

There's no reason why a mirrorless camera can only come in small packages.
Apologies, and totally agree. I certainly hope a future ‘pro EOS R’ is in something like a 5-series chassis...but I fear that I’m in for disappointment on that score.
 
Nov 19, 2016
217
20
#51
Apologies, and totally agree. I certainly hope a future ‘pro EOS R’ is in something like a 5-series chassis...but I fear that I’m in for disappointment on that score.
By then Panasonic will have their S series fullframe mirrorless on the market.
Apparantly Panasonics researches found that the equation "mirrorless = small" is not as true as the other manufactures wants us make to believe.

Frank