We were wrong, all of your Canon mirrorless dreams are likely coming true soon

[Durf]

There's a world of difference between not mindlessly rushing towards change for change's sake, and being "resistant" to change.

In other words - we'll change when it's time. But not before.

For many of us, right now, mirrorless brings precisely nothing to the table.

So why would we change?

What's a matter Keith, this won't work for you?????

 

[criscokkat]

Sony originally launched with a few small lenses. Not pancakes, but small: think EF 28 f/2.8 IS big. I think a mirrorless system built on size will 'pop' the most with such lenses, even if they aren't much smaller than the SLR equivalent:

View attachment 179954​

​

(these are two close to each other FLs @ f/2.8)​

So as much as 'yes, a thinner mount isn't overcoming physics here and making lenses smaller' is entirely true, it's also entirely true that slow wide to standard lenses + a thin mount body will fit in a smaller bag for those that want a small FF rig. So I think a short line of these lenses (24 2.8 / 35 2.8 / 40 pancake or 50 1.8) should absolutely be part of a thin mount setup.

- A

In the picture above, if canon made a new version of this lens that extended inward the outside portion of the lens could essentially be a pancake. The Sony lens mount is 46.1mm, the canon is 54mm. The diameter of the the collar itself is around 6mm. The canon would be bigger, but not nearly as much. And there are whole classes of long lenses that could get the same treatment making for a much more balanced setup.

Although to be honest I'd like to see the solution of the moving sensor. There could be some very interesting compact zooms that could be produced if the flange focusing distance was variable. That could be a game changer.

 

[Kit.]

Although to be honest I'd like to see the solution of the moving sensor. There could be some very interesting compact zooms that could be produced if the flange focusing distance was variable. That could be a game changer.

Actually, you don't need a variable flange distance if you can extend your zoom into the body. Might work for, say, 17-70/4 IS on a mount backward compatible with EF.

 

[Mikehit]

In the picture above, if canon made a new version of this lens that extended inward the outside portion of the lens could essentially be a pancake. The Sony lens mount is 46.1mm, the canon is 54mm. The diameter of the the collar itself is around 6mm. The canon would be bigger, but not nearly as much. And there are whole classes of long lenses that could get the same treatment making for a much more balanced setup.

Although to be honest I'd like to see the solution of the moving sensor. There could be some very interesting compact zooms that could be produced if the flange focusing distance was variable. That could be a game changer.

And the same technology could be used for IBIS as well?

 

[jayphotoworks]

Regarding the mount/adaptor argument...

I feel there can be no way Canon will simply change the mount and include a basic EF adapter because they had no problem telling the world they had a "sexy solution" for EF glass on mirrorless.

You dont tell everyone you have a "sexy solution" if all you have is the exact same basic solution that already exists.

Canon developed something new and I bet it's either an EF mount with variable flange distance (moving sensor maybe?) OR it will be the EF mount with new lenses that allow the rear element to extend into the camera body and effectively reduce the flange distance at the same time as making the overall lens extension from the camera shorter.

I expect some recognition from this group when Canon reveals that the solution is one of these two options. =p

I'd like to think that Canon will very likely go the route as mentioned by ecpu. Just about every manufacturer has gone the adapter route including Canon on its own EF-M line-up. Quite frankly, adapters are simply cumbersome to use regardless of its performance, even assuming it has 100% native performance with EF glass. In addition, Canon uses the EF mount on just about everything including its CN-E lenses for filmmaking. The 5D4 was even updated recently to support its newest CN-E servo zooms. It has also slowly implemented tech like nano-USM and STM on its newer consumer grade lenses meaning that we may very well see this on its upcoming EF lenses for its FF mirrorless offering.

Currently, you can mount your EF glass on everything from a Rebel to a 5D4 and up to a C700. You also retain full DPAF functionality. Canon had a large influence on the market both from the 5D2 era and its market penetration, and as a result a ton of 3rd party manufacturers also support the EF mount including the Blackmagic and RED system I have. I would be quite disappointed to see its new FF MILC with an entirely new mount and lenses.

 

[.jan]

I'd like to think that Canon will very likely go the route as mentioned by ecpu. Just about every manufacturer has gone the adapter route including Canon on its own EF-M line-up. Quite frankly, adapters are simply cumbersome to use regardless of its performance, even assuming it has 100% native performance with EF glass. In addition, Canon uses the EF mount on just about everything including its CN-E lenses for filmmaking. The 5D4 was even updated recently to support its newest CN-E servo zooms. It has also slowly implemented tech like nano-USM and STM on its newer consumer grade lenses meaning that we may very well see this on its upcoming EF lenses for its FF mirrorless offering.

Currently, you can mount your EF glass on everything from a Rebel to a 5D4 and up to a C700. You also retain full DPAF functionality. Canon had a large influence on the market both from the 5D2 era and its market penetration, and as a result a ton of 3rd party manufacturers also support the EF mount including the Blackmagic and RED system I have. I would be quite disappointed to see its new FF MILC with an entirely new mount and lenses.

I agree. The EF mount has become kind of an industry wide used standard and you find EF lenses (both Canon and 3rd party) directly or via an adapter mounted to all sorts of cameras. I don't see Canon just abandoning it, at all.

 

[criscokkat]

Actually, you don't need a variable flange distance if you can extend your zoom into the body. Might work for, say, 17-70/4 IS on a mount backward compatible with EF.

That true, and it would work the same way and be the same physical size as it is now more or less, just partially inside the body. But if the focal flange distance was variable you can potentially remove a few pieces of glass elements making it smaller and lighter.

 

[criscokkat]

And the same technology could be used for IBIS as well?

A bit, but for IBIS you need to move the chip in 3 dimensions, not just forward and back. And IBIS changes would be extremely small, measured in hundredths of MM, not the 20 or so MM of travel distance between flange distances.

 

[HankMD]

The title of this post alone...

"We were wrong, all your Mirrorless are belong to us [Canon]"?

 

[NicoN]

And the same technology could be used for IBIS as well?

Not really. Its a different movement range. For Ibis you need 5 Axis movement with ultra high accelerations but short distance. This is done with magnets which levitate the sensor. This principle does not work for long distances.

 

[NicoN]

Okay - that's great! - but then why is AF performance impacted with extension tubes and extenders? I've only used third party extension tubes, is there no issue with Canon ones? Is it due to light falloff? Is it poorer with extenders because of the narrower maximum aperture?

It is due to the different light Path. With an extension tube you are moving the lens further away from the sensor (like an ef to efm mount thats correct) but the new position is not the position is for what the af algorithm for this specific lens camera combination was designed for. So basically the camera fights against this error (since it does not know about the extension tube and how to compensate) when focusing which slows the process down/makes it impossible.

The ef-efm adapter places the lens in the distance where it was designed to operate and the af algoirthm knows that an ef lens on an ef-m Body is in that distance since it can't be mounted without the adapter.

 

[ahsanford]

I'd like to think that Canon will very likely go the route as mentioned by ecpu. Just about every manufacturer has gone the adapter route including Canon on its own EF-M line-up. Quite frankly, adapters are simply cumbersome to use regardless of its performance, even assuming it has 100% native performance with EF glass. In addition, Canon uses the EF mount on just about everything including its CN-E lenses for filmmaking. The 5D4 was even updated recently to support its newest CN-E servo zooms. It has also slowly implemented tech like nano-USM and STM on its newer consumer grade lenses meaning that we may very well see this on its upcoming EF lenses for its FF mirrorless offering.

Currently, you can mount your EF glass on everything from a Rebel to a 5D4 and up to a C700. You also retain full DPAF functionality. Canon had a large influence on the market both from the 5D2 era and its market penetration, and as a result a ton of 3rd party manufacturers also support the EF mount including the Blackmagic and RED system I have. I would be quite disappointed to see its new FF MILC with an entirely new mount and lenses.

I'd like a Full EF mount option to go alongside a thin mount. Canon is easily big enough to do both, and once both exist, there will be no need to rebuild any more than 4-6 lenses for the new mount. EF lives on forever.

But if the full EF option doesn't happen, why not just leave the adaptor on the body all the time? Never buy a new thin mount lens. We continue to have people here say they can't tell the difference between the EOS M + adaptor of EF glass and native EF mount use.

Presuming they are designed correctly (and the EF to EF-M sure seems fine to me on a DPAF body), adaptors are only a pain in the butt if you are constantly changing them out, and doing that is a choice, right? Just leave the adaptor on there and presto, it's an EF camera.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

I'd like a Full EF mount option to go alongside a thin mount. Canon is easily big enough to do both, and once both exist, there will be no need to rebuild any more than 4-6 lenses for the new mount. EF lives on forever.

But if the full EF option doesn't happen, why not just leave the adaptor on the body all the time? Never buy a new thin mount lens. We continue to have people here say they can't tell the difference between the EOS M + adaptor of EF glass and native EF mount use.

Presuming they are designed correctly (and the EF to EF-M sure seems fine to me on a DPAF body), adaptors are only a pain in the butt if you are constantly changing them out, and doing that is a choice, right? Just leave the adaptor on there and presto, it's an EF camera.

- A

but it's not really. the sensor isn't aligned to the EF mount that way, not to the precision of a distinct EF camera body.

 

[3kramd5]

but it's not really. the sensor isn't aligned to the EF mount that way, not to the precision of a distinct EF camera body.

An elegant solution would be to actuate a sensor in order to align it based on some targets on the inside of the adapter’s lens mount. Mount an adapter and the sensor comes into alignment. Take off the adapter and the sensor re-aligns to the camera mount.

If you could instrument a sensor in such a way to optically measure three points, you could in effect take out all tolerances except the parallelism across that front most flange.

 

[jolyonralph]

Thanks. I wanted to use my 500L with extension tubes as a sort-of hybrid long semi-macro lens for butterflies etc. (i.e. bringing the minimum focus distance down a bit), and handholding that whilst focusing manually is very hard, so the AF impact left a strong impression. I used the 100L on the original EOS-M with the Canon EF-EFM adaptor and it was poor, but that was most likely the EOS-M's stodgy AF performance rather than specifically an adaptor issue.

I use the 100L on the EOS M3 and M5 with the Canon adaptor, and it works absolutely great!

 

[ksgal]

"......No one has fed the troll, good job guys. It was interesting to see him POST again. ....."

---

It's been a while....been away on "Important Business".

I actually DO KNOW MUCH MORE what's coming down the pipeline than you do and THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT!

and THAT FACT has been used by me for the last few months now and it is SWEEEEEEEEEEET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your comments are what they are and only a photo/video of what's sitting on my desk can change that AND you ain't gettin' it,

although, you CAN take a look at SOME of it's output as per the photos in my posting but other than that you'll have to wait.......

AND.....in case you're wonder HOW the photos were made to look that good on DCT JPEG, the key is using smaller block sizes and specially made human eye-centric quantization tables than the normal JPEG quantization tables which does give a slight rise in photo size BUT really makes a visual difference.
AND YES I was the one who designed them! That human-eye-centricity towards compression is also applied to my 16-bits per channel Wavelet/JPEG-2000 frequency-based quantization parameters which is why A BIG GIANT MEDIA COMPANY is gonna finally give you what you want in a large sensor COMBINED stills and video camera!

What I want is a global shutter, and make my flash more powerful.. and I need it to not be above $3,000 - Any hints to that?

 

[knight427]

I'd like a Full EF mount option to go alongside a thin mount. Canon is easily big enough to do both, and once both exist, there will be no need to rebuild any more than 4-6 lenses for the new mount. EF lives on forever.

But if the full EF option doesn't happen, why not just leave the adaptor on the body all the time? Never buy a new thin mount lens. We continue to have people here say they can't tell the difference between the EOS M + adaptor of EF glass and native EF mount use.

Presuming they are designed correctly (and the EF to EF-M sure seems fine to me on a DPAF body), adaptors are only a pain in the butt if you are constantly changing them out, and doing that is a choice, right? Just leave the adaptor on there and presto, it's an EF camera.

- A

This is why I'm guessing the "sexy solution" is an adapter that can optionally be screwed down and will look like it's part of the camera body. I don't think that's terribly innovative, it's just my best guess given nothing but rumors and dreams to go from.

 

[ahsanford]

but it's not really. the sensor isn't aligned to the EF mount that way, not to the precision of a distinct EF camera body.

Again, you present a theoretical boogeyman here. Your argument is plausible, I admit -- stuff could be misaligned. So:

​

For IQ: Is it really an IQ problem with optics-free 'mount spacers' like extension tubes and the EF-M adaptor? Have people documented this?​

​

For AF: Are people complaining about the EF-M adaptor with EF glass on an M5/M6 right now? Does the AF let them down, slow down vs. a DPAF SLR in liveview shooting, etc.?​

If there's a legit problem with a first party made adaptor, please show us. I want to learn here. But until evidence is presented, I'll trust all the folks that say that the EF-M adaptor works great on the M5/M6.

- A

 

[herion]

"We were wrong, all your Mirrorless are belong to us [Canon]"?

 

[NicoN]

I wonder if there is any possibility to stop spreading the rumor that an potential adapter would impact af performance.
It's a fact that if Canon chose to use an adapter for the upcoming mirrorless it won't be any different from the af performance to a native ef mount. There is no speculation about this. It will work like 5d mark iv/80d(in live view) and probably much better due to better/optimized dual pixel af algorithms.
people have to stop thinking that it will impact the performance!

The canon adapter is and will be just an extension to put the lens in the distance (ef mount flange distance) where it was designed to operate. There is nothing in there. Its just plastic with straight cables. The camera talks directly to the lens and knows what lens is connected and can optimize its af to a given lens.

Its not like sony with the metabones adapter. The sony adapters talks to the camera emulates a lens und than fakes a camera for the lens. So its a man in the middle who translates between to different languages and methods (for example you could tell a lens go to 2 meters distance in 2 seconds or you could tell the lens move and stop when you reached 2 meters). This is not always compatible or possible. The biggest problem is that the camera does note know what lens is connected because it was not designed to work that way with adapted lenses. In consequence it can't optimize its af for a given lens

Just go to a camera store, take an m50 plug any lens with the adapter in front and you will see what a (trimmed down) sub 600 dollar camera could do with adapter and dual pixel af and imagine what a non trimmed down camera would be capable of.
Just to repeat if Canon will use an adapter it won't impact performance of EF lenses. Any other speculation going around is just pure nonsense (to say it directly)