What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
dsut4392 said:
dak723 said:
Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
(similar pro lenses compared)

35mm f/1.4
Sony 78.5 x 112mm, 630 g
Canon 80.4 x 105.5mm, 760 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

85mm f/1.4
Sony 89.5 x 107.5mm, 820 g
Canon 88.6 x 105mm, 950 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

24-105mm f/4.0


Sony 83.4 x 113.3mm, 663 g
Canon 83.5 x 118mm, 795 g

Canon slightly larger and heavier.

24-70mm

Sony 87.6 x 136mm, 886 g
Canon 88.5 x 113mm, 805 g

Canon smaller and lighter

70-200mm
Sony 88 x 200mm, 1480 g
Canon 89 x199mm, 1490 g

Almost identical.

Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.
Hmm, I see about 480g weight difference for the lenses, then add another 200g for the body. 680g weight difference is not to be sneezed at. And that's just for the 'Pro' lenses. If you consider that a smaller aperture lens stands to benefit more from the shorter flange distance, then those people who are prepared to compromise some IQ to save weight would see an even bigger saving in weight, and a significant saving in bulk. e.g. Canon 24-70/4 =600g
Sony 24-70/4 = 426g
Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 = 295g

My friends that have switched to Sony did it for size and weight reasons initially, but have now replaced many of their big L-series lenses with native G series and Zeiss Batis lenses for times when the weight doesn't matter (because of poor AF performance of the adapted lens, not poor optical performance).

If you don't want reduced size from a mirrorless camera, what do you want that you couldn't get from an SLR in live view with a hybrid viewfinder?
Very clever! Yes, if you add up all the comparable lenses, you will save some weight! Of course, I only have one lens on my camera at a time. So I guess I don't really see your point.

I never said I don't want reduced size from a mirrorless. What I am saying is that the size reduction that many folks here seem to want or think likely to happen isn't really possible. Nor is the size and weight dependent on the mount as the SL-1 clearly indicates. When Canon does come out with a FF mnirrorless, I would be very disappointed if it was not smaller and lighter than its DSLR counterparts. It can do so with an EF mount. If it has the same 18mm mount as Sony, I wouldn't even consider it, because I can not afford the high priced lenses that would be necessary to overcome the optical issues that the short flange distance creates. I have tried the Sony FF - and with the cheaper kit lenses that do not correct for the short flange distance, you get burned.

Like most folks, I shoot with the viewfinder, so whatever is possible in live view is irrelevant. Nor does any camera I have a "hybrid" viewfinder, which would certainly be welcome. My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
dak723 said:
My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
It can be a huge advantage, in some situations. In others, it can be a major impediment. For example, shooting with flash using camera settings intended to eliminate the contribution of ambient lighting – in that use case, WYSIWIG becomes WYSIN (what you see is nothing).
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
neuroanatomist said:
dak723 said:
My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
It can be a huge advantage, in some situations. In others, it can be a major impediment. For example, shooting with flash using camera settings intended to eliminate the contribution of ambient lighting – in that use case, WYSIWIG becomes WYSIN (what you see is nothing).
could be handled by software function (firmware) ..."flash active -> exposure simulation" ... or is it already handled that way ... ?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
AvTvM said:
neuroanatomist said:
dak723 said:
My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
It can be a huge advantage, in some situations. In others, it can be a major impediment. For example, shooting with flash using camera settings intended to eliminate the contribution of ambient lighting – in that use case, WYSIWIG becomes WYSIN (what you see is nothing).
could be handled by software function (firmware) ..."flash active -> exposure simulation" ... or is it already handled that way ... ?
Automatically? The camera would need to decide if your intent is fill flash or primary illumination. It can already be done manually in the settings (at least with Canon, with Sony if you can find the menu setting, not sure about Nikon but their live view mode is already clunky).
 

Duct_Taper

I'm New Here
Dec 19, 2017
18
0
Ottawa, Canada
neuroanatomist said:
AvTvM said:
neuroanatomist said:
dak723 said:
My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
It can be a huge advantage, in some situations. In others, it can be a major impediment. For example, shooting with flash using camera settings intended to eliminate the contribution of ambient lighting – in that use case, WYSIWIG becomes WYSIN (what you see is nothing).
could be handled by software function (firmware) ..."flash active -> exposure simulation" ... or is it already handled that way ... ?
Automatically? The camera would need to decide if your intent is fill flash or primary illumination. It can already be done manually in the settings (at least with Canon, with Sony if you can find the menu setting, not sure about Nikon but their live view mode is already clunky).
I can't speak for other cameras, but using my T6s in Live View with hotshoe bounce flash as the primary lighting, the Live View picture stays quite dark until I begin focusing and then it automatically brightens to perform autofocus. It's possible there is a setting that controls this behavior but if so I haven't found it or changed it (i.e. this is how it behaves by default).

It still doesn't give you a WYSIWYG image but at least you can see to confirm focus, composition, etc.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,640
599
UK
www.flickr.com
Talys said:
scyrene said:
AvTvM said:
hahaha ... https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/

hahaha, dwarf-sensor plus 4k video apparently suffices for professional / Hollywood cine use already.
Yes, also for "low light" scenes.
No, I don't think Mr. Soderbergh's choice of imaging gear was forced by budgetary constraints ... :)

By the time Canon launches a mirrorless FF system WITH 4k video ... there might be no more use for it. Except of course for forum members needing "highest possible IQ", native EF mount and big, fat expensive lenses ... to snap some pics for their vacation family albums ... ;D
This is a straw man if ever I saw one. If movies and tv made with DSLRs were a small minority, professional video shot on mobile phones isn't even a blip on the radar. So what if some creative types use non-standard tools? Are you really claiming that the future is iPhones as standard for cinema?
The iPhone is late to the game. In 2010, 5D Mark II was used to shoot the entire episode of House's season finale. Viewers who weren't tech geeks didn't even know. That's was a top rated TV show! See? Canon doesn't need a cine line. Or the 5D Mark 3 or Mark 4. Or, evidently, 4k video.

https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/
Yes, but my point is actually the opposite happened - when they saw the success of the 5D2 for film-making, Canon started releasing the cinema line cameras - they saw the best way to maximise profits in that sector was not pursuing DSLR moviemakers, but dedicated movie cameras (and I'd argue the same is true for mirrorless stills cameras).
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,300
538
scyrene said:
Talys said:
scyrene said:
AvTvM said:
hahaha ... https://petapixel.com/2018/01/30/steven-soderbergh-shot-latest-film-iphone-heres-trailer/

hahaha, dwarf-sensor plus 4k video apparently suffices for professional / Hollywood cine use already.
Yes, also for "low light" scenes.
No, I don't think Mr. Soderbergh's choice of imaging gear was forced by budgetary constraints ... :)

By the time Canon launches a mirrorless FF system WITH 4k video ... there might be no more use for it. Except of course for forum members needing "highest possible IQ", native EF mount and big, fat expensive lenses ... to snap some pics for their vacation family albums ... ;D
This is a straw man if ever I saw one. If movies and tv made with DSLRs were a small minority, professional video shot on mobile phones isn't even a blip on the radar. So what if some creative types use non-standard tools? Are you really claiming that the future is iPhones as standard for cinema?
The iPhone is late to the game. In 2010, 5D Mark II was used to shoot the entire episode of House's season finale. Viewers who weren't tech geeks didn't even know. That's was a top rated TV show! See? Canon doesn't need a cine line. Or the 5D Mark 3 or Mark 4. Or, evidently, 4k video.

https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/
Yes, but my point is actually the opposite happened - when they saw the success of the 5D2 for film-making, Canon started releasing the cinema line cameras - they saw the best way to maximise profits in that sector was not pursuing DSLR moviemakers, but dedicated movie cameras (and I'd argue the same is true for mirrorless stills cameras).
My guess is that the 5DII didn't have much impact on Canon's decision to develop the cine line, which was taking off anyway. I think there is a real limit to how much DSLR's can meet video needs.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,062
341
Vancouver, BC
scyrene said:
Talys said:
The iPhone is late to the game. In 2010, 5D Mark II was used to shoot the entire episode of House's season finale. Viewers who weren't tech geeks didn't even know. That's was a top rated TV show! See? Canon doesn't need a cine line. Or the 5D Mark 3 or Mark 4. Or, evidently, 4k video.

https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/
Yes, but my point is actually the opposite happened - when they saw the success of the 5D2 for film-making, Canon started releasing the cinema line cameras - they saw the best way to maximise profits in that sector was not pursuing DSLR moviemakers, but dedicated movie cameras (and I'd argue the same is true for mirrorless stills cameras).
Sorry, man... I understood that. I was being sarcastic :D

I post all the time that if I wanted to make semi-pro/enthusiast quality video, I'd invest in video equipment, not try to shove a square peg into a round hole with a DSLR. ;D
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
neuroanatomist said:
dak723 said:
My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
It can be a huge advantage, in some situations. In others, it can be a major impediment. For example, shooting with flash using camera settings intended to eliminate the contribution of ambient lighting – in that use case, WYSIWIG becomes WYSIN (what you see is nothing).
Hmmm...interesting, since WYSIN is the case with 100% of all shots with an OVF... :) ;D :p

I guess that means that an OVF is a major impediment. I've never ever thought that, but I guess you have convinced me!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
dak723 said:
neuroanatomist said:
dak723 said:
My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
It can be a huge advantage, in some situations. In others, it can be a major impediment. For example, shooting with flash using camera settings intended to eliminate the contribution of ambient lighting – in that use case, WYSIWIG becomes WYSIN (what you see is nothing).
Hmmm...interesting, since WYSIN is the case with 100% of all shots with an OVF... :) ;D :p

I guess that means that an OVF is a major impediment. I've never ever thought that, but I guess you have convinced me!
Seems you missed the point, but that's ok. If it helps, note that I didn't state there was no ambient light, I stated the use of camera settings to eliminate the image contribution of that ambient light. Think 1/200 s, f/14 and ISO 100 in a room with a 60W-equivalent bulb...plenty of light to compose (and focus, with a dSLR at least) with an f/2.8 (and probably f/4) lens, but WYSIWYG becomes WYSIN. Let me know if you need more help understanding the issue.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,062
341
Vancouver, BC
neuroanatomist said:
Seems you missed the point, but that's ok. If it helps, note that I didn't state there was no ambient light, I stated the use of camera settings to eliminate the image contribution of that ambient light. Think 1/200 s, f/14 and ISO 100 in a room with a 60W-equivalent bulb...plenty of light to compose (and focus, with a dSLR at least) with an f/2.8 (and probably f/4) lens, but WYSIWYG becomes WYSIN. Let me know if you need more help understanding the issue.
This describes a lot of home studio situations (me!). I have enough ambient light to compose, but I want to shoot at a relatively fast shutter speed and at as high an aperture as possible at ISO 100, and rely on strobes/flashes to provide all of the actual light for the shot.

Think woman with hair in the wind (fan), and you want to keep everything in focus. Even if you had the magic unicorn camera that could perfectly focus and recover colors even in near-darkness because it had the bestest sensor ever, and I had a t1i and a proper lighting setup, the photo taken with the t1i would STILL be incomparably better, because at the end of the day, the two things that you need to make the portrait amazing is a flattering pose and flattering/dramatic/interesting light. If you're just using the ambient lighting in the room, that just isn't going to happen.
 

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,482
251
S Florida
All of this leads to the conclusion that Canon probably realized some time ago. The well-equipped photo bug must have a DSLR and a MILC, since each has different strengths and weaknesses.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,262
1,918
Canada
Talys said:
scyrene said:
Talys said:
The iPhone is late to the game. In 2010, 5D Mark II was used to shoot the entire episode of House's season finale. Viewers who weren't tech geeks didn't even know. That's was a top rated TV show! See? Canon doesn't need a cine line. Or the 5D Mark 3 or Mark 4. Or, evidently, 4k video.

https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/
Yes, but my point is actually the opposite happened - when they saw the success of the 5D2 for film-making, Canon started releasing the cinema line cameras - they saw the best way to maximise profits in that sector was not pursuing DSLR moviemakers, but dedicated movie cameras (and I'd argue the same is true for mirrorless stills cameras).
Sorry, man... I understood that. I was being sarcastic :D

I post all the time that if I wanted to make semi-pro/enthusiast quality video, I'd invest in video equipment, not try to shove a square peg into a round hole with a DSLR. ;D
To me, it is an ergonomics problem.... you hold the camera differently for video and for stills. A real video camera is much easier to hold and move around when shooting video and the controls are properly located, while a DSLR just feels terrible..... and the roles are reversed when shooting stills...
 

bwud

EOS RP
Sep 3, 2014
305
10
dak723 said:
dsut4392 said:
dak723 said:
Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
(similar pro lenses compared)

35mm f/1.4
Sony 78.5 x 112mm, 630 g
Canon 80.4 x 105.5mm, 760 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

85mm f/1.4
Sony 89.5 x 107.5mm, 820 g
Canon 88.6 x 105mm, 950 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

24-105mm f/4.0


Sony 83.4 x 113.3mm, 663 g
Canon 83.5 x 118mm, 795 g

Canon slightly larger and heavier.

24-70mm

Sony 87.6 x 136mm, 886 g
Canon 88.5 x 113mm, 805 g

Canon smaller and lighter

70-200mm
Sony 88 x 200mm, 1480 g
Canon 89 x199mm, 1490 g

Almost identical.

Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.
Hmm, I see about 480g weight difference for the lenses, then add another 200g for the body. 680g weight difference is not to be sneezed at. And that's just for the 'Pro' lenses. If you consider that a smaller aperture lens stands to benefit more from the shorter flange distance, then those people who are prepared to compromise some IQ to save weight would see an even bigger saving in weight, and a significant saving in bulk. e.g. Canon 24-70/4 =600g
Sony 24-70/4 = 426g
Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 = 295g

My friends that have switched to Sony did it for size and weight reasons initially, but have now replaced many of their big L-series lenses with native G series and Zeiss Batis lenses for times when the weight doesn't matter (because of poor AF performance of the adapted lens, not poor optical performance).

If you don't want reduced size from a mirrorless camera, what do you want that you couldn't get from an SLR in live view with a hybrid viewfinder?
Very clever! Yes, if you add up all the comparable lenses, you will save some weight! Of course, I only have one lens on my camera at a time. So I guess I don't really see your point.

I never said I don't want reduced size from a mirrorless. What I am saying is that the size reduction that many folks here seem to want or think likely to happen isn't really possible.
I asked this question in another thread but it wasn’t answered. I have only an elementary understanding of optics, so am curious:

Is is *not possible* due to the physics, or did it just *not happen* with this specific manufacturer’s lens lineup?

It it impossible to realize weight reduction from a shorter mount? Obviously longer lenses optically must be longer physically, and wider apertures require a wider apparent iris, which is limited by the front element. However a statement was made that Sony’s mount is inefficient for 135-format. If true, is that playing into the magnitude of the weight difference? If so, how much?
 

dsut4392

EOS T7i
Jul 31, 2014
76
34
dak723 said:
dsut4392 said:
dak723 said:
Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
(similar pro lenses compared)

35mm f/1.4
Sony 78.5 x 112mm, 630 g
Canon 80.4 x 105.5mm, 760 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

85mm f/1.4
Sony 89.5 x 107.5mm, 820 g
Canon 88.6 x 105mm, 950 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

24-105mm f/4.0


Sony 83.4 x 113.3mm, 663 g
Canon 83.5 x 118mm, 795 g

Canon slightly larger and heavier.

24-70mm

Sony 87.6 x 136mm, 886 g
Canon 88.5 x 113mm, 805 g

Canon smaller and lighter

70-200mm
Sony 88 x 200mm, 1480 g
Canon 89 x199mm, 1490 g

Almost identical.

Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.
Hmm, I see about 480g weight difference for the lenses, then add another 200g for the body. 680g weight difference is not to be sneezed at. And that's just for the 'Pro' lenses. If you consider that a smaller aperture lens stands to benefit more from the shorter flange distance, then those people who are prepared to compromise some IQ to save weight would see an even bigger saving in weight, and a significant saving in bulk. e.g. Canon 24-70/4 =600g
Sony 24-70/4 = 426g
Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 = 295g

My friends that have switched to Sony did it for size and weight reasons initially, but have now replaced many of their big L-series lenses with native G series and Zeiss Batis lenses for times when the weight doesn't matter (because of poor AF performance of the adapted lens, not poor optical performance).

If you don't want reduced size from a mirrorless camera, what do you want that you couldn't get from an SLR in live view with a hybrid viewfinder?
Very clever! Yes, if you add up all the comparable lenses, you will save some weight! Of course, I only have one lens on my camera at a time. So I guess I don't really see your point.

I never said I don't want reduced size from a mirrorless. What I am saying is that the size reduction that many folks here seem to want or think likely to happen isn't really possible. Nor is the size and weight dependent on the mount as the SL-1 clearly indicates. When Canon does come out with a FF mnirrorless, I would be very disappointed if it was not smaller and lighter than its DSLR counterparts. It can do so with an EF mount. If it has the same 18mm mount as Sony, I wouldn't even consider it, because I can not afford the high priced lenses that would be necessary to overcome the optical issues that the short flange distance creates. I have tried the Sony FF - and with the cheaper kit lenses that do not correct for the short flange distance, you get burned.

Like most folks, I shoot with the viewfinder, so whatever is possible in live view is irrelevant. Nor does any camera I have a "hybrid" viewfinder, which would certainly be welcome. My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
How are the other focal length lenses in your bag any less relevant than the one lens mounted? The weight reduction of 680g was based on a reasonable kit of real-life lenses (and in fact it actually grows if you omit the 24-70s which overlap the 24-105s), yet you say it "really isn't possible". What's your opinion on the moon landings out of interest, did they not happen either?

As has been pointed out in this thread and others is that many of Sonys lens design contraints are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount as much as the are to do with the flange focal distance. Is Canon likely to use E-mount?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
dsut4392 said:
What's your opinion on the moon landings out of interest, did they not happen either?

As has been pointed out in this thread and others is that many of Sonys lens design contraints are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount as much as the are to do with the flange focal distance. Is Canon likely to use E-mount?
Moon landings? They happened. But...speaking of people unwilling or unable to accept reality – considering the 'design contraints [that] are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount', what about the Leica M mount which has a throat diameter 2 mm narrower than Sony E. Out of interest, does Leica not make high-quality, compact lenses?
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,062
341
Vancouver, BC
bwud said:
I asked this question in another thread but it wasn’t answered. I have only an elementary understanding of optics, so am curious:

Is is *not possible* due to the physics, or did it just *not happen* with this specific manufacturer’s lens lineup?

It it impossible to realize weight reduction from a shorter mount? Obviously longer lenses optically must be longer physically, and wider apertures require a wider apparent iris, which is limited by the front element. However a statement was made that Sony’s mount is inefficient for 135-format. If true, is that playing into the magnitude of the weight difference? If so, how much?
To say that it's a physics limitation should be qualified to, "it's not possible using available materials and available technology."

A camera lens or optical telescope works by light hitting elements such as convex and concave glass that bend light multiple times until it hits the focal plane (your sensor or optical viewfinder). We can state the following as immutable:

- We'll always need a series of lenses (as opposed to just one lens) because it's necessary to focus the image based on how far away it is.

- Since photons hit the first glass element and progress towards the focal plane, the larger the glass elements, the more photons will enter the lens. So if you want a brighter image on the sensor, you'll need larger glass elements.

Now, optics teaches us that the lens material matters. There are many considerations, at the top being refractive index (how much the material will bend light), and transmittance (how much light passes through). There are many other considerations though, that contribute to what we consider "Image Quality", like how the material causes chromatic abberation or how it may cause internal reflections. And, how heavy the material is matters too.

Keep in mind that no all lenses are made of glass, and that not all glass is made equal. There are many trade-offs, and improvements in glass material science is a near certainty. If newer glass has higher transmittance, more light could get through the elments. But there are other alternatives too. You see lots of them in eyeglasses -- high index polymers, Trivex, or even plastic.

Usually camera manufacturers like glass because it's very stable (for example, with temperature) and yields great image quality. Some of the other materials which may be thinner and lighter yield far inferior images, or do not coat well.

So given all that, camera makers build "optical formulae", which is the sequence of elements inside the lens. It's entirely possible that Canon or Sony figures out a more efficient formula, and that would yield a smaller lens package. But the gains are probably not huge, as the guys who figure out these things are pretty good at what they do, and these companies have been doing it for decades.

It's also possible to introduce clever new ways of using existing materials, like diffractive lenses. However, using that as an example, diffractive optical elements have their own limitations and are expensive to produce.

There are also cost and material strength considerations. You could make lenses really light by picking a light material like plastic, but then it's not very durable. Or, you could make them super light and strong by using a material like titanium, but then nobody would be able to afford them.

So the problem isn't that it's not impossible, or at least, it's not inconceivable. However, to accomplish significantly brighter (faster aperture) AND smaller lenses would require some breakthrough in optics that hasn't happened yet, and therefore makes it the stuff of science fiction for now. Of course, today's scifi could be tomorrow's reality.

It's not a problem that can be solved and commercialized in the short term, so until that breakthrough happens, we're looking at tinkering around the edges, improving glass and coatings, electronics and design, and at best, the types of improvements that you see between 100-400 Mark 1 to Mark 2. The new lens is certainly much better in almost every measurable way -- optics, ergonomics, usability... pick any measure you want -- but it surely is not significantly smaller and lighter.
 

dsut4392

EOS T7i
Jul 31, 2014
76
34
neuroanatomist said:
dsut4392 said:
What's your opinion on the moon landings out of interest, did they not happen either?

As has been pointed out in this thread and others is that many of Sonys lens design contraints are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount as much as the are to do with the flange focal distance. Is Canon likely to use E-mount?
Moon landings? They happened. But...speaking of people unwilling or unable to accept reality – considering the 'design contraints [that] are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount', what about the Leica M mount which has a throat diameter 2 mm narrower than Sony E. Out of interest, does Leica not make high-quality, compact lenses?
Thankyou for agreeing with me. Yes, it is possible to make small high quality lenses for a shorter flange focal distance than 44mm. The throat diameter matters less the greater the distance between the focal plane and closest lens element gets, but of course you know that. Besides, "constraint" <> "impossible", which of course you also knew. Out on interest, do you think optical design of lens with short flange focal distance is less constrained with a narrower mount, or do you not know?
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,640
599
UK
www.flickr.com
Talys said:
scyrene said:
Talys said:
The iPhone is late to the game. In 2010, 5D Mark II was used to shoot the entire episode of House's season finale. Viewers who weren't tech geeks didn't even know. That's was a top rated TV show! See? Canon doesn't need a cine line. Or the 5D Mark 3 or Mark 4. Or, evidently, 4k video.

https://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-to-shoot-entire-house-season-finale-direc/
Yes, but my point is actually the opposite happened - when they saw the success of the 5D2 for film-making, Canon started releasing the cinema line cameras - they saw the best way to maximise profits in that sector was not pursuing DSLR moviemakers, but dedicated movie cameras (and I'd argue the same is true for mirrorless stills cameras).
Sorry, man... I understood that. I was being sarcastic :D

I post all the time that if I wanted to make semi-pro/enthusiast quality video, I'd invest in video equipment, not try to shove a square peg into a round hole with a DSLR. ;D
Sorry, I did appreciate your humour even if I was too clumsy to express it :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
dsut4392 said:
Out on interest, do you think optical design of lens with short flange focal distance is less constrained with a narrower mount, or do you not know?
In most cases, it will be more constrained with a narrower throat diameter. But of course, optical design is only one of the factors affecting choice of lens mount parameters.