Would you buy more EF lenses if new FF mirrorless uses a new lens mount?

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
neuroanatomist said:
fullstop said:
retrofocus construction is only needed to bridge long focal flange distance due to mirrorbox in mirrorslappers.

Your understanding of lens design is woefully inadequate. A retrofocus design is needed when the focal length (sensor to rear nodal point) is longer than the flange focal distance (FFD). That's essentially the definition of retrofocus. Practically speaking the rear nodal point must be at least a few mm in front of the rear element for a non-retrofocal design. So, with an 18mm FFD, a non-retrofocal lens with a focal length of 24mm is theoretically barely possible, but practically difficult and would result in severe optical compromises (a >28mm FL is more likely). But...you've repeatedly stated that 18mm is too short an FFD for a 'really right mount'. A 22-24mm FFD means a ~35mm or longer focal with a non-retrofocal design.

Of course, there's another way to use a non-retrofocal design with, for example, a 24-xx zoom and an FFD in the 18-24mm range. Simply use a hollow tube at the back to the lens to provide some additional distance between the sensor and the rear element. Perhaps you've seen that implementation somewhere, hmmmm? ::)

Once again, facts and reality demonstrate the fallacy of your opinions and statements.

I love a good zing.
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
denstore said:
fullstop said:
looking forward to see new Nikkor Z-Mount 24-70/4.0. i expect it to be a really decent lens. Fully FF capable lens and lens mount. no compromised. clean break from 20th century reflex antiquities. bye bye mirrorslap. decent f/4 zooms, decent f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes. everything compact, good and hopefully affordable. 1 fullstop advantage ff over APS-C. just what doctor fullstop ordered. :)

I’m a bit curious, Fullstop.
If you find the thought of EF mount so appalling, all EF lenses to large and clumsy, EOS cameras too thick and heavy, what is keeping you from getting what you want by buying a Sony, or that Z-mount Nikon? Really? Because it doesn’t seem that there’s much to keep you to the Canon brand?


One wants FF bodies for the image quality, But to achieve that quality, one also needs top quality glass on the camera body.

One wants the body to be small, yet the small body looses the ergonomics and convenient controls that are necessary to operate the camera (except for landscape photographers, where AF tracking of a mountain range is glacial, and you have time to use menus)

One wants small lenses, as without small lenses there is no real size savings, but to get small lenses one either needs to go for slow lenses (violates quality requirement, particularly in poor light), needs to use reduced diameter lenses (which takes you back to crop sensors and negates the quality requirement), or goes for shorer lenses, which means less elements, more chromatic abberations, and also violates the quality requirement.

In short, you have conflicting requirements, and in the end, if you want top image quality, go FF and large glass. If you want small size, go crop and smaller lenses... You can not have both!
 
Upvote 0
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
my understanding of retrofocus design lenses is different, will look at it again when i have more time. my current feeling is we have some "semantics/definition wording issue" here, not a real one.

i want very good IQ lenses and am happy with "only" roughly 90% of otus-like performance and "only" moderately fast apertures (f/4 zooms, f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes) in exchange for compact size, low weight and affordable price. basically "just a bit more" than Canon EF-M-like lineup for FF image sensor. this is technically clearly possible and i expect it to become the standard for FF systems in the most frequently used focal length range - 24 to about 105mm fairly soon. most customers are never using long glass and most customers dont really need very fast glass with today's and tomorrow's sensors. as today, there will also be specialist niche products like big, heavy and expensive cameras and lenses - but as today i will not need them or buy them. and most other customers - amateurs as well as many pro's - will do the same. just öike today. overall, not so many people buy 600/4 lenses if f/1.2 glass.

also, it would be rather "asinine" to buy Sony today, when Nikon will soon come out with their mirrorfree FF system and Canon may follow suit within a year (hopefully, lol). i'll decide on my next camera system - definitely with FF sensor - when all options are on the table. sony is not my favourite, due to compromised FE lens mount and resulting lens lineup and high pricing.
 
Upvote 0
fullstop said:
my understanding of retrofocus design lenses is different, will look at it again when i have more time. my current feeling is we have some "semantics/definition wording issue" here, not a real one.

i want very good IQ lenses and am happy with "only" roughly 90% of otus-like performance and "only" moderately fast apertures (f/4 zooms, f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes) in exchange for compact size, low weight and affordable price. basically "just a bit more" than Canon EF-M-like lineup for FF image sensor. this is technically clearly possible and i expect it to become the standard for FF systems in the most frequently used focal length range - 24 to about 105mm fairly soon. most customers are never using long glass and most customers dont really need very fast glass with today's and tomorrow's sensors. as today, there will also be specialist niche products like big, heavy and expensive cameras and lenses - but as today i will not need them or buy them. and most other customers - amateurs as well as many pro's - will do the same. just öike today. overall, not so many people buy 600/4 lenses if f/1.2 glass.

also, it would be rather "asinine" to buy Sony today, when Nikon will soon come out with their mirrorfree FF system and Canon may follow suit within a year (hopefully, lol). i'll decide on my next camera system - definitely with FF sensor - when all options are on the table. sony is not my favourite, due to compromised FE lens mount and resulting lens lineup and high pricing.

I’m sorry to say, but all options will never be on the table. It’s the curse of development.

But what you are wishing for, is quite pointless imho. Most modern aps-c sensors have great low light capabilities, are easier to build small cameras around, and have smaller lenses as well. Why do you insist on having a full frame small body option, with small to medium aperture lenses? What’s really the point in that? What you are looking for already exist in the guise of the EOS M5 or M50 or Sony’s A6000? Or is it important to have a FF sensor, only because it’s a FF?
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
fullstop said:
my understanding of retrofocus design lenses is different, will look at it again when i have more time. my current feeling is we have some "semantics/definition wording issue" here, not a real one.

i want very good IQ lenses and am happy with "only" roughly 90% of otus-like performance and "only" moderately fast apertures (f/4 zooms, f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes) in exchange for compact size, low weight and affordable price. basically "just a bit more" than Canon EF-M-like lineup for FF image sensor. this is technically clearly possible and i expect it to become the standard for FF systems in the most frequently used focal length range - 24 to about 105mm fairly soon. most customers are never using long glass and most customers dont really need very fast glass with today's and tomorrow's sensors. as today, there will also be specialist niche products like big, heavy and expensive cameras and lenses - but as today i will not need them or buy them. and most other customers - amateurs as well as many pro's - will do the same. just öike today. overall, not so many people buy 600/4 lenses if f/1.2 glass.

also, it would be rather "asinine" to buy Sony today, when Nikon will soon come out with their mirrorfree FF system and Canon may follow suit within a year (hopefully, lol). i'll decide on my next camera system - definitely with FF sensor - when all options are on the table. sony is not my favourite, due to compromised FE lens mount and resulting lens lineup and high pricing.

The differences seem to be a little more than semantics and definitions to me. The differences seem to have to do with what performance levels are acceptable and achievable and what price points can be reached, given design requirements and the number of people who would buy these new cameras at various price points. Nikon will provide their answers on these issues shortly, and hopefully Canon will weigh in at some point in the not too distant future. With their cards on the table, our discussion can turn to what might have been and what should have been, along rants about the stupidity and greed of the manufacturers.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 28, 2013
1,612
272
70
One only needs to look at the FF lenses Sony has in its E mount range. The 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 or the 85mm f1.4 or the 70-200mm f2.8 are barely different in size or weight to the Canon offerings in the EF mount. The cameras are clearly smaller but the weight ratio makes holding a 70-200mm f2.8 lens on a Sony A7 series camera very front heavy and after shoot for a couple of hours you realise how uncomfortable that this. We rent them so I get to play with many combinations on Sony, Nikon and Canon and whilst you could say I'm old school and biased towards Canon DSLRS & lenses they strike the right balance presently.
Ive owned 4/3rds and micro 4/3rd Olympus cameras since they came out but they are "toys" in comparison, yet they are lighter, yes they have steadily improved but the end result is nowhere near as good as what I get from a Canon DSLR (5DS) & L optics its like night & day.

Maybe when Canon FF mirrorless arrives it will turn the world on its head, but somehow I think this is Canon response to Sony since Sony added the G master lenses which are optically very good.
 
Upvote 0