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

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
CR Pro
YuengLinger said:
If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?
Maybe wait a while to see how things play out?
Maybe wait for an adapter to be reviewed and have some time in the field?

Or do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?

IF I were going to be in the market for a new lens, I would go ahead. I have learned the hard way (not with Canon) not to be an early adopter. So if I needed/wanted a lens now, I wouldn't put it off. In 2025, I may not even be alive (seriously).

Scott
 
Upvote 0

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
CR Pro
YuengLinger said:
unfocused said:
YuengLinger said:
...Unfocused, I can see that you don't like the speculation, that you might think some conjecture is too far fetched. Fine. But why are you so clearly angry about asking what others will do if EF is slated to be phased out? Why even get involved in a thread you think is not worth your time? Do you have a website that depends on click-through to EF lenses???

I simply don't suffer foolish threads gladly. I have no problem discussing any number of topics, but prefer to focus on ones that have a rational basis.

This thread is nothing more than an offshoot of the other thread you started, that suggested that by introducing new EF lenses, Canon was somehow setting the stage to abandon EF lenses. I'm still scratching my head over those mental gymnastics.

Now you've taken the next leap and seems to be suggesting that others should share your unfounded fears about the future of EF lenses.

I don't get why you feel compelled to ask the same question in multiple ways and then instead of accepting people's answers, you keep hanging on to your irrational worries. Starting multiple threads covering the same topic and then holding on to a viewpoint that others have clearly explained is irrational, is a form of trolling.

I don't think you mean it that way, but that's the effect and I'm not a fan of trolling.

I'd suggest you read and take to heart dak723's excellent response:
dak723 said:
Good grief! Another PANIC thread.

Repeat after me:

Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
.........

I think readers will see that I'm genuinely seeking a discussion about EF being replaced. I own and use Canon dSLR gear. Not a concern to you? Don't care for my style? Fine. There are plenty of other topics to choose!

Don't take it personally. You asked him for his feedback, and he gave you feedback. Next time, if you can't handle negative feedback (and I believe it was respectful feedback), don't ask.

Respectfully,
Scott
 
Upvote 0

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
CR Pro
YuengLinger said:
Kit. said:
YuengLinger said:
So, the consensus seems to be that Canon will release a FF mirrorless with a new mount,
No, there is no such consensus.

Neither is there a consensus that Canon will stop producing new SLRs.

I should have said, regarding a new mount, "within this thread." I don't think many posts I've read here say Canon is not going to have a new mount, but that the new mount won't affect the longevity of EF lenses.

AS for "stop producing new SLRs," I didn't make such a claim above; in fact, I said the consensus seems to be that Canon will keep making dSLRs and mirrorless FF together for a very long time. (Though I don't agree with that, unless 5-7 years is a very long time.)

The only thing that you could possibly hear that would mean ANYTHING would come from Canon. This talk is all speculation and perhaps pipe dreams. The earth is still spinning, and we have settled nothing.
Respectfully,
Scott
 
Upvote 0

scottkinfw

Wildlife photography is my passion
CR Pro
YuengLinger said:
Don Haines said:
put it like this....

Canon came out with a mirrorless crop mount...

Sales of EF-S lenses are still going strong....

What would be different if a new Mirrorless mount came out?


"L" series lenses cost a lot more, and many of us have become accustomed to believing that we can resell them for a good price when desired.

Many of us purchas an L lens for the lens and not the resale, myself included.

Scott
 
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
CanonFanBoy said:
stevelee said:
I’m likely to last a few more years, but probably not a few more decades myself, so I’m not much worried.

I'd be happy to last at least 3 more decades. The problem is that they seem to pass faster and faster as I age. Maybe it is because we remember less and less each week? Whatever it is, it sucks. :'(

When I turned 32, it sort of seemed like that the time from age 16 to 32 was about the same as from 8 to 16. Or at least it seemed enough like that for me to wonder if each doubling of age seemed about the same. So I decided to remember that thought when I turned 64 and see how that worked. At 64 I somehow remembered, and it really had seemed longer form 32 to 64 than it had from 16 to 32, but not by a lot.

Time does seem to be passing much faster, but I don't expect to be 128 any time soon.
 
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,739
2,255
USA
scottkinfw said:
YuengLinger said:
unfocused said:
YuengLinger said:
...Unfocused, I can see that you don't like the speculation, that you might think some conjecture is too far fetched. Fine. But why are you so clearly angry about asking what others will do if EF is slated to be phased out? Why even get involved in a thread you think is not worth your time? Do you have a website that depends on click-through to EF lenses???

I simply don't suffer foolish threads gladly. I have no problem discussing any number of topics, but prefer to focus on ones that have a rational basis.

This thread is nothing more than an offshoot of the other thread you started, that suggested that by introducing new EF lenses, Canon was somehow setting the stage to abandon EF lenses. I'm still scratching my head over those mental gymnastics.

Now you've taken the next leap and seems to be suggesting that others should share your unfounded fears about the future of EF lenses.

I don't get why you feel compelled to ask the same question in multiple ways and then instead of accepting people's answers, you keep hanging on to your irrational worries. Starting multiple threads covering the same topic and then holding on to a viewpoint that others have clearly explained is irrational, is a form of trolling.

I don't think you mean it that way, but that's the effect and I'm not a fan of trolling.

I'd suggest you read and take to heart dak723's excellent response:
dak723 said:
Good grief! Another PANIC thread.

Repeat after me:

Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
.........

I think readers will see that I'm genuinely seeking a discussion about EF being replaced. I own and use Canon dSLR gear. Not a concern to you? Don't care for my style? Fine. There are plenty of other topics to choose!

Don't take it personally. You asked him for his feedback, and he gave you feedback. Next time, if you can't handle negative feedback (and I believe it was respectful feedback), don't ask.

Respectfully,
Scott

Accusations of trolling are not respectful. He has a right to say it, I to reply, and you to chime in. Thankfully CR fosters a good balance of frankness and civility. :D
 
Upvote 0
Jan 22, 2012
4,461
1,316
fullstop said:
YuengLinger said:
dSLR sales have been steadily declining the past five years (though in part because the market has been saturated). I think they are down about 25% industry-wide.
https://petapixel.com/2018/03/14/death-dslrs-near/

DSLR sales have HALFED from 2012 to 2017. And they will really PLUMMET now, when mirrorless lineups with APS-C and FF sensors become available.

EF mount will definitely NOT be around for decades. I expect the last Canon mirrorslapper to be produced by 2025. Not many more new/ "updated" EF lenses, once EF-X is launched. Well, maybe Mk. III paintjobs. :)

I too predict this...
 
Upvote 0

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,820
39
neuroanatomist said:
fullstop said:
Mirrorslappers are on the way out and so is EF. Just face it.

The earth will be destroyed when the sun expands into a red giant. We know the latter will happen in about 10 billion years. We don’t know when...or even if...the former will happen. MILCs aren’t a paradigm shift, they’re a minor evolution. MILC sales haven’t even really increased since separate CIPA reporting started back in 2012. A Canon FF MILC is a niche product. Any ILC costing >$2K is a niche product, and your idea of a $999 FF MILC is a pipe dream. Just face it.

And everyone was saying the Yellowstone was going to be another super volcano and bury 1/2 the US in ash. Now there is thought that Yellowstone has slid off the hot spot and the danger is passing.

Bottom line - things are not as they seem
 
Upvote 0
CanonFanBoy said:
takesome1 said:
stevelee said:
CanonFanBoy said:
neuroanatomist said:
takesome1 said:
So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.

Nobody does it better than Neuro. Nobody.

+1

Sure, Neuro is great at transmitting 7 letter words. With over 22,000 posts this is a well established fact.

Yes. But you know? He's so adept at it that even if I were the victim I couldn't help but be in awe, and so honored I could never take offense. I mean, it is so smooth. It's like getting ripped open with a hatchet and then sewn back up by some Beverly Hills plastic surgeon to the stars. Then we're new enhanced boobs and nobody is the wiser. ;) Like waking up from the anesthetic and not even noticing one's soul has been ripped out by the roots and crushed under dirty sneakers. Yeah. It's like that.

There is evidence that practice makes perfect.
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
takesome1 said:
neuroanatomist said:
Don Haines said:
neuroanatomist said:
What is your evidence that mirrorless cameras are LESS EXPENSIVE, by the way?

Basically, it is the same thing, except you remove the mirror, AF unit, and optical viewfinder from it, and replace it with an EVF.... add a driver port to the main board, some software, and you are good to go!

It should be cheaper to produce and install the EVF than the other stuff....

That said, when you look at the cost to make the body, the sensor the motherboard, all the associated electronics/buttons/switches/etc... that the cost savings is probably one or two percent.... but you also have to pay for the R+D....

There is an old saying; A difference that makes no difference is no difference at all.

At issue is people buying these cameras, and in that context it's retail cost that matters, not production costs. Any evidence that MILCs cost less that roughly equivalent DSLRs?

A MILC should cost less, once demand levels out, RD is covered etc. I would think it would be more than one or two percent, but then I have never bought and installed a mirror.

Some versions may cost more. When the first M3 was released the biggest complaint was a view finder. Then they add one and along comes the viewfinder on the M5, again I have never bought the components inside the M5's view finder but I would bet the digital components cost more than a mirror.


My bet is that the components cost more, but the assembly/alignment is easier.... I can't see there being a significant difference.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
to take full advantage of Mirrorfree camera systems, a new mount us absolutely necessary. EF mount has 44mm solely because it was necessary to bridge the space taken up by the mirror box. no more mirrorbox, no more necessity for a lobg flanga focal distance and retrofocus lens constructions in the most frequently used focal length range.

only canon fam bois are asinine enough to not understand and accept that fact.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,502
1,878
fullstop said:
to take full advantage of Mirrorfree camera systems, a new mount us absolutely necessary.
Wrong. EF-M is enough.

fullstop said:
no more necessity for a lobg flanga focal distance and retrofocus lens constructions in the most frequently used focal length range.
In the digital era, if you don't need decent glass, you don't need full frame.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
decent glass does not have to be retrofocus any longer on mirrorless cameras.

mirrors where only inteoduced to get thru-the-lens viewfinding an metering. with digital cameras and electronic viewfinders there is no more need whatsoever for mirrors and mirrorboxes. and no more need for long flange focal distance lenses and mounts. as simple as that.

EF-M is not FF capable. fact. the very canon folks who designed it said so publicly.

any more questions?
 
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,502
1,878
fullstop said:
decent glass does not have to be retrofocus any longer on mirrorless cameras.
Only if it is telephoto - but then it doesn't need to be retrofocus on SLRs as well.

Wide angle lens so far needs to be retrofocus just to be distortion-free and corner-sharp. Nothing to do with mirrors.

fullstop said:
EF-M is not FF capable.
And doesn't need to be. APS-C is enough if you don't need decent glass.

fullstop said:
any more questions?
There were any questions?
 
Upvote 0
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
retrofocus construction is only needed to bridge long focal flange distance due to mirrorbox in mirrorslappers.

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. :)
 
Upvote 0
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?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,023
12,776
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.
 
Upvote 0