Canon back to the drawingboard or is there still hope?

[Tinky]

Hi Rocky

only half answers my question though... I think it might have been better if there was no ef-s mount at all, that canon should have went down the route taken by Nikon, in that canon retained their main mount the EF.

I get the safety implications that a short back focus lens could collide with the mirror, but sigma tamron tokina samyang all seem able to make lenses that use the ef mount, concentrate the image circle over an aps-c inager and don't break 135 format dslr mirrors...

Anyway, like I said, old debate... rekindled I suppose by the ef-m, but thats a different kettle of fish anyway, one where I think the adaptability to ef is key, rather than native ef... i.e there should be a range of tiny ef-m lenses that cater to the strengths of the system.. not the same old plasticky, slow aperture zooms, just slightly smaller. Fast ef-m prine pancakes all the way...!

 

[privatebydesign]

Hi Rocky

only half answers my question though... I think it might have been better if there was no ef-s mount at all, that canon should have went down the route taken by Nikon, in that canon retained their main mount the EF.

I get the safety implications that a short back focus lens could collide with the mirror, but sigma tamron tokina samyang all seem able to make lenses that use the ef mount, concentrate the image circle over an aps-c inager and don't break 135 format dslr mirrors...

Anyway, like I said, old debate... rekindled I suppose by the ef-m, but thats a different kettle of fish anyway, one where I think the adaptability to ef is key, rather than native ef... i.e there should be a range of tiny ef-m lenses that cater to the strengths of the system.. not the same old plasticky, slow aperture zooms, just slightly smaller. Fast ef-m prine pancakes all the way...!

And I don't.

I doubt Canon do either, the purity and 100% compatibility of all EF lenses to every EOS camera is so core to who Canon are.

Also, don't lose track of the god awful cock ups Nikon made in the first few years of digital. First they were insistent there would never be a need for FF digital sensors and they stuck to that for years, all their 'digital' lenses couldn't be used on their film cameras (their only FF option), they pissed about with in body AF, then in lens AF and the compatibility issues that arose from that, the DX bodies couldn't focus the film body lenses because they didn't have the in body AF motor and most of the film bodies couldn't AF the DX lenses because they didn't have the lens connectors and the lenses didn't have the image circle anyway. Then they realised they were going to have to make FF digital sensors, even after making so called 'FX' lenses that didn't cover the FF image circle, have you seen the list of 70-200 f2.8's they have had to make to keep track of their ever changing road map? I know a Nikon using pro who had to upgrade his top of the line 70-200 f2.8 four times in something like eight years to eventually get one that worked with all his cameras.

Any EF 70-200 will work, not just mount but fully work, on any EOS camera from 1984 until they stop making EOS bodies. I prefer that kind of forward thinking engineering solution and the minor side route taken to give entry level shooters cheaper and smaller EF-S lenses is perfectly fine with me.

 

[Tinky]

any sigma dc lens with an Ef mount will mount and operate on any EOS camera...
any tamron di lens with an EF mount will mount and operate on any EOS camera...

but it is what it is.

I'm agreed that the EF mount is core to canons success.

 

[Orangutan]

canon isn't going to do anything. ...
However ultimately they lose because...
Canon needs to ...
So like blackberry before them,...
So while I think canon ...

Lots of pronouncement, speculation and analogy, yet very little evidence.

 

[neuroanatomist]

canon isn't going to do anything. ...
However ultimately they lose because...
Canon needs to ...
So like blackberry before them,...
So while I think canon ...

Lots of pronouncement, speculation and analogy, yet very little evidence.

YAPODFC.

I've now typed that frequently enough that my iPhone autocompletes it. Canon is still here.

 

[Zen]

I can't believe this! It is all just so much baloney!

If you don't like the cameras, don't buy 'em!

Just go out and take pictures, or, if you prefer, make images!

 

[George D.]

The industry is not a shooting gallery for Canon. Each competitor has a place in the sun. 5D S/SR is a great product, so is A7R and D810. Actually the launching rate of good products is so fast it's becoming faster than return of investment. You should aim for 100-200k pictures (the shutter's lifetime) before switching to a newer dSLR otherwise your ROI is compromised. Unless you're becoming a ...gear collector.

 

[ykn123]

man is it boring ,yet another: - "sony is doing so well, dslr is dead, all canon users must be oldscool, silly or both" - thread.
I still hate an EVF, i still love the Canon DSLR ergonomics.
I DONT want a small, mirrorless camera just because it might be the current thing some photographers or wannabe photographers felt in love with.
You know what ? I just purchased a 1DsM3 - yes - indeed. Its because i have one client that i take between 75.000 and 100.000 photos for per year. I wanted/needed FF and >16MB.
I wanted to have a shutter that let me use the camera for about the next 3 years for that jobs and the camera should provide good IQ at a reasonable speed.
(its a studio setup so i'm not in need for my 1DX 12fps kind of thing). Well and if it smashes to the ground it should have a chance to just continue to still work.
I used to have 5DM2 for this but wanted a longer shutter lifecycle AND more AF points to move on and focus to where i want to have the focus.
I got a used one for a very nice price (below 2000€) and i love it. And heck, the camera was introduced in 2008.
Like the 5DM2s it will generate 100K revenue per year and just works and produces great images.
I dont need to jump on every new gadget and trust that Canon likein the past will continue to offer me a number of choices. And if not, then maybe i purchase a nother brand somewhen and later one purchase another Canon - who knows, who care's. I never actually told people to buy Canon over something else. I just dont get that Sony Hype and especially why people try teach everybody that Canon is dead. Its not. Definitely not now.

 

[Rocky]

Hi Rocky

only half answers my question though... I think it might have been better if there was no ef-s mount at all, that canon should have went down the route taken by Nikon, in that canon retained their main mount the EF.

I get the safety implications that a short back focus lens could collide with the mirror, but sigma tamron tokina samyang all seem able to make lenses that use the ef mount, concentrate the image circle over an aps-c inager and don't break 135 format dslr mirrors...

Anyway, like I said, old debate... rekindled I suppose by the ef-m, but thats a different kettle of fish anyway, one where I think the adaptability to ef is key, rather than native ef... i.e there should be a range of tiny ef-m lenses that cater to the strengths of the system.. not the same old plasticky, slow aperture zooms, just slightly smaller. Fast ef-m prine pancakes all the way...!

Tinky, Your other half of the question has already been answered in my previous reply. "Also it is easier to make APS-C lens than the FF lens. That is why Canon makes EF mount and EF-S mount (cost saving and/or better performance)"

 

[Tinky]

No, because as nikon, sigma, minolta / sony, tamron tokina all prove, you can make a lens with an aps-c image circle, but still use a 135mm mount. Sigma, tamron and tokina have proved you can even do it on an EF mount.

I'm not debating the market or need or benefit of aps-c lenses. I'm debating the use of different mounts.

It seems to be broadly accepted, including by me, that the EF mount (and therefore access to the EF system) is a major, if not the major factor in Canon's continued success.

So thats what I'm getting at... whilst its true that Nikon have kind of botched the F mount for 40 years of its life, canons EF mount continues to rise to modern challenges, such as cinema cameras, and arguably to a point, mirrorless. For all that, I think Nikons approach to DX/FX (note, exclusively in the digital realm) was somewhat to be envied.

No round pegs and square holes. Just a smarter camera.

 

[privatebydesign]

You have your reasons for thinking Canon made a mistake, I don't agree with you, it is as simple as that. Of course there is no reason why Canon couldn't make EF-S lenses fully compatible with FF mirrors, they made a deliberate choice not to that i agree with.

What Canon have said before is that every EF lens will work correctly on every EOS camera, if they had not changed the mount for EF-S lenses then those 'DX' EF lenses wouldn't have worked correctly on ff digital cameras. I think that is the right choice, you don't, we just have to agree to differ.

 

[weixing]

No, because as nikon, sigma, minolta / sony, tamron tokina all prove, you can make a lens with an aps-c image circle, but still use a 135mm mount. Sigma, tamron and tokina have proved you can even do it on an EF mount.

I'm not debating the market or need or benefit of aps-c lenses. I'm debating the use of different mounts.

It seems to be broadly accepted, including by me, that the EF mount (and therefore access to the EF system) is a major, if not the major factor in Canon's continued success.

So thats what I'm getting at... whilst its true that Nikon have kind of botched the F mount for 40 years of its life, canons EF mount continues to rise to modern challenges, such as cinema cameras, and arguably to a point, mirrorless. For all that, I think Nikons approach to DX/FX (note, exclusively in the digital realm) was somewhat to be envied.

No round pegs and square holes. Just a smarter camera.

Hi,
May be Canon want to prevent user accidentally mount a "DX" lens to a FF camera and only to realized that all the shots taken earlier was in "DX" mode?? May be Canon want to prevent dishonest shop selling a "DX" lens to an uninformed FF camera user at FF lens price??

Anyway, at least it easier to differential "DX" lens and "FF" lens in Canon and the chance of accidentally buying a "DX" lens for a FF camera is very small.

Have a nice day.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No round pegs and square holes. Just a smarter camera.

Nikon APS-C user who upgrades to FF can keep using the DX lenses.

Canon APS-C user who upgrades to FF must give Canon additional money for lenses to cover their EF-S range. Canon likes money.

Smarter camera...or smarter company?

 

[Ozarker]

canon isn't going to do anything. Their entire business relies on a legacy lens system designed for the times where mirrors were essential. But today they have basically no lenses for the modern full frame miror-less future and even if they started today, they are already playing catchup, a position they don't know how to play.

Yeah, mirrorless killed the dSLR right on schedule, last year. Somehow we all missed it – what silly, unobservant people we are. Today, it seems Canon really has missed the boat since unit sales of mirrorless cameras are growing dramatically...arent they?

I just have to wonder why some of these people think Canon would have to design a whole new lens system or mount for a mirrorless camera... if that really is the future.

I would think Canon would design the camera around the great lenses it already has rather than a whole new system. That way Canon would already have a built in market for a new mirrorless camera. Somebody might say mirrorless would absolutely require a new lens mount and series. I think a smart bunch of engineers may end up proving them wrong. Of course, this is all pure speculation.

If Canon did decide to come out with a mirrorless camera with an EF mount I don't think it would portend the death of the DSLR, but rather the birth of a new era of market dominance with the wedding of the DSLR / Mirrorless choices under the EF mount.

Couldn't resist that last paragraph.

 

[weixing]

No round pegs and square holes. Just a smarter camera.

Nikon APS-C user who upgrades to FF can keep using the DX lenses.

Canon APS-C user who upgrades to FF must give Canon additional money for lenses to cover their EF-S range. Canon likes money.

Smarter camera...or smarter company?

Hi,
Hmm... May be Nikon is the smarter company because Nikon know that in the end, user will buy a FF version of the DX lens after upgrade to a FF camera. By making their DX lens compatible with FF camera, user will buy a DX lens first without much consideration thinking that they can use the same DX lens in FF camera when they upgrade. But when the user upgrade to a FF camera, they'll realized that in order to utilize the FF camera, they still need a FF lens... so in the end user will buy a FF version of their DX lens.

On other hand, Canon is "honest" and by making their "DX" lens not compatible with FF camera, they basically force the user to think more about the future... if you going to buy a FF camera in the future, don't buy EF-S lens.

Have a nice day.

 

[weixing]

canon isn't going to do anything. Their entire business relies on a legacy lens system designed for the times where mirrors were essential. But today they have basically no lenses for the modern full frame miror-less future and even if they started today, they are already playing catchup, a position they don't know how to play.

Yeah, mirrorless killed the dSLR right on schedule, last year. Somehow we all missed it – what silly, unobservant people we are. Today, it seems Canon really has missed the boat since unit sales of mirrorless cameras are growing dramatically...arent they?

I just have to wonder why some of these people think Canon would have to design a whole new lens system or mount for a mirrorless camera... if that really is the future.

I would think Canon would design the camera around the great lenses it already has rather than a whole new system. That way Canon would already have a built in market for a new mirrorless camera. Somebody might say mirrorless would absolutely require a new lens mount and series. I think a smart bunch of engineers may end up proving them wrong. Of course, this is all pure speculation.

If Canon did decide to come out with a mirrorless camera with an EF mount I don't think it would portend the death of the DSLR, but rather the birth of a new era of market dominance with the wedding of the DSLR / Mirrorless choices under the EF mount.

Couldn't resist that last paragraph.

Hi,
IMHO, Canon current DSLR ergonomic is very good, so Canon should just use the same mount and same form factor as the current DSLR for their "serious" mirrorless camera in the future... just remove the mirror and replace the prism with an EVF. Also, using the same form factor mean that it can have a larger battery and mirrorless camera will need a high capacity battery.

EF-M mount camera will be for those who want a smaller mirrorless camera.

Have a nice day.

 

[mistaspeedy]

I wonder if Canon will be forced to update their cameras sooner... like the quick (2 year) update done to the Nikon D800 and D800E, as well as their D4 to D4s upgrade.
It has been nearly 3.5 years since the 5D mark III was launched and we still don't have a 5D mark IV announcement.

Canon is going to have a hard time competing with fresh products that keep rolling out from Nikon and Sony if they don't change to a ~2 year release cycle OR release a killer camera that is ahead enough to last that long.

 

[Proscribo]

Nikon APS-C user who upgrades to FF can keep using the DX lenses.

Canon APS-C user who upgrades to FF must give Canon additional money for lenses to cover their EF-S range. Canon likes money.

Smarter camera...or smarter company?

I really like this idea of using DX lenses on a FX body. It's like.. you get to use maybe >1400€ (if you don't buy used cameras) to a FX body and then get lower quality pictures with much less pixels with that new, shiny body.

Honestly, what's the point of using DX lenses on a FX body? Fisheyes maybe.. and some lenses work somewhat but mostly you're just lowering you picture quality. (Unless your DX body was something like D70?)

 

[neuroanatomist]

[mera...or smarter company?
...Canon is "honest" and by making their "DX" lens not compatible with FF camera, they basically force the user to think more about the future... if you going to buy a FF camera in the future, don't buy EF-S lens.
[/quote]

Think more about the future...buy a more expensive lens today. I wonder how many of those people never even get a full frame camera?

 

[1982chris911]

I wonder if Canon will be forced to update their cameras sooner... like the quick (2 year) update done to the Nikon D800 and D800E, as well as their D4 to D4s upgrade.
It has been nearly 3.5 years since the 5D mark III was launched and we still don't have a 5D mark IV announcement.

Canon is going to have a hard time competing with fresh products that keep rolling out from Nikon and Sony if they don't change to a ~2 year release cycle OR release a killer camera that is ahead enough to last that long.

You know that the D800/E has had quite some issues (AF issues, pentaprism issues, broken external shutter control sockets inside the body, the green tinted screen etc...) Read here: http://www.martinzimelka.com/pages/D800_8.html , and that the D810 is mainly the bug fix version of the same camera? Same goes for the D4 and D4s ... of course they also included some other improvements with software and some other parts of cameras hardware to improve IQ and DR a bit ...

As my 5d MK III after over 125.000 pics still works fine and I got about the first one on the first day my local dealer had I slightly disagree that canon is in need for such short upgrade circles ...

and btw. Canon released a killer camera for most professional users 4 years ago (1DX) which is together with the telephoto lenses still ahead of Nikon (Nikon will probably match Canons 2012 system (camera and lens) by the beginning of 2016, when their new 500 and 600mm lenses become available) I still have to see a pro sports photographer who regularly needs to push shadows for 5 stops ... same goes with most wildlife photographers ...

However it is to be said that Sony/Nikon is better with some aspects of their cameras which are mainly related to the sensor ... but the combination of 5DsR/1DX which most pros doing Landscape/ detailed big print work and fast action photography will soon have is not really behind much only more specialized to one or the other use ...