Yes, but don't forget the new electronics. The new mount has been a good moment to get them up to date.
Untill the R mount was introduced. Now You can use those old lenses with an adapter again.
Upvote
0
Canon exec confirms that the EOS-1D X Mark III is Canon’s last DSLR
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
The whole point of the link was that he asked for Japanese speakers to help translate the article and I provided the actual replies from Japanese speaking people, some that didn't even seem to line up with his conclusion.
But who wants more sources of information? It has the Tool name so "obviously" its incorrect and meaningless, even when it's not about in misinfotainment.
Let's blanket not even look at information just because it's Tool adjacent says the person who is always claiming a desire for more data and facts.
Upvote
0
The FD lenses were being used on mirrorless years before the R mount on Sony E for example with Metabones, Fotodiox etc adapters.Yes, but don't forget the new electronics. The new mount has been a good moment to get them up to date.
Untill the R mount was introduced. Now You can use those old lenses with an adapter again.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Perhaps semantics, but while that's true from the reductionist viewpoint of considering only the mount, the fact is that the mount was used for mirrorless camera. The lack of a mirror is what makes the shorter flange distance possible (don't need room to flip up the mirror). But mirrorless allows on-sensor phase-detect AF while looking through the viewfinder, and that means AF can work at very narrow apertures. Thus, we have lenses like the 800/11 that simply weren't possible as AF lenses for a DSLR. There's no direct comparison, but an 800mm lens that doesn't weigh 10 pounds and cost >$12K is possible with the RF mount but not the EF mount. Also, the fact that the view 'through the lens' really isn't but rather is through an EVF means lenses like the RF 16/2.8 can be designed with weaker optics that require algorithmic corrections but are much smaller, lighter and cheaper than an optically corrected EF lens.
Having said that, it is correct that the benefits of the mount itself are minimal when comparing functionally equivalent lenses between EF and RF.
Upvote
0
Surely if you can have an EF 28 f1.8 and an EF 85 f1.2 an EF 28-70 f2 would have been possible with the mount.
Upvote
0
I tested it out just then. When pulling the battery out after turning off the camera the transmissive screen will stay on until the battery is removed. When you insert the battery back in then close the battery door the transmissive screen will power on.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
I’m not so sure. Prime lenses are far less complicated designs than constant aperture zoom lenses, particularly ones that span wide to telephoto ranges.
Upvote
0
Well at this point there isn’t an EF-M lens that covers the image circle of any R cameras, so there’s that...Except for EF-M and RF
Upvote
0
That is physically possible, but there isn’t an M camera with the brain to drive an RF lens so it seems pointless. No focus and no aperture kinda hampers lens functionality.
Upvote
0
Yes, and the big difference for a 28-70mm lens is that with a 20mm registration distance there's no need for a 28-70mm to be retrofocus at any point in the zoom range.
With a 44mm registration distance a 28-70mm lens must be retrofocus over most of it's focal length range before (potentially) reversing the directions some of the elements move as it continues to be zoomed to longer focal lengths. (e.g. the 18-55mm kit lenses, 28-135mm, 15-85mm, etc.)
The original EF 24-70mm f/2.8L was retrofocus throughout the entire zoom range. That's why it was fully extended at 24mm and fully retracted at 70mm. It's also why the critical adjustments for aligning lens elements were in the very front of the barrel that extended, and could get knocked out of whack very easily if bumped while the barrel was extended.
Upvote
0
Not physically possible because the throat diameter of the RF mount is larger than the EF-M mount but the bayonet lugs of the RF mount extend more than 2mm behind the flange. The lugs would need to be inside the EF-M camera's flange ring.
Upvote
0
The EOS R system is all about the mount - the problems it could solve, and provisions given for product growth. From the EOS R White Paper, these were identified as (note: virtually everything below is quoted/copied from their paper):
Problems:
Anyway, I posted the above since someone commented along the lines of haven't we hashed through this already? I think it's good to look back occasionally at what the stated goals were - at what was promised/intended, and then see if that has been delivered on. For example, the questions about optical performance and size/weight, etc. I highlighted "optical performance" in the lists above since that was also being questioned, whether they have delivered on that or not, or did they realize they could fudge on physical design and compensate with digital lens correction algorithms? Or maybe that's what they meant all along?
Actually, I have continued purchasing EF (and EF-M) lenses ever since RF was introduced, though I do have an R body
Problems:
- Insufficient flexibilities in mount diameter and back focus distance to accommodate all of the increasingly diverse requirements in zoom and prime lenses
- Large diameter rear lens elements that are much closer to the full frame image sensor - enhancing overall optical performance (in particular, tighter control over optical aberrations at image extremities)
- Lenses having the same specifications for focal length and maximum aperture as current EF mount lenses - but having significantly higher image quality - within the same size and weight
- High optical performance, large aperture (F1.2) prime lenses for full frame cameras
- Zoom lenses of higher brightness with constant aperture over their focal ranges - while still modest in size and weight
- Two key dimensions play a significant role in the quality of the final image projected on to the image sensor - they are the back focus distance and the diameter of the final lens element.
- Limited speed of the electronic communication between lens and camera
- Limited electronic channels between lens and camera to accommodate new operational aspirations
- Constraints in sensor-based AF operational capabilities
- Emerging popularity of the full frame image sensor
- Anticipated progressive elevation of sensor resolution
- Quest for higher exposure range
- Increasing diversity and sophistication of end-users seeking extended operational functionalities
- Balancing among these lens parameters:
- Higher Optical Performance - to accommodate multiple future enhancements in camera performance
- Enhanced Operational Specifications - such as focal length ranges, maximum aperture, and their controls
- Meeting demands in Size and Weight Specifications - which can be critically important to certain forms of shooting
Anyway, I posted the above since someone commented along the lines of haven't we hashed through this already? I think it's good to look back occasionally at what the stated goals were - at what was promised/intended, and then see if that has been delivered on. For example, the questions about optical performance and size/weight, etc. I highlighted "optical performance" in the lists above since that was also being questioned, whether they have delivered on that or not, or did they realize they could fudge on physical design and compensate with digital lens correction algorithms? Or maybe that's what they meant all along?
Actually, I have continued purchasing EF (and EF-M) lenses ever since RF was introduced, though I do have an R body
Upvote
0
Similar threads
