I'm gonna take a HUGE grain of salt with this rumor. Through the few years, I've learned that Canon may can their customer's expectations... just a little bit. Hoping for the best though. ;D
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:Benefit of going to new mount with smaller flange distance is evident: it allows camera bodies way more It also allows lenses in most frequently used focal range [wide to normal] to be built more compact compared to today's DSLR lenses.
GHPhotography said:Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ.
AvTvM said:NorbR said:... and you get to to sell a bunch of new lenses to all your existing customers 8)
exactly. ...
Maximilian said:Hi Mikehit!Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy ...
Sorry, but I don't get your point.
A flange distance adapter is not a teleconverter.
A teleconverter has an influence on optical formula, focal length and aperture.
An adapter is only setting the optical formula in relationship to the image plane.
And it has to conduct the electrical signals properly - without altering them.
Problem with EOS M and adapter hitting the AF performance of EF/EF-S lenses is also not clear to me.
But that's a question for Canon development. It seems they've decided to built up the EOS M AF system different to the EOS.
So why should they do so again when aiming at customers with EF lenses?
Mikehit said:You were saying....?
jolyonralph said:GHPhotography said:Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ.
How many times is this nonsense going to be repeated?
Shorter flange distance only means more flexibility in lens design.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO PUT YOUR REAR ELEMENT BANG UP AGAINST THE SENSOR. You can air-gap it to exactly the same distance it is on an EF lens if you really want to (eg some 3rd party FE mount lenses).
So. You can design compact lenses for those who want compact lenses (with potentially lower IQ as you suggest) AND you can design larger, heavier lenses with greater IQ and without any of these disadvantages you speak of. Look at the G lenses on FE for this for example.
And. Of course with an adaptor for EF lenses fitted other than the potential issues with how well the adaptor holds up to daily use there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE optically between the operation of the lens on the mirrorless and on an equivalent DSLR.
And wait! There's more!
The flexibility of a shorter flange distance means you can add all sorts of fun adaptors in the way. Want an autofocus adaptor for Nikon lenses? It's possible! Tilt/shift adaptors for EF lenses? It's possible!
Please... stop with this mirrorless = lower IQ nonsense right now.
AvTvM said:Mikehit said:You were saying....?
I was saying: more compact lenses from wide to "normal" focal lengths are POSSIBLE with shorter flange distance .. IF mount parameters are *WELL CHOSEN*, UNLIKE Sony E-mount
Sony E-mount which is *extremely poorly chosen for mirrorless FF*, causing unnecessarily long, heavy, complex, expensive lens designs. E-Mount has reasonable parameters for APS-C, which it was designed for. Only as an afterthought, Sony decided to put E-mount "on forced labor duty" on FF sensors. Specifically: FFD is a bit short and hole diameter is a bit too narrow.
So please stop once and for all using Sony FE lenses as "proof", that mirrorless FFD lenses cannot be built compact, good and affordable.
PLEASE! No "detachable" EVF -- Professional cameras should not rely on any detachable accessories. The EVF is part & parcel of a mirrorless. The two full frame Leica EVF cameras (SL & Q) are the best EVFs anywhere, case closed.KeithBreazeal said:Hoping for...
No mechanical parts in the shutter design.(like Sony)
Detachable Hi-Res EVF
CFast + SD
Continuous raw buffering at 15 fps
High capacity battery
hmatthes said:PLEASE! No "detachable" EVF
KeithBreazeal said:Hoping for...
No mechanical parts in the shutter design.(like Sony)
Detachable Hi-Res EVF
CFast + SD
Continuous raw buffering at 15 fps
High capacity battery
GHPhotography said:Please provide examples of a flange distance and existing lenses/lens designs that achieve this. If you can then you have an argument. If you can't then you have a hope and a dream.
douglaurent said:What Canon advantage is left by then?
AvTvM said:Mikehit said:You were saying....?
I was saying: more compact lenses from wide to "normal" focal lengths are POSSIBLE with shorter flange distance .. IF mount parameters are *WELL CHOSEN*, UNLIKE Sony E-mount
Sony E-mount which is *extremely poorly chosen for mirrorless FF*, causing unnecessarily long, heavy, complex, expensive lens designs. E-Mount has reasonable parameters for APS-C, which it was designed for. Only as an afterthought, Sony decided to put E-mount "on forced labor duty" on FF sensors. Specifically: FFD is a bit short and hole diameter is a bit too narrow.
So please stop once and for all using Sony FE lenses as "proof", that mirrorless FFD lenses cannot be built compact, good and affordable.