EF-X Mirrorless concept
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
Not a problem. Just take a PowerShot.ahsanford said:
Besides the physical difference between the film and the CMOS sensor, most of those rangefinder lenses weren't particularly sharp in the corners.BillB said:
Or particularly sharp at all. Definitely not "30Mpixel" sharp.
Upvote
0
I think, it's a case of "broken telephone" effect. In particular, combining problems of Minolta/Sony screwdriver autofocus A-mount lenses on E-mount with inability of DPAF to drive big white lenses as fast and precise as a dedicated AF sensor would.3kramd5 said:
Upvote
0
But I *want* a smaller body!
There are other ways of solving ergonomics without simply making a MILC a carbon-copy of current cameras designs/layouts. Let's be creative here.
Also, are you *really* sure your EF legacy glass is going to work well enough on a mirrorless body? Some, modern lenses and especially STM lenses are going to be fine, but the rest? What about older lenses? Will they suck?
I guess the test here is to see how well they perform in live view mode on a 5DIV. If they can keep up on live view for focus as well as they can in normal operation then my concerns are totally invalid.
As I've said before a gazillion times, I can't imagine that Canon would launch a new mount now and add to the confusion of lens products when they have the EF-M mount already.
If I were designing the new camera, I'd do something vaguely like the Sigma Quattro H shape (see below), but with the front mount completely detachable, so that you can slide off the EF mount and click in a replacement EF-M mount. If you're just shooting legacy glass you don't need adaptors, you have your camera semi-permanently adapted to EF. If you're shooting compact EF-M FF lenses, then you use the other plate.
That way with a compact EF-M prime attached your entire lens + body could fit into a larger pocket, but with the EF mount fitted it's not much different ergonomically to a 5D IV.
Obviously don't take the Sigma as 100% the design I like. We'd want top screen, lots of wheels etc.
But a mirrorless camera that looks externally almost identical to a 5DIV? No, I have no need for that.
There are other ways of solving ergonomics without simply making a MILC a carbon-copy of current cameras designs/layouts. Let's be creative here.
Also, are you *really* sure your EF legacy glass is going to work well enough on a mirrorless body? Some, modern lenses and especially STM lenses are going to be fine, but the rest? What about older lenses? Will they suck?
I guess the test here is to see how well they perform in live view mode on a 5DIV. If they can keep up on live view for focus as well as they can in normal operation then my concerns are totally invalid.
As I've said before a gazillion times, I can't imagine that Canon would launch a new mount now and add to the confusion of lens products when they have the EF-M mount already.
If I were designing the new camera, I'd do something vaguely like the Sigma Quattro H shape (see below), but with the front mount completely detachable, so that you can slide off the EF mount and click in a replacement EF-M mount. If you're just shooting legacy glass you don't need adaptors, you have your camera semi-permanently adapted to EF. If you're shooting compact EF-M FF lenses, then you use the other plate.
That way with a compact EF-M prime attached your entire lens + body could fit into a larger pocket, but with the EF mount fitted it's not much different ergonomically to a 5D IV.
Obviously don't take the Sigma as 100% the design I like. We'd want top screen, lots of wheels etc.
But a mirrorless camera that looks externally almost identical to a 5DIV? No, I have no need for that.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I could see the design being similar to the Sigma Quattro picture above with adapter plate for EF mount and no plate for an EF- X mount. The diameter of the snout on the camera could be large enough that the EF-X lens could slide into the snout (a la Ahsanford) and still permit large aperture lenses once the EF adapter plate was removed. I could be just repeating the original idea — not sure.
Such a design would discourage 3rd party EF-X lenses for sure. They would not be able to produce a lens that was easily adaptable to Canon, Nikon, and Sony with one basic design.
Such a design would discourage 3rd party EF-X lenses for sure. They would not be able to produce a lens that was easily adaptable to Canon, Nikon, and Sony with one basic design.
Upvote
0
so funny. putting a "removable EF nozzle" on a camera would be fine. calling the detachable nozzle by its real name: "lens mount adapter" makes it a big problem to a few here. 100% irrational.
* canon Ff mirrorless will come with a new, "slim" mount (short ffd).
* it will not be the crop-sensor EF-mount either.
* there will be a good, simple, solid and inexpensive lens mount adapter for legacy EF glass
* legacy EF glass will perform as well as it dors in live view on a DP-AF Canon DSLR.
* new mount native lenses will have advantages over legacy EF glass
* anybody can upgrade their lenses if and whenever they want
* anybody using legacy EF glass only, can leave the adaptor permanently on camera or even lic-tite it into the lens mount. no risk to "forget it at home or lose it in the field"
no problem whatsoever. everything straightforward and rational.
* canon Ff mirrorless will come with a new, "slim" mount (short ffd).
* it will not be the crop-sensor EF-mount either.
* there will be a good, simple, solid and inexpensive lens mount adapter for legacy EF glass
* legacy EF glass will perform as well as it dors in live view on a DP-AF Canon DSLR.
* new mount native lenses will have advantages over legacy EF glass
* anybody can upgrade their lenses if and whenever they want
* anybody using legacy EF glass only, can leave the adaptor permanently on camera or even lic-tite it into the lens mount. no risk to "forget it at home or lose it in the field"
no problem whatsoever. everything straightforward and rational.
Upvote
0
fullstop said:
I don't understand the adaptor phobia that people have here. "Oh, I might leave it at home!"
Well, you might leave your memory cards at home, or your batteries, or your wallet. Stop being so daft!
Only want to use EF lenses? Then stick the adaptor on your camera, stick a body cap on the end, and DON'T TAKE IT OFF.
There are plenty of times I do that with the Metabones adaptor on my A7RII when I'm using the Sony as a 2nd body with my Canon lenses. Guess what, it doesn't fall off, it doesn't work itself lose, it doesn't wobble. It just works. Even with the 400 f/2.8 non-IS
The *only* valid complaint is the lack of weather sealing. And that's just this particular pairing, there's no reason a decent adaptor couldn't have weather sealing.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Don't really understand this thread. I'm pretty sure there has already been some coverage here of patents that offer a cleaner, better solution: a camera mount that rotates and extends for EF lenses and slides back in for a new mount. The CR rumors say there will be a creative and elegant solution to the problem. Why not wait and see?
Upvote
0
Ok. I am now authorized to reveal..
Wait, that's not the right accent, let's try again.
Ok, I am now AUTHORIZED to REVEAL the TRUTH about the new MIRRORLESS camera.
The SEXY SOLUTION is simple. It will have a standard EF mount on the FRONT, and a full-frame EF-M mount ON THE REAR.
That's right. Throw on a EF-M 22mm lens AND you can take SELFIES (albeit IN crop mode.)
No more STUPID CANON NOW!
Wait, that's not the right accent, let's try again.
Ok, I am now AUTHORIZED to REVEAL the TRUTH about the new MIRRORLESS camera.
The SEXY SOLUTION is simple. It will have a standard EF mount on the FRONT, and a full-frame EF-M mount ON THE REAR.
That's right. Throw on a EF-M 22mm lens AND you can take SELFIES (albeit IN crop mode.)
No more STUPID CANON NOW!
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
"creative and elegant" shenanigans. thanks, but no thanks. keep it simple, keep it straight. new ef-x mount to get all the advantages and a little adaptors to get a few more years of life out of people's legacy EF shards. the most elegant, simple and straightforward solution ever needed.
Upvote
0
A creative and elegant solution would be the proposed EF-X mount. EF lenses work with no adaptor. EF-s lenses work with no adaptor and primarily only have the vignetting issues when stopped wide open.... Wide angle lenses could intrude into the body a bit and reduce the camera/lens size ( for the few lenses that would benefit)….
Elegant solutions are simple and beautiful, they are not complex, and that kind of rules out trying to come up with a whole new line of lenses and strange adaptors.....
Elegant solutions are simple and beautiful, they are not complex, and that kind of rules out trying to come up with a whole new line of lenses and strange adaptors.....
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
That's a wonderful lens and you got a real deal. Is the IR mark on the left or the right of the 4? If to the left, it is a 7 element version. To the right = 8 element. The 8 is more rare, but the 7 actually has better contrast. Sorry, love my Takumars.
BTW: Paid $200 for my 7 element just a month ago.
Upvote
0
jolyonralph said:
Disagree. Though I keep talking like some soulless robot designer in that 'the grip/ergonomics part of size can be completely decoupled from the mount decision', i.e. you could have a big body with a chunky grip and a thin mount and you could have an SL2-size body and grip with a full EF mount, marketing-wise that might lead to some nutty looking camera designs.
There is something to the 'identity of small' that says that to maximize the difference between SLR and mirrorless -- to show off it's most obvious first-glance upside -- if you go thin, you put the grip and overall back view footprint (width and height) on a diet as well.
I don't want that camera, mind you, but I believe Canon marketing absolutely does. A product like that sells itself without much fuss, regardless of all of the painful lens size realities may exist.
- A
Upvote
0
fullstop said:
Hold your horses. If Canon can make a telescoping mount that is slick/secure/etc. it's the best of both worlds. I'm just not sure how much space/strength/reliability/cost that will take to pull off.
Unfocused is correct that we should wait and see if Canon could pull that off.
- A
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
Again, if they go thin, the adaptor means the mount isn't changing. Put an adaptor on and leave it there -- in this, the mount hasn't changed (if Canon did its job correctly).
I see a thinner mount simply as Canon offering us an opportunity to build a smaller FF ILC camera. That has value to people that aren't working with bigger glass all the time. It's not a solution in search of a problem, it's a solution for a portion of the market that you aren't in, that's all.
I would love to see marketing VOC work and segmentation on this. I content both keep it thin and keep it seamless (EF) are both north 25% market positions, if not closer to an outright 50-50. I think Canon has to offer both cameras, thought not necessarily launch with both.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Yah that’s fine, although if they can use the same flange distance and realize some packing space savings by designing lenses which extend inward, funny lenscaps notwithstanding, I think that would be better than an adapter, semipermanent or otherwise, much less a telescoping boom.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
That's completely fair.
I would say that the magic bullet -- no adaptor and the opportunity to be thin if we want -- would appear to be a camera with a telescoping mount. But it could be a very difficult engineering task to address all concerns of speeed, robustness, size/footprint, etc. ...and it kinda reeks of a 'photography enthusiast swiss army knife'. They might as well sell modular / detachable mount rings with working electronics for M, FX, Fuji X, etc. and pitch the idea on Kickstarter. ;D
- A
Upvote
0
Similar threads
