FF Mirrorless Poll: if new mount is thin, how many new lenses will we see?

[Mikehit]

I'm not saying Canon will pass this segment, I'm saying Canon will not piss off people who bought several >$1,500 lenses by making said lenses obsolete by new versions that are identical except having a built in extension tube and a paint job (new ring color and a different shade of white / black).

Canon has shown in the M series they are happy to make a new mount and new lenses if they think it necessary. The difference with the FF mirrorless is that if you say 'in 6 months time we will release a FF mirrorless with a new mount and it will not be compatible with EF lenses' the potential purchasers will say "so there is no difference between buying a new body and completely new lenses badged Canon and buying a new body and completely new lenses badged Sony; so why would I take the risk of Canon getting MILC right when I know SOny does so much so well. Why not just buy Sony now."
If you make them compatible with EF lenses you have one option for a relatively cheap entry into FF MILC.

 

[fullstop]

EF-X will be fully backwards compatible with legacy EF lenses via a small, simple, precise and (relatively) inexpensive adaptor. Just like the Canon EF-M/EF adaptor. Canon will offer one, for sure.

 

[Antono Refa]

I'm not saying Canon will pass this segment, I'm saying Canon will not piss off people who bought several >$1,500 lenses by making said lenses obsolete by new versions that are identical except having a built in extension tube and a paint job (new ring color and a different shade of white / black).

Canon has shown in the M series they are happy to make a new mount and new lenses if they think it necessary.

As EOS-M is compatible with EF lenses, it didn't. On the contrary, it shows Canon wanted to strike a balance between the benefits of making smaller camera & lenses without breaking backwards compatibility with existing EF lenses.

 

[Mikehit]

I'm not saying Canon will pass this segment, I'm saying Canon will not piss off people who bought several >$1,500 lenses by making said lenses obsolete by new versions that are identical except having a built in extension tube and a paint job (new ring color and a different shade of white / black).

Canon has shown in the M series they are happy to make a new mount and new lenses if they think it necessary.

As EOS-M is compatible with EF lenses, it didn't. On the contrary, it shows Canon wanted to strike a balance between the benefits of making smaller camera & lenses without breaking backwards compatibility with existing EF lenses.

I thought you needed an adapter to mount EF lenses on an M body. Just like you do with a Sony body.

 

[fullstop]

I thought you needed an adapter to mount EF lenses on an M body. Just like you do with a Sony body.

yes. But not fully comparable. Canon EF/EF-M adapter is 1. original Canon, 2. well-made and stable, 3. not expensive and 4. retains full lens IQ and AF functionality [within "LiveView" capabilities].
Which is not necessarily the case with third-party to Sony E-mount adapters.

 

[Kit.]

I thought you needed an adapter to mount EF lenses on an M body. Just like you do with a Sony body.

For most autofocus A-mount lenses on E-mount Sony, you need an adapter with an AF motor and a mirror inside, and the AF performance is quite poor.

 

[Mikehit]

I thought you needed an adapter to mount EF lenses on an M body. Just like you do with a Sony body.

yes. But not fully comparable. Canon EF/EF-M adapter is 1. original Canon, 2. well-made and stable, 3. not expensive and 4. retains full lens IQ and AF functionality [within "LiveView" capabilities].
Which is not necessarily the case with third-party to Sony E-mount adapters.

I was questioning the assertion that EOS-M is compatible with EF lenses. It isn't. How efficient the adapter is is a different question.

 

[fullstop]

All Canon EF lenses can be mounted on EF-M mount by use of a simple little Canon adapter.
All Canon EF (and T/S) lenses are *fully compatible* with and fully functional on EF-M cameras - within the respective lens' [AF-drive] limitations for operation in "liveView" mode [DPAF LiveView mode on some EOS M camera models].

Canon EF-/EF-M adapter is very well designed, solid quality, fits precisely, locks well and is "affordable". Handling is even simpler than Canon Tele-Extenders, because you don't have to watch out for glass (rear) element. There is no reason to assume this would not also apply to a future Canon EF/"EF-X" mount adapter.

ofc we can further discuss semantics of what "fully compatible" means.

 

[Mikehit]

All Canon EF lenses can be mounted on EF-M mount by use of a simple little Canon adapter.
All Canon EF (and T/S) lenses are *fully compatible* with and fully functional on EF-M cameras - within the respective lens' [AF-drive] limitations for operation in "liveView" mode [DPAF LiveView mode on some EOS M camera models].

Canon EF-/EF-M adapter is very well designed, solid quality, fits precisely, locks well and "affordable". Handling is even simpler than Canon Tele-Extenders, because you don't have to watch out for glass (rear) element. There is no reason to assume this would not also apply to a future Canon EF/"EF-X" mount adapter.

ofc we can further discuss semantics of what "fully compatible" means.

I suggest you go back and read the context of my original remark.

 

[Antono Refa]

I'm not saying Canon will pass this segment, I'm saying Canon will not piss off people who bought several >$1,500 lenses by making said lenses obsolete by new versions that are identical except having a built in extension tube and a paint job (new ring color and a different shade of white / black).

Canon has shown in the M series they are happy to make a new mount and new lenses if they think it necessary.

As EOS-M is compatible with EF lenses, it didn't. On the contrary, it shows Canon wanted to strike a balance between the benefits of making smaller camera & lenses without breaking backwards compatibility with existing EF lenses.

I thought you needed an adapter to mount EF lenses on an M body. Just like you do with a Sony body.

It's an extension tube (tube with pass through electronics), not an adapter. In other words, while the flange distance changed, the electronics (contacts and protocols) remained the same, which makes the differences fullstop has listed.

To be more explicit, suppose Canon made a new mount with new electronics, and made an adapter for it that translates from EF to whatever (same as adapter to Sony FE does), there are two likely problems-

1. Bugs in the adapter electronics.

2. Something will be lost in translation from EF protocols to new mount's protocols. There's a reason adapted Canon EF lenses don't work as well as Sony FE lenses on Sony cameras. If I recall correctly from reviews, AF doesn't work as well (lower fps, some AF points not working at all), and fps is lower.

Which brings me back to the question - what is it in the EF mount electronics that is unfit to serve as a mount for FF mirrorless, even when extended, say with extra pins?

[Yes, I'm separating the mechanical question of flange distance and throat diameter from the electronics itself, as Canon did with EOS-M.]

 

[fullstop]

should not "2 electrical contacts/pins suffice? for anything? with the right lens mount/communications protocol? ;-)

with DP-AF sensors and position/orientation/acceleration sensors, Canon cameras should have all needed information to totally AI-analyze a scene in CPU/s? including distance information for every single pixel!

future EF-X lenses could be built "fairly dumb"? all thats really needed is "move AF element/s forwards or backwards by X amount"?

plus possibly power zoom (surely a horrible thought for many fellow forum dwellers who already cringe with focus by wire) - "move element/s forward/backwards by x amount".

only in-lens IS might require more real-time data transfer/bandwidth than easily possible. no?

but it could also be done with multiple pins as in today's EF lenses. yes?

 

[Kit.]

should not "2 electrical contacts/pins suffice? for anything? with the right lens mount/communications protocol? ;-)

That would be expensive or unreliable. In practice, you need at least 4 (ground, power, rx, tx).

with DP-AF sensors and position/orientation/acceleration sensors, Canon cameras should have all needed information to totally AI-analyze a scene in CPU/s? including distance information for every single pixel!

No, it also needs information about the lens.

And unsharp image is unsharp image, dual pixel or not.

 

[fullstop]

ok, thx! So 4 contacts, fine! Still a potential 50% saving on current # of pins. LOL ;D


re. "lens info", yes camera needs basic lens info - but that's static data, maybe 1 Byte? Actually even a unique lens code should suffice? Effectively hindering 3rd party mfgs to "spoof" Canon lens codes with their own products might be a bit more complex.

Do lenses really need "any intelligence built in" at all? Could it not all be handled by camera, that just needs to send simple commands to lens' aperture/iris, AF drive, IS system [if built in] and zoom position [if zoom lens]? "Actuator" move element/s X in direction positive or negative Z by amount x, do it now, do it fast, report back, verify, closed loop?

I would prefer all the AI / command center and user controls over it in camera body and lenses as simple as possible [including no lens rings, no manual focus facility at all, but very robust and IP67 sealed] and less expensive. I only buy/own 1 camera [at a time], but multiple lenses. Same line of thinking why I prefer to have FF sensor in camera and more compact and economical, slower aperture lenses instead of crop sensor and faster, more complex and expensive lenses [e.g. f/2.0 instead of f/1.4 primes or f/4 zooms instead of f/2.8].

 

[Kit.]

ok, thx! So 4 contacts, fine! Still a potential 50% saving on current # of pins. LOL ;D

Canon uses different motor and digital power and ground contacts, which makes digital less noisy. It also has a separate camera-driven clock line, which historically was making the electronics slightly cheaper.

Then, there are separate pins to detect the presence of teleconverters.

re. "lens info", yes camera needs basic lens info - but that's static data, maybe 1 Byte? Actually even a unique lens code should suffice? Effectively hindering 3rd party mfgs to "spoof" Canon lens codes with their own products might be a bit more complex.

The current approach seems to store more info about individual parameters of the lenses (measured at the test bench). Anyway, making newer lenses incompatible with older cameras just because of the protocol is not a solid business idea for Canon, because it would definitely decrease its customer loyalty.

Do lenses really need "any intelligence built in" at all? Could it not all be handled by camera,

Ideally, the lenses should be able to report what they are and where they are. The rest is possible to be done in the camera, if the camera and the lens share that same model of "what and where".

I would prefer all the AI / command center and user controls over it in camera body and lenses as simple as possible [including no lens rings, no manual focus facility at all, but very robust and IP67 sealed] and less expensive.

That's basically saying "I don't want to be able to meaningfully use telezooms".

 

[USsp40uk]

If they have new lenes my name for the new lenses EF-M(L) as follows:

new M-EF M(L) adapter
35mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.4
200mm f/4
400mm f/4
10-22mm f/2.8
16-35mm f/4
70-200mm f/4-5.6
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6

Some new and improved M lenses.

 

[Antono Refa]

If they have new lenes my name for the new lenses EF-M(L) as follows:

new M-EF M(L) adapter
35mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.4
200mm f/4
400mm f/4
10-22mm f/2.8
16-35mm f/4
70-200mm f/4-5.6
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6

Some new and improved M lenses.

Mirrorless (= short flange distance) FF allows size reduction only for wide (= focal length shorter than FF diagonal) & slow lenses.

That means most of those lenses will be as big as equivalent DSLR versions, probably longer by flange distance difference.

As example, the ultra wide zoom for EOS-M (crop sensor) isn't the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. It's the 1/3rd stop slower & 1mm longer on the wide side, Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6.

Therefore I wouldn't expect 35mm f/1.2 & 10-22mm f/2.8 either.

The smaller 16-35mm f/4 is likely, though.

 

[Hector1970]

It will have a brilliant 50 1.2 that weighs 2KG

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Whatever the new camera is, it had better use EF lenses elegantly. If it requires an adapter, the implementation had better be transparent. If it requires a complete abandonment of EF, then the door is open to switch to anything else. The FD to EF "upgrade" came with a significant advantage - autofocus. The EF to "whatever" change would appear to offer nothing as compelling - not significant size/weight reduction, improved image quality or anything else. Canon is a great brand but photographers are a fickle bunch - witness the number of "why I'm switching" videos posted on-line, significantly improved third party lenses being adopted and the impatience even this forum shows.

 

[ahsanford]

Whatever the new camera is, it had better use EF lenses elegantly. If it requires an adapter, the implementation had better be transparent. If it requires a complete abandonment of EF, then the door is open to switch to anything else. The FD to EF "upgrade" came with a significant advantage - autofocus. The EF to "whatever" change would appear to offer nothing as compelling - not significant size/weight reduction, improved image quality or anything else. Canon is a great brand but photographers are a fickle bunch - witness the number of "why I'm switching" videos posted on-line, significantly improved third party lenses being adopted and the impatience even this forum shows.

Why on earth would Canon make EF not work with this platform?

As for what a new mount enables lens design-wise, other than size (specifically the ability to build a handful of lens + body combinations that are tinier than their FF SLR counterparts), we do not know. Advanced communication to the mount, better IS, smoother video pulls, next-gen Nano USM with the ability to have a stills (fast) and video (steady pulls) mode, who knows?

- A

 

[Ozarker]

Whatever the new camera is, it had better use EF lenses elegantly. If it requires an adapter, the implementation had better be transparent. If it requires a complete abandonment of EF, then the door is open to switch to anything else. The FD to EF "upgrade" came with a significant advantage - autofocus. The EF to "whatever" change would appear to offer nothing as compelling - not significant size/weight reduction, improved image quality or anything else. Canon is a great brand but photographers are a fickle bunch - witness the number of "why I'm switching" videos posted on-line, significantly improved third party lenses being adopted and the impatience even this forum shows.

How many "why I am switching" youtube videos are there... 100? 1000? Clicks = $$$ Controversy = more $$$$$ People switch, almost switch (some videos titled that), and switch back. Then there's the "Should I switch" "should you switch" and should we all switch" crowds. Some are sponsored switches. I don't think there is any great avalanche of switching significance either way. Heck, I've owned 12 different car brands. My likelihood of switching camera brands is zero. This forum? Several have threatened to switch for years. Never do. Some have switched and stayed. Some have switched back.

The CR forum population is filled with all kinds, but seems to be mostly filled with top end gear sort of guys... far less likely to switch (in my opinion) than the more fluid Rebel owners.

Then there's the troll or two that probably don't own what they pretend to own. That's just part of being a troll.

I think the new camera will take EF lenses without any kind of adapter. I'm as right or wrong as anyone else. We'll see soon. If an adapter is needed? Oh well. Not the end of the world. Canon will get it right either way.