Will it be the EOS M1? [CR2]

[Proscribo]

--

A very good example of that is grip height vs pentaprism height. I have no understanding why every single camera manufacturers insists that the central pentaprism must be towering over the rest of the body by 2 cm or more, even when it would have made sense to raise the grip height - while keeping the pentaprism height constant - to avoid having your little finger dangle in the void below.

Let me guess, you close the eye that's not looking through the viewfinder?

You look through the VF with your left eye? Interesting (considering there really aren't left-handed cameras).

 

[Loswr]

Maybe Canon is missing a market.

 

[dsut4392]

--

A very good example of that is grip height vs pentaprism height. I have no understanding why every single camera manufacturers insists that the central pentaprism must be towering over the rest of the body by 2 cm or more, even when it would have made sense to raise the grip height - while keeping the pentaprism height constant - to avoid having your little finger dangle in the void below.

Let me guess, you close the eye that's not looking through the viewfinder?

You look through the VF with your left eye? Interesting (considering there really aren't left-handed cameras).

Yes, always have been left-eye dominant, even though I'm right handed - it's not that uncommon. But I actually interpreted MayaTlab's comment that there was no reason for the pentaprism housing to extend above the top surface of the camera more generically, i.e. that the whole top of the body should be level. Guess I assumed that anyone who shot with both eyes open would recognise that not everyone looks through the viewfinder with the same eye!

 

[dsut4392]

Maybe Canon is missing a market.

Maybe

A friend of mine at uni had an old rangefinder that her grandfather had had converted for left-handed operation of the shutter and film advance lever (the fingers of his right hand didn't make it home from WWII).

 

[AvTvM]

slim adapters exist for many mounts. no real issue.

Which OEMs offer slim mount adapters <8 mm thick?

cannot find exact measurements for the Novoflex lens adapters but some of them look rather slim. Like the one for Leica M lenses to Canon EF-M mount. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/914381-REG/novoflex_eosm_lem_adapter_for_leica_m.html

But anyways, possible or not - adaptability of EF-X FF lenses for use on APS-C sensored EF-M mount cameras is a marginal topic for me and most Canon users.

Let's face it: APS-C and FF sensor systems ARE 2 different worlds. Cross use will always be limited and compromised at best. So what.

Car manufacturers make small cars with small 4 cylinder engines and larger cars with large(r) 6, 8, 12 cylinder engines. Nobody would expect being able to put a V8 engine into a Mini Cooper [although it could be fun] and not many people would want to put a small 4-cylinder engine into a Corvette ... which would be the equivalent to using crop lenses on full-frame sensored cameras.

And while we are at much-loved car-camera analogies:
* DSLR mirrorslappers = like combustion engines cars = no future
* SLT/Pellicle mirror cameras = hybrid cars = no future
* mirrorless cameras = electric cars = future
;D

 

[BillB]

slim adapters exist for many mounts. no real issue.

Which OEMs offer slim mount adapters <8 mm thick?

cannot find exact measurements for the Novoflex lens adapters but some of them look rather slim. Like the one for Leica M lenses to Canon EF-M mount. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/914381-REG/novoflex_eosm_lem_adapter_for_leica_m.html

But anyways, possible or not - adaptability of EF-X FF lenses for use on APS-C sensored EF-M mount cameras is a marginal topic for me and most Canon users.

Let's face it: APS-C and FF sensor systems ARE 2 different worlds. Cross use will always be limited and compromised at best. So what.

Car manufacturers make small cars with small 4 cylinder engines and larger cars with large(r) 6, 8, 12 cylinder engines. Nobody would expect being able to put a V8 engine into a Mini Cooper [although it could be fun] and not many people would want to put a small 4-cylinder engine into a Corvette ... which would be the equivalent to using crop lenses on full-frame sensored cameras.

And while we are at much-loved car-camera analogies:
* DSLR mirrorslappers = like combustion engines cars = no future
* SLT/Pellicle mirror cameras = hybrid cars = no future
* mirrorless cameras = electric cars = future
;D

So the lack of upwards compatibility from APS-C lenses to FF is a big deal, while the lack of backwards compatibility from EF-X to EF-M is no concern. EF-X lenses are going to be smaller and ever so much better than EF lenses so why wouldn't people want to use them on their EF-M bodies? People use EF lenses on their APC bodies all the time.

 

[Loswr]

slim adapters exist for many mounts. no real issue.

Which OEMs offer slim mount adapters <8 mm thick?

cannot find exact measurements for the Novoflex lens adapters but some of them look rather slim. Like the one for Leica M lenses to Canon EF-M mount. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/914381-REG/novoflex_eosm_lem_adapter_for_leica_m.html

So...you don't know of any. Or don't you understand what OEM means? An example would be the Fuji M mount adapter, made by Fuji to mount M-mount lenses on Fuji's X-mount bodies. That adapter is 14.7mm thick.

But anyways, possible or not - adaptability of EF-X FF lenses for use on APS-C sensored EF-M mount cameras is a marginal topic for me and most Canon users.

Let's face it: APS-C and FF sensor systems ARE 2 different worlds. Cross use will always be limited and compromised at best. So what.

Marginal topic? You're the one who keeps hammering on about how EF-X/EF-M would be just like EF/EF-S. The whole point of that is upgrade path. Canon sells far more APS-C dSLRs than FF dSLRs, and assuming they release FF MILCs, they're going to sell far more APS-C MILCs. You also hammer on about the lens size benefits – smaller lenses – being applicable up to a 200mm focal length. FF lens compatibility with APS-C bodies allows users to buy lenses for the future. I believe that Canon sells lots of 70-200mm and 70-300mm lenses to people with APS-C bodies, people who could buy the cheaper EF-S 55-250mm instead (and while for me it's merely a belief, you can be certain that Canon has actual data). So what you describe as 'marginal' and 'so what' is likely a significant driver for Canon...you know, those people who are going to design and build this stuff.

Oh, and your car analogy is asinine. Lenses are user-swappable in seconds, nothing like an automobile engine. No, I would not expect to be able to put the V6 from a Honda Pilot into a tiny Honda Fit...but I'd damn well expect that my Bluetooth phone would pair with either car.

 

[AvTvM]

ok, lets look at relative importance of lens compatibility - assuming Canon would/will go new EF-X? mount with mirrorless FF:

EF lenses -> EF-X mount: FF lens on FF sensor: very important, because huge installed base of EF glass whose owners do not want to buy new native glass for mirrorless on day 1. Technically & economically no problem at all. Simple adapter, 99 USD/€ unless Canon is ultra-greedy.
In addition maybe a somewhat more complx adapter (with mirror) to get full Phase-AF AF performance from Non-STM lenses - for users who want who want better than "Live View" AF performance. Technically no issue, Sony is doing the same, adapter costs around 250.

EF-X lenses on EF-M: not really important, but possible - depending on exact choice of EF-X lens mount specs. Simple, slim adapter.

EF-M lenses on EF-X mount: irrelevant in reality. APS-C lenses on FF sensors in "crop mode" is a cripppled compromise at best ["VW Polo engine and gear box in a Dodge Viper"]

Transition to absolutely uncompromised and backwards compatible mirrorless is quite simple in Canon land. As demonstrated for APS-C with EF-M mount. FF will follow the same path: smaller gear [not precluding larger cameras and lenses], lower production cost, higher sales prices, more profit for Canon, new mount, adapter for existing EF glass, and all is well. 8)

 

[Loswr]

ok, lets look at relative importance of lens compatibility - assuming Canon would/will go new EF-X? mount with mirrorless FF:

EF lenses -> EF-X mount: FF lens on FF sensor: very important, because huge installed base of EF glass whose owners do not want to buy new native glass for mirrorless on day 1. Technically & economically no problem at all. Simple adapter, 99 USD/€ unless Canon is ultra-greedy.
In addition maybe a somewhat more complx adapter (with mirror) to get full Phase-AF AF performance from Non-STM lenses - for users who want who want better than "Live View" AF performance. Technically no issue, Sony is doing the same, adapter costs around 250.

EF-X lenses on EF-M: not really important, but possible - depending on exact choice of EF-X lens mount specs. Simple, slim adapter.

EF-M lenses on EF-X mount: irrelevant in reality. APS-C lenses on FF sensors in "crop mode" is a cripppled compromise at best ["VW Polo engine and gear box in a Dodge Viper"]

Transition to absolutely uncompromised and backwards compatible mirrorless is quite simple in Canon land. As demonstrated for APS-C with EF-M mount. FF will follow the same path: smaller gear [not precluding larger cameras and lenses], lower production cost, higher sales prices, more profit for Canon, new mount, adapter for existing EF glass, and all is well. 8)

Where do you think Canon would be, today, if they had released APS-C dSLRs that were not compatible with EF lenses? Your suggestion that the ability to mount your hypothetical EF-X lens on a current EOS M body is unimportant is just plain silly. It might not be critically important today, but it will become critically important as the MILC market grows at the expense of dSLRs (assuming that does happen, it's not a given).

Your solution, a 'simple, slim adapter' is one for which there's no precedent, and while it's certainly possible, it's not a very practical solution (vs. a simple, 15mm thick adapter, which would be trivial...but is precluded by your 'optimal' design).

 

[AvTvM]

why should an adapter for EX-X to EF-M be difficult? Basically a stainless steel dual flange/bayonet ring to "bridge da gap" between 18mm FFD [EF-M] and hypothetical EF-X? FFD of 22-24mm and to lightseal any "excess" EF-X mount diameter.

If Novoflex can make "ultra-slim" adapters like the ones for Nikon F [46.5mm FFD] to Canon EF [44mm FFD] http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/adapter-finder/+/camera_id/1/lense_id/5/

certainly Canon will also be capable to make "slim" EF-X to EF-M adapters - including wire-thru electrical contacts for full AF/IS/mount protocol functionality.

 

[Loswr]

why should an adapter for EX-X to EF-M be difficult? Basically a stainless steel dual flange/bayonet ring to "bridge da gap" between 18mm FFD [EF-M] and hypothetical EF-X? FFD of 22-24mm and to lightseal any "excess" EF-X mount diameter.

If Novoflex can make "ultra-slim" adapters like the ones for Nikon F [46.5mm FFD] to Canon EF [44mm FFD] http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/adapter-finder/+/camera_id/1/lense_id/5/

certainly Canon will also be capable to make "slim" EF-X to EF-M adapters - including wire-thru electrical contacts for full AF/IS/mount protocol functionality.

Yes, that sure looks practical and ergonomic.

Regardless, it will all be moot when Canon releases a FF MILC with the standard EF mount.

 

[AvTvM]

Yes, that sure looks practical and ergonomic.

all those who just "don't like freakin' adaptors" can glue it into the lens mount. That way it will look and act exactly like a mirrorless cam with an EF mount pig's snout. 8) ;D

 

[Loswr]

Yes, that sure looks practical and ergonomic.

all those who just "don't like freakin' adaptors" can glue it into the lens mount. That way it will look and act exactly like a mirrorless cam with an EF mount pig's snout. 8) ;D

The issue isn't the adaptor, per se. It's the thin adapter that's problematic. Obviously, EF-X mounting on M bodies is not something about which you care. But, it is almost certainly something that Canon cares about…very deeply. I'm not surprised by your viewpoint, evidently at the fork in the road, you chose the path that reality decided not to travel.

 

[AvTvM]

what exactly do you find "problematic" with a thin adaptor? Novoflex and other makers have long proven that it is no problem. If Novoflex can do it, surely INNOVATIVE Canon can as well.

 

[Loswr]

what exactly do you find "problematic" with a thin adaptor? Novoflex and other makers have long proven that it is no problem. If Novoflex can do it, surely INNOVATIVE Canon can as well.

It's not that Canon can't...but it would likely involve unpalatable eergonomic compromises. No room for a 'proper' lens release, for example.

 

[AvTvM]

what exactly do you find "problematic" with a thin adaptor? Novoflex and other makers have long proven that it is no problem. If Novoflex can do it, surely INNOVATIVE Canon can as well.

It's not that Canon can't...but it would likely involve unpalatable eergonomic compromises. No room for a 'proper' lens release, for example.

OMG :

Even if there was no room for a "proper" lens release on an ultra-slim adapter [<2mm thickness] itself ... there is a "proper lens release button" on every camera body including upcoming Canon FF MILCs.

"At worst" adapter would stay on lens and be "screwed off" the lens bayonet with 1 flick of the hand. Yes, one additional little step, about as "difficult" as opening/closing a toothpaste tube ... and less involved than opening/closing a single leg nut on a tripod. ;D

Also, typically adapted lenses are not swapped out every other shot "in the field". When I occasionally use my EF 40/2.8 or EF 50/1.8 STM or EF-S 60 Macro on my EOS M using the Canon OEM EF/EF-M adapter, the adapter will typically stay on the lens for an entireshooting - even when I swap with EF-M lenses in between. YMMV of course, but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.

 

[Loswr]

...but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.

LOL. : You're perpetually convinced that your views and usage patterns represent the majority. You need to get over that handicap and accept reality.

 

[BillB]

what exactly do you find "problematic" with a thin adaptor? Novoflex and other makers have long proven that it is no problem. If Novoflex can do it, surely INNOVATIVE Canon can as well.

It's not that Canon can't...but it would likely involve unpalatable eergonomic compromises. No room for a 'proper' lens release, for example.

OMG :

Even if there was no room for a "proper" lens release on an ultra-slim adapter [<2mm thickness] itself ... there is a "proper lens release button" on every camera body including upcoming Canon FF MILCs.

"At worst" adapter would stay on lens and be "screwed off" the lens bayonet with 1 flick of the hand. Yes, one additional little step, about as "difficult" as opening/closing a toothpaste tube ... and less involved than opening/closing a single leg nut on a tripod. ;D

Also, typically adapted lenses are not swapped out every other shot "in the field". When I occasionally use my EF 40/2.8 or EF 50/1.8 STM or EF-S 60 Macro on my EOS M using the Canon OEM EF/EF-M adapter, the adapter will typically stay on the lens for an entireshooting - even when I swap with EF-M lenses in between. YMMV of course, but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.

So there would be no lock between the ES-X lens and the adapter?

 

[Rocky]

Leica have an OEM adapter for Leica screw mount to Leica M mount that is about 1 mm thick. However, this mount has no lens release and no electronics connection. 8 mm adapter with electronics connection and lense Release? Good luck!!

 

[AvTvM]

...but I am convinced my experience reflects the majority of use cases in this regard.

LOL. : You're perpetually convinced that your views and usage patterns represent the majority. You need to get over that handicap and accept reality.

with all due respect, but I am way more representative for Canon Non-Pro users than many forum members here. 80% of forum members here seem to be shooting wildlife and birds in flight with 1Dxes and 600mm lenses. 99% of Canon users don't.