Would you buy more EF lenses if new FF mirrorless uses a new lens mount?

[unfocused]

So there is no new features that can be integrated in a 30 year old electronic mount?
In 1987 think about what computers were available. In the digital world that is ancient history.

Canon felt it was necessary to change in 1987, as you mentioned it was a success.
Would they do do it again if they believed it was necessary to keep up with the times and the current technology? Of course they would.

Are they going to change the size of the mount? I think that discussion is just background noise from those who like to speculate about things they have little inside understanding or knowledge of.

Please read Don's explanation. A decent analogy would be an electric plug and a wall outlet. You plug the lens into the camera and it makes a connection that allows power and data to travel between camera and lens. The mount has no other functions other than to make an electronic connection and physically hold the lens to the camera.

Same reason why you can plug an electric appliance into a wall outlet from 1950 as easily as one from 2018 (Ignoring, of course, the safety aspect of grounded outlets). All it has to do is transfer the power from one object to the other. The camera and lens connection does exchange data of course, but again it's just a simple connection.

What "inside knowledge or understanding" do you think you have that would lead you to make it more complicated than it is?

 

[takesome1]

So there is no new features that can be integrated in a 30 year old electronic mount?
In 1987 think about what computers were available. In the digital world that is ancient history.

Canon felt it was necessary to change in 1987, as you mentioned it was a success.
Would they do do it again if they believed it was necessary to keep up with the times and the current technology? Of course they would.

Are they going to change the size of the mount? I think that discussion is just background noise from those who like to speculate about things they have little inside understanding or knowledge of.

Please read Don's explanation. A decent analogy would be an electric plug and a wall outlet. You plug the lens into the camera and it makes a connection that allows power and data to travel between camera and lens. The mount has no other functions other than to make an electronic connection and physically hold the lens to the camera.

Same reason why you can plug an electric appliance into a wall outlet from 1950 as easily as one from 2018 (Ignoring, of course, the safety aspect of grounded outlets). All it has to do is transfer the power from one object to the other. The camera and lens connection does exchange data of course, but again it's just a simple connection.

What "inside knowledge or understanding" do you think you have that would lead you to make it more complicated than it is?

The same amount you of "inside knowledge or understanding" as you.

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

 

[Loswr]

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

'Room for improvement' is irrelevant unless there is a need for that improvement and a meaningful benefit to be derived from it.

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.

 

[Kit.]

So there is no new features that can be integrated in a 30 year old electronic mount?

There are plenty of new features that were "integrated" into the same mount since then.

In 1987 think about what computers were available. In the digital world that is ancient history.

RJ45 is still exactly the same as then, too.

 

[Loswr]

In 1987 think about what computers were available. In the digital world that is ancient history.

RJ45 is still exactly the same as then, too.

Indeed. High-speed internet is carried over a connector with 8 pins. The EF mount on a DSLR has....wait for it....8 pins.

 

[Don Haines]

In 1987 think about what computers were available. In the digital world that is ancient history.

RJ45 is still exactly the same as then, too.

Indeed. High-speed internet is carried over a connector with 8 pins. The EF mount on a DSLR has....wait for it....8 pins.

Actually..... in 1987 we were still using vampire taps on co-ax cable for our ethernet.... RJ45 like connectors appeared in 1988.....


In 1988 you carried data over that connection at 10Mbps..... now you carry it at 10Gbps (typically), and the gear at both ends negotiates the highest practical shared speed..... If only Canon would do the same and negotiate higher shared speeds between lenses and cameras.... oh wait! They just patented a version of that!

 

[Don Haines]

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

'Room for improvement' is irrelevant unless there is a need for that improvement and a meaningful benefit to be derived from it.

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.

In the case of cameras and lenses, the problem isn't the sustained average data rate, but a latency problem when doing more data intensive tasks like AF.... With a higher speed link, it takes less time to send the required data and reduces the latency.

Of course, a higher speed link is an electronics problem and has virtually nothing to do with the physical size of a mount, and can just as easily be introduced on the existing EF mount as on an imaginary new mount, particularly if this new mount is also to have imaginary adaptors to adapt to EF lenses....

So yes, there IS room for improvement, but that is with the electronics on the ends of the mount. The physical mount itself has no bearing on the problem.

 

[eosuser1234]

The FD to EF mount change, really offered no good options for users of FD mount. The jump from Manual focus to Auto Focus was too much. However, EF-M mount and any future mounts Canon may develop will allow useage of EF lenses with or without a converter and rather good options for all users. To be honest, using EF lenses on the EOS M5 is fine. Sure the M5 could be faster at focusing, but I don't see it is being handicapped by the EF-M mount in particular.

I am thinking a transformer type mount permanently integrated on the camera that allows EF-M, and EF, EF-S lenses where the mount can retract inside the camera body when not being used. Allowing all EF lenses to be used. That EF-T (transformer mount) would be for the flagship model and another with just EF and EF-S mount.

 

[Loswr]

In the case of cameras and lenses, the problem isn't the sustained average data rate, but a latency problem when doing more data intensive tasks like AF.... With a higher speed link, it takes less time to send the required data and reduces the latency.

The 1D X II can achieve 14 fps while focusing between shots. The limitations on that speed are the aperture motor (setting more than four stops down from wide open slows the frame rate) and image processing (too high an ISO slows the frame rate). I agree that transfer speed can be improved, but the current limitations suggest that the data transfer latency isn't a bottleneck.

 

[Don Haines]

In the case of cameras and lenses, the problem isn't the sustained average data rate, but a latency problem when doing more data intensive tasks like AF.... With a higher speed link, it takes less time to send the required data and reduces the latency.

The 1D X II can achieve 14 fps while focusing between shots. The limitations on that speed are the aperture motor (setting more than four stops down from wide open slows the frame rate) and image processing (too high an ISO slows the frame rate). I agree that transfer speed can be improved, but the current limitations suggest that the data transfer latency isn't a bottleneck.

Good points! I wonder what effect this would have on video and tracking? Or if it is needed for higher frame rates.... Anyway, a bit more speed on the serial link certainly will not hurt

 

[Don Haines]

I am thinking a transformer type mount permanently integrated on the camera that allows EF-M, and EF, EF-S lenses where the mount can retract inside the camera body when not being used. Allowing all EF lenses to be used. That EF-T (transformer mount) would be for the flagship model and another with just EF and EF-S mount.

Wouldn't that be getting quite mechanically complex and have problems with alignment and solidity?

 

[dak723]

However, EF-M mount and any future mounts Canon may develop will allow useage of EF lenses with or without a converter and rather good options for all users. To be honest, using EF lenses on the EOS M5 is fine.

I think you will find a lot of differing opinions on this - depending on the lenses, of course. When I got the M5, I got the adapter to use with my old 28-105mm EF lens. Not a big or heavy lens compared to many - but no, very uncomfortable for me to use. I believe mainly due to the width of the lens at the mount. Also had a EF-S 55-250mm which I was looking forward to use. Again, very uncomfortable - so much so that I sold the lenses and the adapter. I can see why the 55-200mm is the longest lens for the M system. Anything longer is very unbalanced, in my opinion.

Any FF with an "M" mount will be OK for only if the grip and body are somewhat - perhaps considerably - bigger than the M5.

 

[Ozarker]

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.

Nobody does it better than Neuro. Nobody.

 

[sanj]

No. I will not.

 

[padam]

EF lenses had enough time to prove themselves to last for a very long time. Also, some people loathe the electronic fly-by-wire focus that STM lenses use, and from what I've seen most of the EF lenses with the USM motor work just as well with DPAF as well as aftermarket ones.
The camcorders are likely to continue using the EF-mount.
But it is nice to have the flexibility between a big ecosystem and a considerably smaller size with a 35mm f2 or similar.

 

[stevelee]

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.

Nobody does it better than Neuro. Nobody.

+1

 

[takesome1]

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.

Nobody does it better than Neuro. Nobody.

+1

Sure, Neuro is great at transmitting 7 letter words. With over 22,000 posts this is a well established fact.

 

[takesome1]

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

'Room for improvement' is irrelevant unless there is a need for that improvement and a meaningful benefit to be derived from it.

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.

But, do you have the inside knowledge of Canon's R&D department to say they are not working on an improvement that would be a meaningful benefit?

 

[Loswr]

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

'Room for improvement' is irrelevant unless there is a need for that improvement and a meaningful benefit to be derived from it.

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.

But, do you have the inside knowledge of Canon's R&D department to say they are not working on an improvement that would be a meaningful benefit?

No more than you. But I do know they're working on a faster mount communication protocol, one that's backwards-compatible with older/slower lenses. The protocol seems applicable to the existing lens mount.

 

[takesome1]

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?

'Room for improvement' is irrelevant unless there is a need for that improvement and a meaningful benefit to be derived from it.

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.

But, do you have the inside knowledge of Canon's R&D department to say they are not working on an improvement that would be a meaningful benefit?

No more than you. But I do know they're working on a faster mount communication protocol, one that's backwards-compatible with older/slower lenses. The protocol seems applicable to the existing lens mount.

That would be a positive, one could take that as an indication the EF mount might last a few more years (decades) before replacement.