Reading mode: Light Dark

Why Canon should join MFT

Go to last post
R

Ron Tolmie

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
380
Reaction score
16
Location
Kanata, CA
If Canon joined the Micro Four Thirds coalition and it designed a 1.6x focal reducer (speed booster) for EF-S lenses and a 2x reducer for EF lenses that would immediately revolutionize the lens choices for MFT users and it would create a big new market for Canon as well, particularly for their lenses. Just imaging being able to use the ultra-sharp 300mm f/2.8 EF lens as an f/1.4 lens, for example!
 
A third adapter (one with no lenses) would also be useful. It would enable AF, image stabilization and aperture adjustment to be retained while achieving the regular 2x MFT "magnification".
 
Ron Tolmie said:
If Canon joined the Micro Four Thirds coalition and it designed a 1.6x focal reducer (speed booster) for EF-S lenses and a 2x reducer for EF lenses that would immediately revolutionize the lens choices for MFT users and it would create a big new market for Canon as well, particularly for their lenses. Just imaging being able to use the ultra-sharp 300mm f/2.8 EF lens as an f/1.4 lens, for example!
Click to expand...
 
A lot of m4/3 users moved there to gain the reduced weight of bodies and lenses (I know I did), so adding heavy legacy lenses wouldn't make much sense for me. Of course YMMV
 
eques said:
Ron Tolmie said:
If Canon joined the Micro Four Thirds coalition and it designed a 1.6x focal reducer (speed booster) for EF-S lenses and a 2x reducer for EF lenses that would immediately revolutionize the lens choices for MFT users and it would create a big new market for Canon as well, particularly for their lenses. Just imaging being able to use the ultra-sharp 300mm f/2.8 EF lens as an f/1.4 lens, for example!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ron Tolmie said:
If Canon joined the Micro Four Thirds coalition and it designed a 1.6x focal reducer (speed booster) for EF-S lenses and a 2x reducer for EF lenses that would immediately revolutionize the lens choices for MFT users and it would create a big new market for Canon as well, particularly for their lenses. Just imaging being able to use the ultra-sharp 300mm f/2.8 EF lens as an f/1.4 lens, for example!
Click to expand...
 
Any more manufacturers producing MFT cameras and lenses can only be a good thing.

More competition should lead to more innovation and more choice.
 
At 300mm, f/1.4 would be next to useless for wildlife photography. Doubt what I'm saying? Go do a careful search of good wildlife galleries and see how many shots are done at even f/2.8 -- precious few.

DOF is razor thin at f/2.8 at 300mm -- most 300mm wildlife shots are done in the f/4-f/8 range, and Olympus is soon to have a very light, small, and sharp 300mm f/4 available.

The Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 sells at B&H for $6,600 -- the upcoming Oly 300mm Pro will probably sell for close to 1/4 of that. You'd have a hard time convincing m4/3 shooters to pick the Canon over the Oly lens, and Canon shooters who own that lens probably aren't going to ditch their Canon 5D's or whatever to stick a small m4/3 body on the end of the Canon lens.

You would do well to repost this topic over on the Canon Forums and see what kind of response you get. :-)
 
According to Brain Cadwell, it just isn't possible to build a decent .5 focal reducer for micro four thirds. There isn't enough space between the original mount's flange and micro four third's flange for the glass.
 
Ron Tolmie said:
If Canon joined the Micro Four Thirds coalition and it designed a 1.6x focal reducer (speed booster) for EF-S lenses and a 2x reducer for EF lenses that would immediately revolutionize the lens choices for MFT users and it would create a big new market for Canon as well, particularly for their lenses. Just imaging being able to use the ultra-sharp 300mm f/2.8 EF lens as an f/1.4 lens, for example!
Click to expand...
Sorry, but to me this sounds kind of like "why you should give me lots of money". I can think of lots of reasons why that would benefit me, but none that would be likely to persuade you.
 
That's only possible if Canon takes over Olympus' camera business, but that would surely ruin what Olympus stands for and that is also bad for all photographers if Canon would then become too dominant.

Rather than Canon or Nikon, it would seem much better if the smaller struggling camera makers join MFT. Kodak is already making MFT camera, but there are also others, e.g. Ricoh Pentax, Sigma, and any other makers with some electronics know-how wishing to get into the more profitable system camera business as compact camera business collapses, e.g. Casio, Phillips, Polaroid, or Toshiba. That should be relatively easy as there is already a nice range with all the MFT lenses. So they just need some good selling point for their cameras, like special sensor (Foveon? or ultra low light or low ISO), or immersible body, and very high fps, ...,
 
Last edited:
Could you expand on your proposal/question? Besides lenses, do you think Canon should also produce bodies and dedicated lenses? There are already adapters available for existing lenses; who wants to carry those monsters on m4/3 bodies anyway? How do you think Canon shareholders would look at this? It's their money that would have to pay for a further investment in the ever-compressing photography marketplace.
 
Ron Tolmie said:
If Canon joined the Micro Four Thirds coalition and it designed a 1.6x focal reducer (speed booster) for EF-S lenses and a 2x reducer for EF lenses that would immediately revolutionize the lens choices for MFT users and it would create a big new market for Canon as well, particularly for their lenses. Just imaging being able to use the ultra-sharp 300mm f/2.8 EF lens as an f/1.4 lens, for example!
Click to expand...
 
I agree. I have the Canon EOS-M to use AF with my canon EF lenses on a tiny camera. Even with shorter lenses, the combination is bulky in comparison to M43 equivalents because the adapter adds about an inch to their length. Plus Canon EF and EF-S lenses themselves are much bigger than M43 equivalents. The EOS-M native lenses are smaller, but not quite in the ballpark of M43 lenses .

IMO Canon are likely to release a replacement for the EOS-M soon that will work with EF and possibly EF-M lenses. I doubt that they'll fiddle around with supporting M43.

I love having a tiny M43 kit, it such a well thought out system that can easily travel with a Canon DSLR. I've been able to trim don my heavier canon kit bu ditching some lenses in favour of M43 lenses that a much lighter.
 
The combination of focal reducer, focal extender and digital extension (with adequate mpx) enables a fixed focal length lens to operate over a 16:1 focal range, so that with only two lenses you could cover a total range of 512x, in steps of 2x (or continuously variable if a 2x zoom lens is employed). You should not have to give up aperture control or autofocus but setting up image stabilization with a zoom lens might be a problem with either IBIS or in-lens stabilization. For example, the 35mm equivalent range could go from 10mm to 2560mm with just two lenses, making such combinations attractive for both costs and carrying convenience.

You cannot use a focal reducer with a lens designed for m4/3 because such lenses cannot handle the wider angle of view. However the flange spacing for the Canon lenses should not be a problem at 0.5x because you could incorporate a low dispersion negative lens to shift the focal point.

The combination would greatly increase the number of lenses available for use with m4/3 cameras and would open up some useful new possibilities. At the long end you could use a 600mm f/4 lens for 600mm(eq) at f/2 for sports or wildlife. At the short end you could use a 10-22mm lens to cover 10mm(eq) to 352mm(eq) with two extra aperture stops. In between you could use a 70-200mm f/4 lens as an f/2 lens that would be lightweight and affordable.

Such Canon lenses would not displace lenses specifically designed for mi4/3 but I for one would welcome this option, as should anyone moving from a Canon DSLR to an m4/3 camera. The available Panasonic and Olympic cameras are very good so it doesn't much matter if the Canon cameras are any better - the wider choice of lenses and their expanded functionality would be the big feature.

The intent of the m4/3 system was to solve the problem of incompatible lens mounts so it would be inappropriate for the existing manufacturers to block such a move.

--
Ron Tolmie
 
Last edited:
Sergey Borachev said:
That's only possible if Canon takes over Olympus' camera business, but that would surely ruin what Olympus stands for and that is also bad for all photographers if Canon would then become too dominant.

Rather than Canon or Nikon, it would seem much better if the smaller struggling camera makers join MFT. Kodak is already making MFT camera, but there are also others, e.g. Ricoh Pentax, Sigma, and any other makers with some electronics know-how wishing to get into the more profitable system camera business as compact camera business collapses, e.g. Casio, Phillips, Polaroid, or Toshiba. That should be relatively easy as there is already a nice range with all the MFT lenses. So they just need some good selling point for their cameras, like special sensor (Foveon? or ultra low light or low ISO), or immersible body, and very high fps, ...,
Click to expand...
Great idea. Joining m43 would make so much good for their business. Can you imagine a revisited Pentax LX for m43?

Even better, can you imagine all the amazing Pentax DA pancake lenses on m43? Now, that would be a dream come true.
 
Ron Tolmie said:
The combination of focal reducer, focal extender and digital extension (with adequate mpx) enables a fixed focal length lens to operate over a 16:1 focal range, so that with only two lenses you could cover a total range of 512x, in steps of 2x (or continuously variable if a 2x zoom lens is employed). You should not have to give up aperture control or autofocus but setting up image stabilization with a zoom lens might be a problem with either IBIS or in-lens stabilization. For example, the 35mm equivalent range could go from 10mm to 2560mm with just two lenses, making such combinations attractive for both costs and carrying convenience.

You cannot use a focal reducer with a lens designed for m4/3 because such lenses cannot handle the wider angle of view. However the flange spacing for the Canon lenses should not be a problem at 0.5x because you could incorporate a low dispersion negative lens to shift the focal point.

The combination would greatly increase the number of lenses available for use with m4/3 cameras and would open up some useful new possibilities.
Click to expand...
Why would Canon want to do this, provide a lot of lenses to those Canon lens owners moving to M43? That would accelerate the switch to M43 and only hurt their own business. Even if they start to make M43 cameras and lenses, they won't be able to stop those people buying Olympus and Panasonic products. They would be legitimising M43 and see an exodus of their customers buying others' products.
Ron Tolmie said:
At the long end you could use a 600mm f/4 lens for 600mm(eq) at f/2 for sports or wildlife. At the short end you could use a 10-22mm lens to cover 10mm(eq) to 352mm(eq) with two extra aperture stops. In between you could use a 70-200mm f/4 lens as an f/2 lens that would be lightweight and affordable.

Such Canon lenses would not displace lenses specifically designed for mi4/3 but I for one would welcome this option, as should anyone moving from a Canon DSLR to an m4/3 camera. The available Panasonic and Olympic cameras are very good so it doesn't much matter if the Canon cameras are any better - the wider choice of lenses and their expanded functionality would be the big feature.

The intent of the m4/3 system was to solve the problem of incompatible lens mounts so it would be inappropriate for the existing manufacturers to block such a move.
Click to expand...
I am not sure the M43 system was created to solve the problem of incompatible lens mounts. The existing manufacturers would want to sell more of their own products and make more profit, which can be helped by letting Canon and all their customers in M43, many of them will surely buy the more mature and therefore better non-Canon M43 products. Canon will never want to have anything to do with M43. Canon wants to continue to keep and increase their customers. When more people wants to change to MILC, Canon will just make their own better performing MILCs and try to beat M43 in terms of image quality and features with cameras and lenses using a brand new mount. My guess is that Canon may use a sensor slightly larger than M43 but smaller than APS-C, like what's in the G1X. Being the largest manufacturer, it would make sense for it to try to lock in its customers with another proprietary mount again when it has to go mirrorless seriously.

I think many posters are just thinking of what they want themselves and not what the manufacturers want. :-)
Ron Tolmie said:
--
Ron Tolmie
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top