Canon full frame mirrorless very soon?

Started Jan 21, 2018 | Discussions thread
davev8 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,308
Re: Canon full frame mirrorless very soon?

rrccad wrote:

caterpillar wrote:

rrccad wrote:

caterpillar wrote:

rrccad wrote:

caterpillar wrote:

1Dx4me wrote:

nail33 wrote:

Mark B. wrote:

Jonathan Spool wrote:

Just hope that they don’t pull an Olympus and go with a new lens format when they do go mirrorless!

They already did. The EOS M bodies use EF-M. Existing EF and EF-S cannot be used w/o an adapter.

Don't forget what they did to all of us who had FD lenses. But, for better or worse, technology marches on.

don't forget that the number of EF and EF-s in circulation is enormous, which translate into enormous amount of money, and any intention of abandonment of EF/EF-S lenses and owners by canon will have severe consequence!!! if that happens, i for one will never touch another canon camera for as long as i live, mirror-less or not

Even applying that reasoning, they did abandon the FD mount!

Remember too that Olympus had a sizeable OM mount lenses. And Sony already had an A-mount from their acquisition of Minolta. Why change mounts? The simple answer is - they must because MILC and the new electronics require it so.

But it's not as if they will abandon it in one go like before. Sony, Olympus did provide adapters for the migration. It will take decades, but it need not be a total switch. That is not feasible and not smart. It's not as if EF and EF-s is being abandoned outright.

There is also something that many don't know because many here are photographers only. Video is getting to be mainstream and the videographers are growing. Many of Canon's lenses are not ready for video. Even their ring USM is going to be noisy and will struggle in AF because the motors were made for PDAF, not CDAF or a combination of both. The new Nano-USM is the way to go, but that is seen only in a few lenses so far.

Then there is also the need for many of the lenses to resolve better and be designed better. Many of these lenses were good in the film EOS days, or even the early 8-12mp days of resolution. As we go up, the weaknesses of these lenses will show.

IN the end, if one is to re-design or re-issue them, that would be best serve in the MILC future. In the interim, there is no shame or harm in adapting existing lenses. After all, it will take decades to rebuild the entire 70+ lens lineup Canon is so proud to show off.

there is nothing you said here that makes it so canon needs a new MILC mount.

the EF-M mount is basically the same as the EF mount, just a different size.

by changing the mount, not only is canon throwing away 130 million good reasons to stay with the EF mount, they are also throwing away their entire patent portfolio for lens design.

that's a huge change that they didn't even have to do when moving from FD mount.

Read my response to this from another person.

Also, the answer to your question specifically is - it's the same reason why they abandoned the FD mount.

no it isn't.

and canon burning it's entire patent porfolio of EF lens designs would be retarded. Especially considering they have nothing in the way of short registration distance full frame patents.

And there's no reason for it, your claims about resolving power of EF lenses versus G series (lol) .. yeah .. okay .. good one on that one I had to laugh.

New USM and STM moter designs take care of any EF lens issues with mirrorless, even though that's not an issue with DPAF senors anyways. DPAF sensors do not do a CDAF step.

Not to mention they use the EF mount on their CINI cameras, so obviously there isn't long term problems here with CINI use and EF mount.

The rest of your problems can be handled by normal EF lens upgrades. L series is usually upgraded every 10 years.

also, ultra fast fps requires locking of the aperture which is of limited use in the real world not to mention, most people you'd talk to will slow down a camera. Heck alot slow down a 1DX Mark II at 14 fps.

RRcad, you are a very smart person. I have answered many things already in the past, and I won't dig into it again. And it is futile to defend it as we don't really see the same things and appreciate them. I've asked myself the same things, but the proof is in the history of what these companies have done. They did exactly the opposite of what you are all saying.

actually they didn't.

Canon moving from FD to EF didn't burn their entire patent portfolio. that really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

most FD designs flipped right over to EF initially and even super estoric lenses such as the 200/1.8 was made in both mounts.

moving to a mirrorless mount would burn away their entire portfolio. that would be insanely expensive to migrate over.

they have no real short registration distance lens patents. how are they going to develop a new mount and lens system? out of thin air?

for no real good reason, every imagined reason that you have isn't a good reason.

DPAF sensors are full phase detect, they do no CDAF stepping, which means that existing USM and motor designs work and work well.

the only perception is for a small rabid core of the market that thinks that smaller cameras would be the result of a change from the EF mount, when in fact, ergonomics dictate the size and weight of the camera body more than the mount.

or the pitifully small group that thinks that canon really cares if you can mount film lenses on a canon camera body as being important to Canon Inc.

Also a little fact check from your alternative reality - canon was not in a position of #1 in both professional and consumer markets when they switched from FD. they actually moved down to third because minolta slammed all the way up to #1. They needed to do something drastic to improve AF capability and fast. and EF was the way to do it. FD was on the way out before EF came out with a few failed experiments at providing AF on FD lenses.

Right now, canon is the overall dominant camera manufacturer, in both professional and consumer markets, and has nearly 50% of the entire market. the EF mount dominance grows over every single other mount each and every month. it is the most successful mount in the history of cameras. period. not even the fabled F mount has had such success in either cameras or lenses as the EF mount has had in it's 30 years.

and speaking of 30+ years, the FD mount was only 16 years old when canon replaced it. the EF mount is twice as entrenched in its timeline.

Sorry there's alot of difference between the two scenarios and just because they did it once doesn't mean they are in the same position to do it again. Every other camera company example is moot because there was no other company that is in the same position as Canon is with the EF mount. They have a full electronic mount interface that is 30 years mature, with the largest mount marketshare of any camera system, and the largest lens portfolio of any camera manufacturer. None of your other examples had that.

If you can't see the differences of where they were.. well, I really don't know what you're smoking.


-- hide signature --

My 5D IS a MK1 classic
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
Political correctness....somebody being offended on someone else's behalf....who that someone doesn't give a damn in the first place ....David Appleton
quoting irrefutable facts may get you branded a racist ..even if no race is involved .......David Appleton

 davev8's gear list:davev8's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 5D Nikon D70s Sony Alpha NEX-C3 Canon EOS M5 +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow