A m43 shooter handles a Canon EOS R

Great Bustard said:

gary0319 said:

Great Bustard said:

Ab Latchin said:

Great Bustard said:

Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?

Click to expand...

You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.

Click to expand...

Really? It's eminently sensible to me. I mean, given that all the EF lenses will work on the R just as well as they work on EF DSLRs is a *huge* plus.

Click to expand...

As I brought up in another thread.....where does this claim come from? Has this been confirmed and present in public forum by Canon? Then, has it been born out by independent field tests for Continuous AF, focusing speed, etc. I think not. But if there has been such definitive documentation, I'll be more than happy to eat my words. Until that time this is not anything more than wild speculation, IMO.

Click to expand...

*Every* review I've seen of the R has said that there is no decrease in performance with EF lenses. For example:

Click to expand...

kolyy said:

bobn2 said:

kolyy said:

bobn2 said:

kolyy said:

gary0319 said:

jwilliams said:

Ab Latchin said:

Great Bustard said:

Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?

Click to expand...

You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.

Click to expand...

GB is perfectly on point.

There are more EF lenses than ANY other type on the planet. The potential is huge. Canon perfected the DPAF tech so they would not abandon those with large glass investments. EF lenses on the R will work just as good as they do on a DSLR.

Click to expand...

Just curious, because this has been stated a couple of times. Could you point me to some testing that backs up this statement? I've been under the impression that any adapter is at best a compromise when it comes to Continuous AF performance, shooting speed, etc. If the Canon R adapter does prove out to be this good in real world field test this will certainly be a significant difference from the adapters I'm aware of so far (Sony).

Thanks in advance...

Click to expand...

You should not understand it as an adapter solution. The adapter in this case does nothing, it's a tube.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The R lens interface doesn't look to be exactly like the EF or the EF-M interface. Likely there is a chip in there doing some translation. It would be very strange if Canon had made a brand new mount subject to the same limitations as a forty-year-old one, groundbreaking as that was at the time.

Click to expand...

Of course, the interface is new, but I am pretty sure it's backwards compatible and the camera understands the old protocol as well. I don't have any insider information about that, of course, but it would be incredibly stupid no to do it in this way and require some translation chip instead of just using appropriate firmware.

Click to expand...

The electrical interface is quite different (it has 12 pins rather than 8), and there are very good reasons not to use the legacy EF mount interface. Though it was a groundbreaking interface, the later ones have developed some advantages and if you were designing a new mount for another 40 years, I can see very good reasons for not sticking to the EF mount, especially as the new lenses will not ever have to mount on old EF mount cameras. The cost and complexity of a chip in the adapter is trivial, especially if you know inside out the protocols on either side and have designed the new one to easily accommodate the needs of the old. Further, putting a chip in the adapter makes it harder for third parties to copy. If I was a Canon engineer, designing the new lens mount, I would definitely take the opportunity to correct the known shortcomings of EF and take advantage of some of the subsequent developments, but maybe I'm incredibly stupid.

Click to expand...

You are arguing that an USB 2.0 to USB-C cable needs a translation chip because it's a different interface.

Click to expand...

kolyy said:

Those are just pins, they do whatever you want them to do.

Click to expand...

kolyy said:

I am pretty sure backwards compatibility was the most basic thing they implemented. The camera detects an EF lens -> it uses the EF protocol. It detects an RF lens -> it uses the RF protocol.

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

Great Bustard said:

gary0319 said:

Great Bustard said:

Ab Latchin said:

Great Bustard said:

Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?

Click to expand...

You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.

Click to expand...

Really? It's eminently sensible to me. I mean, given that all the EF lenses will work on the R just as well as they work on EF DSLRs is a *huge* plus.

Click to expand...

As I brought up in another thread.....where does this claim come from? Has this been confirmed and present in public forum by Canon? Then, has it been born out by independent field tests for Continuous AF, focusing speed, etc. I think not. But if there has been such definitive documentation, I'll be more than happy to eat my words. Until that time this is not anything more than wild speculation, IMO.

Click to expand...

*Every* review I've seen of the R has said that there is no decrease in performance with EF lenses. For example:

Click to expand...

I hadn't seen this one. However, I think it hardly constitutes a sufficient comparative test of the AF with adapter in a not-contrived demo set up by the manufacturer. Still, it's a start but I stand by my assertion that such statements like "all the EF lenses will work on the R just as well as they work on EF DSLRs is a *huge* plus." might be excused if seen in some pro Canon marketing blurb. I would expect a little more from someone that prides himself on technical exactitude. No Offense meant, Great B.

Click to expand...

kolyy said:

gary0319 said:

kolyy said:

gary0319 said:

jwilliams said:

gary0319 said:

jwilliams said:

Just look for recent reviews of any recent Canon camera (DSLR. M or R). I have seen it stated many times, but can't remember an exact review. I do remember a youtube video with that Kai fellow using a recent model DSLR in live view with a 70-300 zoom tracking go carts successfully. It was very impressive.

I own a Canon SL2 (DSLR) and in live view it focuses every bit as good or better than any of my m43 cameras. I'm talking about m43 with regular CDAF. I don't own an EM1 so maybe a closer comparison there.

Also if you do some digging you will find that it is hands down the best video AF out there. Look at Steve Huffs site. He bought a Canon DSLR for doing his Vlogging and he is a mirrorless guy thru and thru.

Click to expand...

I am not disputing Canon's excellent focusing system in their DSLR. What I'm not seeing is any real world experience comparing EF lenses on say a 5D/4 vs the R with adapter, for sports/wildlife. The reason I question the comment about there being no difference, is that some friends of mine recently moved to the Sony A7III and that their non-native lenses (Canon and Sony A mount) failed to perform up top snuff using the Sony adapters. Once they opted for the native mirrorless Sony lenses, the performance of the cameras improved significantly. I'm just suspicious that these claims of "no difference" with the adapter are unfounded, particularly since the new mirrorless lenses incorporate new linear motors instead of the old USM ring motors...…..why would that be (maybe, other than the obvious size advantage).

Maybe I'm just a skeptical type of guy.....

Click to expand...

With my Canon SL2 I can detect no difference between LV or PDAF thru the VF. Now it certainly has a crude PDAF system, but I would say the R with adapted lenses is probably as fast at AF as any common DSLR. I am sure high end cameras like the 1Dx that have very specific electronics to speed up focus would be better. Just a guess but the 5D4 probably falls somewhere between the R and the 1Dx.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are right. But with no real world evidence to support such claims it is just speculation at this point.....

And I'll take your word for the non-differential between the PDAF or LV focusing. but we're not talking about a $600 APS-C Rebel that shoots at a max 5 or 6 frames per second here . The SL2 is most likely a great small inexpensive camera, but hardly a reasonable performance benchmark for a $2,000+, full frame, keynote model.

Click to expand...

I think the correct claim is that the EOS R will may focus the lenses as well (or better) than any other Canon DSLR in LV, which is a known quantity. It might be true that the DPAF system has some evolution to do until it is good enough for sports cameras, but I don't think there is any doubt that the basic AF functionality of the EF lenses will be good and very similar to native lenses.

Click to expand...

Better......

Click to expand...

Why? Do you think they intentionally crippled their newest camera to perform worse? No, the EOS R will most certainly focus the EF lenses as well or better than their DSLRs in LV.

Click to expand...

Great Bustard said:

gary0319 said:

Great Bustard said:

gary0319 said:

Great Bustard said:

Ab Latchin said:

Great Bustard said:

Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?

Click to expand...

You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.

Click to expand...

Really? It's eminently sensible to me. I mean, given that all the EF lenses will work on the R just as well as they work on EF DSLRs is a *huge* plus.

Click to expand...

As I brought up in another thread.....where does this claim come from? Has this been confirmed and present in public forum by Canon? Then, has it been born out by independent field tests for Continuous AF, focusing speed, etc. I think not. But if there has been such definitive documentation, I'll be more than happy to eat my words. Until that time this is not anything more than wild speculation, IMO.

Click to expand...

*Every* review I've seen of the R has said that there is no decrease in performance with EF lenses. For example:

Click to expand...

I hadn't seen this one. However, I think it hardly constitutes a sufficient comparative test of the AF with adapter in a not-contrived demo set up by the manufacturer. Still, it's a start but I stand by my assertion that such statements like "all the EF lenses will work on the R just as well as they work on EF DSLRs is a *huge* plus." might be excused if seen in some pro Canon marketing blurb. I would expect a little more from someone that prides himself on technical exactitude. No Offense meant, Great B.

Click to expand...

Let me amend my wording: all initial accounts I've read and seen indicate that EF lenses will work on the R at least as well as they work on EF DSLRs. By the way, you may find this an interesting read.

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

Great Bustard said:

gary0319 said:

Great Bustard said:

Ab Latchin said:

Great Bustard said:

Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?

Click to expand...

You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.

Click to expand...

Really? It's eminently sensible to me. I mean, given that all the EF lenses will work on the R just as well as they work on EF DSLRs is a *huge* plus.

Click to expand...

As I brought up in another thread.....where does this claim come from? Has this been confirmed and present in public forum by Canon? Then, has it been born out by independent field tests for Continuous AF, focusing speed, etc. I think not. But if there has been such definitive documentation, I'll be more than happy to eat my words. Until that time this is not anything more than wild speculation, IMO.

Click to expand...

*Every* review I've seen of the R has said that there is no decrease in performance with EF lenses. For example:

Click to expand...

I hadn't seen this one. However, I think it hardly constitutes a sufficient comparative test of the AF with adapter in a not-contrived demo set up by the manufacturer. Still, it's a start but I stand by my assertion that such statements like "all the EF lenses will work on the R just as well as they work on EF DSLRs is a *huge* plus." might be excused if seen in some pro Canon marketing blurb. I would expect a little more from someone that prides himself on technical exactitude. No Offense meant, Great B.

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

kolyy said:

bobn2 said:

kolyy said:

bobn2 said:

kolyy said:

gary0319 said:

jwilliams said:

Ab Latchin said:

Great Bustard said:

Is there a problem with using EF lenses and the adapter, given that they will work as well with the adapter on the R as they do on DSLRs?

Click to expand...

You are claiming people might get this camera for the potential Canon is demonstrating... But will ride themselves over with older tech. It isn't the most sensible point.

Click to expand...

GB is perfectly on point.

There are more EF lenses than ANY other type on the planet. The potential is huge. Canon perfected the DPAF tech so they would not abandon those with large glass investments. EF lenses on the R will work just as good as they do on a DSLR.

Click to expand...

Just curious, because this has been stated a couple of times. Could you point me to some testing that backs up this statement? I've been under the impression that any adapter is at best a compromise when it comes to Continuous AF performance, shooting speed, etc. If the Canon R adapter does prove out to be this good in real world field test this will certainly be a significant difference from the adapters I'm aware of so far (Sony).

Thanks in advance...

Click to expand...

You should not understand it as an adapter solution. The adapter in this case does nothing, it's a tube.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The R lens interface doesn't look to be exactly like the EF or the EF-M interface. Likely there is a chip in there doing some translation. It would be very strange if Canon had made a brand new mount subject to the same limitations as a forty-year-old one, groundbreaking as that was at the time.

Click to expand...

Of course, the interface is new, but I am pretty sure it's backwards compatible and the camera understands the old protocol as well. I don't have any insider information about that, of course, but it would be incredibly stupid no to do it in this way and require some translation chip instead of just using appropriate firmware.

Click to expand...

The electrical interface is quite different (it has 12 pins rather than 8), and there are very good reasons not to use the legacy EF mount interface. Though it was a groundbreaking interface, the later ones have developed some advantages and if you were designing a new mount for another 40 years, I can see very good reasons for not sticking to the EF mount, especially as the new lenses will not ever have to mount on old EF mount cameras. The cost and complexity of a chip in the adapter is trivial, especially if you know inside out the protocols on either side and have designed the new one to easily accommodate the needs of the old. Further, putting a chip in the adapter makes it harder for third parties to copy. If I was a Canon engineer, designing the new lens mount, I would definitely take the opportunity to correct the known shortcomings of EF and take advantage of some of the subsequent developments, but maybe I'm incredibly stupid.

Click to expand...

You are arguing that an USB 2.0 to USB-C cable needs a translation chip because it's a different interface.

Click to expand...

A USB 2.0 to USB-C cable actually does have a chip. It's called an Electronically Marked Cable Assembly (EMCA).

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

Those are just pins, they do whatever you want them to do.

Click to expand...

They don't do anything at all if no electronics is connected behind them.

bobn2 said:

I am pretty sure backwards compatibility was the most basic thing they implemented. The camera detects an EF lens -> it uses the EF protocol. It detects an RF lens -> it uses the RF protocol.

Click to expand...

There is a question of what happens to the extra 4 pins and what they do, whether the RF protocol still operates at 5V like the EF protocol, etc. Putting a suitable chip in the adapter is very easy, common and sounds like a very sensible way to do it. Why would it not be? Have you any sensible design reason, except to say you don't think it does? What about the adapter with the control ring?

Click to expand...