What fills the gap?

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The gap is no gap. There are the 77D, 80D, and 7DmkII. And in the next future we will see updated versions with the EF-s mount. I think in this price range the majority of customers are o.k. with dslr's . If they want mirrorless they buy a M50 and be perfectly happy with that, or a future M model with both the strengths of the M5 and M50.

I agree with this (for the most).

And the poll misses a lot of possibilities and/or an option for "other".

If you believe I missed a significant alternative possibility, I specifically asked that you "suggest it below"

And I did. But there is no way to vote for those alternatives. Not even a "other" option. Or are you going to include peoples suggestions in a new poll?

People who disagree with the "gap" and people who see other possibilities can not vote in this poll. So it is skewed or "manipulated" and constructed to go in the favor of OP's opinion.

If you truly believe that my poll is so tragically flawed or "manipulated", please feel free to start your own.

Why would I ? I don't think there is a gap.

That is not what you have been arguing in all of your comments. You are suggesting that Canon will create an M system camera with a movable sensor to accommodate 7D users who want to utilize full frame RF glass.

No. Please read it again. I just suggested some possible alternatives for your poll. This was one of them. Wasn't that what you asked for? (quote from OP): "If you think there is another possible scenario, please suggest it below."
Nothing that I personally want or need, but it is just "a possible scenario". Likely? Maybe not. But who knows?

Other options could be:

- Continue with the biggest cameras as DSRL's

Likely, but only for one or two more iterations.

As long as they sell and make money for Canon.

Which will only be for one or two more iterations. Mirrorless cameras have already eclipsed DSLRs in many performance metrics and there is no way for DSLRs to keep up. In 5 years, DSLRs will only be suitable for low end uses.

I think the opposite. In five years all lower end DSLR's are gone. M has taken over that market.

- Make a mirrorless 7D with EF mount.

Unlikely as it confuses the already messy M vs. RF vs. EF lineup.

Not more than some other alternatives.

- Make a mirrorless 7D with RF mount, but no RFs lenses. (Can still use RF, EF and EFs lenses)

Possibly

Yes.

- Make new M cameras with a movable sensor, so they can use a thin RF to EF-M adapter. (Moving the sensor a little bit forward when the adapter is connected.)

Not even physically possible. Look at the image below.

Yes. It is. But I just mentioned it as a possible option for your poll.

Standard EF-M camera mount

The depth from .1 to .2 is 4.5mm The depth from .2 to .3 is 5mm. The image sensor is much larger than what you can see in this image and can not be simply pushed through the current rectangular opening. Most of the current rectangular shroud would need to be removed which would negatively impact internal reflections. Even if the shroud was removed, you can not advance beyond the ring labeled .1. You also can not eliminate parts of the ring.

You have much less than 9.5mm available for moving the sensor forward. The thinnest available EF extension tube with electrical contacts is 10mm. That is for a tube with EF mounts on both ends and the electrical contacts are all perfectly aligned and straight through. Creating a tube with different mounts and contacts that are not aligned would be incredibly difficult in only 10mm. Even if you could create a 10mm thick adapter, you would need to advance the sensor forward by 8mm. That is not physically possible without ripping out all of the internal shrouds in the camera. Also, advancing the sensor by 8mm while still maintaining perfect alignment requires a very robust mechanism.

Is all of this theoretically possible? Barely. Will it ever show up in a compact and lightweight $500 camera? Never. The amount of engineering required is astronomical compared to the potential sales advantage. Especially when the amount of engineering required to build an RF mount M50 is no greater than an EF-M mount M50.

Are you a camera engineer?

I personally converted two different Metabones SpeedBoosters to EF-M mount with full electrical communication. I have disassembled and modified EF-M lenses. I have disassembled and repaired several digital cameras. I am also a mechanical engineer.

Congrats.

The adapter can be thinner than 10mm.

No, it can't. Even 10mm would be very challenging. If you have seen the inside of existing adapters and lenses you would understand why.

Weird. If I remember correctly, I think I read somewhere that you suggested that if only Canon had made the RF flange 25mm, than they could have made an adapter. Maybe you have changed your mind before this discussion? Anyway. It's not up to us to figure out the details. 7mm, 8mm, 10mm, 12mm what ever. But possible it is. One way or another.

But I think I would leave the construction and cost calculations to Canon's engineers and employees. I know they can do it if they want.

How do you know? Have you spoken directly with Canon engineers

Have you?

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The gap is no gap. There are the 77D, 80D, and 7DmkII. And in the next future we will see updated versions with the EF-s mount. I think in this price range the majority of customers are o.k. with dslr's . If they want mirrorless they buy a M50 and be perfectly happy with that, or a future M model with both the strengths of the M5 and M50.

I agree with this (for the most).

And the poll misses a lot of possibilities and/or an option for "other".

If you believe I missed a significant alternative possibility, I specifically asked that you "suggest it below"

And I did. But there is no way to vote for those alternatives. Not even a "other" option. Or are you going to include peoples suggestions in a new poll?

People who disagree with the "gap" and people who see other possibilities can not vote in this poll. So it is skewed or "manipulated" and constructed to go in the favor of OP's opinion.

If you truly believe that my poll is so tragically flawed or "manipulated", please feel free to start your own.

Why would I ? I don't think there is a gap.

That is not what you have been arguing in all of your comments. You are suggesting that Canon will create an M system camera with a movable sensor to accommodate 7D users who want to utilize full frame RF glass.

No. Please read it again. I just suggested some possible alternatives for your poll. This was one of them. Wasn't that what you asked for? (quote from OP): "If you think there is another possible scenario, please suggest it below."
Nothing that I personally want or need, but it is just "a possible scenario". Likely? Maybe not. But who knows?

Other options could be:

- Continue with the biggest cameras as DSRL's

Likely, but only for one or two more iterations.

As long as they sell and make money for Canon.

Which will only be for one or two more iterations. Mirrorless cameras have already eclipsed DSLRs in many performance metrics and there is no way for DSLRs to keep up. In 5 years, DSLRs will only be suitable for low end uses.

I think the opposite. In five years all lower end DSLR's are gone. M has taken over that market.

And RF will have completely supplanted the high end DSLRs.

- Make a mirrorless 7D with EF mount.

Unlikely as it confuses the already messy M vs. RF vs. EF lineup.

Not more than some other alternatives.

- Make a mirrorless 7D with RF mount, but no RFs lenses. (Can still use RF, EF and EFs lenses)

Possibly

Yes.

- Make new M cameras with a movable sensor, so they can use a thin RF to EF-M adapter. (Moving the sensor a little bit forward when the adapter is connected.)

Not even physically possible. Look at the image below.

Yes. It is. But I just mentioned it as a possible option for your poll.

Standard EF-M camera mount

The depth from .1 to .2 is 4.5mm The depth from .2 to .3 is 5mm. The image sensor is much larger than what you can see in this image and can not be simply pushed through the current rectangular opening. Most of the current rectangular shroud would need to be removed which would negatively impact internal reflections. Even if the shroud was removed, you can not advance beyond the ring labeled .1. You also can not eliminate parts of the ring.

You have much less than 9.5mm available for moving the sensor forward. The thinnest available EF extension tube with electrical contacts is 10mm. That is for a tube with EF mounts on both ends and the electrical contacts are all perfectly aligned and straight through. Creating a tube with different mounts and contacts that are not aligned would be incredibly difficult in only 10mm. Even if you could create a 10mm thick adapter, you would need to advance the sensor forward by 8mm. That is not physically possible without ripping out all of the internal shrouds in the camera. Also, advancing the sensor by 8mm while still maintaining perfect alignment requires a very robust mechanism.

Is all of this theoretically possible? Barely. Will it ever show up in a compact and lightweight $500 camera? Never. The amount of engineering required is astronomical compared to the potential sales advantage. Especially when the amount of engineering required to build an RF mount M50 is no greater than an EF-M mount M50.

Are you a camera engineer?

I personally converted two different Metabones SpeedBoosters to EF-M mount with full electrical communication. I have disassembled and modified EF-M lenses. I have disassembled and repaired several digital cameras. I am also a mechanical engineer.

Congrats.

The adapter can be thinner than 10mm.

No, it can't. Even 10mm would be very challenging. If you have seen the inside of existing adapters and lenses you would understand why.

Weird. If I remember correctly, I think I read somewhere that you suggested that if only Canon had made the RF flange 25mm, than they could have made an adapter.

If I did, I was mistaken. A 7mm thick adapter is only possible without electrical contacts.

Convenient. 😉

Maybe you have changed your mind before this discussion? Anyway. It's not up to us to figure out the details. 7mm, 8mm, 10mm, 12mm what ever. But possible it is. One way or another.

You keep claiming it is possible without supplying the slightest bit of proof.

Most things are possible. One way or another. And you have not proven that it is impossible.

But I think I would leave the construction and cost calculations to Canon's engineers and employees. I know they can do it if they want.

How do you know? Have you spoken directly with Canon engineers

Have you?

I don't need to.

Neither do I.

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The gap is no gap. There are the 77D, 80D, and 7DmkII. And in the next future we will see updated versions with the EF-s mount. I think in this price range the majority of customers are o.k. with dslr's . If they want mirrorless they buy a M50 and be perfectly happy with that, or a future M model with both the strengths of the M5 and M50.

I agree with this (for the most).

And the poll misses a lot of possibilities and/or an option for "other".

If you believe I missed a significant alternative possibility, I specifically asked that you "suggest it below"

And I did. But there is no way to vote for those alternatives. Not even a "other" option. Or are you going to include peoples suggestions in a new poll?

People who disagree with the "gap" and people who see other possibilities can not vote in this poll. So it is skewed or "manipulated" and constructed to go in the favor of OP's opinion.

If you truly believe that my poll is so tragically flawed or "manipulated", please feel free to start your own.

Why would I ? I don't think there is a gap.

That is not what you have been arguing in all of your comments. You are suggesting that Canon will create an M system camera with a movable sensor to accommodate 7D users who want to utilize full frame RF glass.

No. Please read it again. I just suggested some possible alternatives for your poll. This was one of them. Wasn't that what you asked for? (quote from OP): "If you think there is another possible scenario, please suggest it below."
Nothing that I personally want or need, but it is just "a possible scenario". Likely? Maybe not. But who knows?

Other options could be:

- Continue with the biggest cameras as DSRL's

Likely, but only for one or two more iterations.

As long as they sell and make money for Canon.

Which will only be for one or two more iterations. Mirrorless cameras have already eclipsed DSLRs in many performance metrics and there is no way for DSLRs to keep up. In 5 years, DSLRs will only be suitable for low end uses.

I think the opposite. In five years all lower end DSLR's are gone. M has taken over that market.

And RF will have completely supplanted the high end DSLRs.

- Make a mirrorless 7D with EF mount.

Unlikely as it confuses the already messy M vs. RF vs. EF lineup.

Not more than some other alternatives.

- Make a mirrorless 7D with RF mount, but no RFs lenses. (Can still use RF, EF and EFs lenses)

Possibly

Yes.

- Make new M cameras with a movable sensor, so they can use a thin RF to EF-M adapter. (Moving the sensor a little bit forward when the adapter is connected.)

Not even physically possible. Look at the image below.

Yes. It is. But I just mentioned it as a possible option for your poll.

Standard EF-M camera mount

The depth from .1 to .2 is 4.5mm The depth from .2 to .3 is 5mm. The image sensor is much larger than what you can see in this image and can not be simply pushed through the current rectangular opening. Most of the current rectangular shroud would need to be removed which would negatively impact internal reflections. Even if the shroud was removed, you can not advance beyond the ring labeled .1. You also can not eliminate parts of the ring.

You have much less than 9.5mm available for moving the sensor forward. The thinnest available EF extension tube with electrical contacts is 10mm. That is for a tube with EF mounts on both ends and the electrical contacts are all perfectly aligned and straight through. Creating a tube with different mounts and contacts that are not aligned would be incredibly difficult in only 10mm. Even if you could create a 10mm thick adapter, you would need to advance the sensor forward by 8mm. That is not physically possible without ripping out all of the internal shrouds in the camera. Also, advancing the sensor by 8mm while still maintaining perfect alignment requires a very robust mechanism.

Is all of this theoretically possible? Barely. Will it ever show up in a compact and lightweight $500 camera? Never. The amount of engineering required is astronomical compared to the potential sales advantage. Especially when the amount of engineering required to build an RF mount M50 is no greater than an EF-M mount M50.

Are you a camera engineer?

I personally converted two different Metabones SpeedBoosters to EF-M mount with full electrical communication. I have disassembled and modified EF-M lenses. I have disassembled and repaired several digital cameras. I am also a mechanical engineer.

Congrats.

The adapter can be thinner than 10mm.

No, it can't. Even 10mm would be very challenging. If you have seen the inside of existing adapters and lenses you would understand why.

Weird. If I remember correctly, I think I read somewhere that you suggested that if only Canon had made the RF flange 25mm, than they could have made an adapter.

If I did, I was mistaken. A 7mm thick adapter is only possible without electrical contacts.

Convenient. 😉

Maybe you have changed your mind before this discussion? Anyway. It's not up to us to figure out the details. 7mm, 8mm, 10mm, 12mm what ever. But possible it is. One way or another.

You keep claiming it is possible without supplying the slightest bit of proof.

Most things are possible. One way or another. And you have not proven that it is impossible.

Go up and reread my measurements and tell my how you are going to move the sensor 10mm

I don't know where you have 10mm from. I have never suggested to move it 10mm. Anyway I would leave the details to Canon.

But I think I would leave the construction and cost calculations to Canon's engineers and employees. I know they can do it if they want.

How do you know? Have you spoken directly with Canon engineers

Have you?

I don't need to.

Neither do I.

MikeJ9116 wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

The gap is no gap. There are the 77D, 80D, and 7DmkII. And in the next future we will see updated versions with the EF-s mount. I think in this price range the majority of customers are o.k. with dslr's . If they want mirrorless they buy a M50 and be perfectly happy with that, or a future M model with both the strengths of the M5 and M50.

I agree with this (for the most).

And the poll misses a lot of possibilities and/or an option for "other".

If you believe I missed a significant alternative possibility, I specifically asked that you "suggest it below"

And I did. But there is no way to vote for those alternatives. Not even a "other" option. Or are you going to include peoples suggestions in a new poll?

People who disagree with the "gap" and people who see other possibilities can not vote in this poll. So it is skewed or "manipulated" and constructed to go in the favor of OP's opinion.

If you truly believe that my poll is so tragically flawed or "manipulated", please feel free to start your own.

Why would I ? I don't think there is a gap.

That is not what you have been arguing in all of your comments. You are suggesting that Canon will create an M system camera with a movable sensor to accommodate 7D users who want to utilize full frame RF glass.

No. Please read it again. I just suggested some possible alternatives for your poll. This was one of them. Wasn't that what you asked for? (quote from OP): "If you think there is another possible scenario, please suggest it below."
Nothing that I personally want or need, but it is just "a possible scenario". Likely? Maybe not. But who knows?

Other options could be:

- Continue with the biggest cameras as DSRL's

Likely, but only for one or two more iterations.

As long as they sell and make money for Canon.

Which will only be for one or two more iterations. Mirrorless cameras have already eclipsed DSLRs in many performance metrics and there is no way for DSLRs to keep up. In 5 years, DSLRs will only be suitable for low end uses.

I think the opposite. In five years all lower end DSLR's are gone. M has taken over that market.

And RF will have completely supplanted the high end DSLRs.

- Make a mirrorless 7D with EF mount.

Unlikely as it confuses the already messy M vs. RF vs. EF lineup.

Not more than some other alternatives.

- Make a mirrorless 7D with RF mount, but no RFs lenses. (Can still use RF, EF and EFs lenses)

Possibly

Yes.

- Make new M cameras with a movable sensor, so they can use a thin RF to EF-M adapter. (Moving the sensor a little bit forward when the adapter is connected.)

Not even physically possible. Look at the image below.

Yes. It is. But I just mentioned it as a possible option for your poll.

Standard EF-M camera mount

The depth from .1 to .2 is 4.5mm The depth from .2 to .3 is 5mm. The image sensor is much larger than what you can see in this image and can not be simply pushed through the current rectangular opening. Most of the current rectangular shroud would need to be removed which would negatively impact internal reflections. Even if the shroud was removed, you can not advance beyond the ring labeled .1. You also can not eliminate parts of the ring.

You have much less than 9.5mm available for moving the sensor forward. The thinnest available EF extension tube with electrical contacts is 10mm. That is for a tube with EF mounts on both ends and the electrical contacts are all perfectly aligned and straight through. Creating a tube with different mounts and contacts that are not aligned would be incredibly difficult in only 10mm. Even if you could create a 10mm thick adapter, you would need to advance the sensor forward by 8mm. That is not physically possible without ripping out all of the internal shrouds in the camera. Also, advancing the sensor by 8mm while still maintaining perfect alignment requires a very robust mechanism.

Is all of this theoretically possible? Barely. Will it ever show up in a compact and lightweight $500 camera? Never. The amount of engineering required is astronomical compared to the potential sales advantage. Especially when the amount of engineering required to build an RF mount M50 is no greater than an EF-M mount M50.

Are you a camera engineer?

I personally converted two different Metabones SpeedBoosters to EF-M mount with full electrical communication. I have disassembled and modified EF-M lenses. I have disassembled and repaired several digital cameras. I am also a mechanical engineer.

Congrats.

The adapter can be thinner than 10mm.

No, it can't. Even 10mm would be very challenging. If you have seen the inside of existing adapters and lenses you would understand why.

Weird. If I remember correctly, I think I read somewhere that you suggested that if only Canon had made the RF flange 25mm, than they could have made an adapter.

If I did, I was mistaken. A 7mm thick adapter is only possible without electrical contacts.

Convenient. 😉

Maybe you have changed your mind before this discussion? Anyway. It's not up to us to figure out the details. 7mm, 8mm, 10mm, 12mm what ever. But possible it is. One way or another.

You keep claiming it is possible without supplying the slightest bit of proof.

Most things are possible. One way or another. And you have not proven that it is impossible.

This is a patently incorrect statement. If it were, we would be living in a utopian existence. For on to prove something to another, each side must have the ability to understand the reasoning behind the proof.

No. Its true. Just some things takes longer time to develop, some things costs more money, some things costs more resources etc.etc. It's incredible how much is possible with todays (and even more tomorrows) technology. Take a look at the oil industry. They can drill down places were everyone thought was impossible some years ago. Take the car industry, with self driving cars etc. etc.

But I think I would leave the construction and cost calculations to Canon's engineers and employees. I know they can do it if they want.

How do you know? Have you spoken directly with Canon engineers

Have you?

I don't need to.

Neither do I.

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

You keep claiming it is possible without supplying the slightest bit of proof.

Most things are possible. One way or another. And you have not proven that it is impossible.

This is a patently incorrect statement. If it were, we would be living in a utopian existence. For on to prove something to another, each side must have the ability to understand the reasoning behind the proof.

No. Its true. Just some things takes longer time to develop, some things costs more money, some things costs more resources etc.etc. It's incredible how much is possible with todays (and even more tomorrows) technology. Take a look at the oil industry. They can drill down places were everyone thought was impossible some years ago. Take the car industry, with self driving cars etc. etc.

It does not matter how long you wait, you can't beat the laws of physics.

Of course not. I'm not suggesting that.

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

You keep claiming it is possible without supplying the slightest bit of proof.

Most things are possible. One way or another. And you have not proven that it is impossible.

This is a patently incorrect statement. If it were, we would be living in a utopian existence. For on to prove something to another, each side must have the ability to understand the reasoning behind the proof.

No. Its true. Just some things takes longer time to develop, some things costs more money, some things costs more resources etc.etc. It's incredible how much is possible with todays (and even more tomorrows) technology. Take a look at the oil industry. They can drill down places were everyone thought was impossible some years ago. Take the car industry, with self driving cars etc. etc.

It does not matter how long you wait, you can't beat the laws of physics.

Of course not. I'm not suggesting that.

If you knew the dimensions of all of the associated pieces yout would recognize that is exactly what you are suggesting.

Please present me a detailed technical drawing where you prove that every possible arrangement and resizing of pieces and every alternative solution to the problem is impossible..

There are 7-8mm macro tubes with electrical contact. I believe with best effort even 5mm ispossible for generic adapter. Yet you're right with M to R adapter. It is not possible in this case.

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

MyM3 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

You keep claiming it is possible without supplying the slightest bit of proof.

Most things are possible. One way or another. And you have not proven that it is impossible.

This is a patently incorrect statement. If it were, we would be living in a utopian existence. For on to prove something to another, each side must have the ability to understand the reasoning behind the proof.

No. Its true. Just some things takes longer time to develop, some things costs more money, some things costs more resources etc.etc. It's incredible how much is possible with todays (and even more tomorrows) technology. Take a look at the oil industry. They can drill down places were everyone thought was impossible some years ago. Take the car industry, with self driving cars etc. etc.

It does not matter how long you wait, you can't beat the laws of physics.

Of course not. I'm not suggesting that.

If you knew the dimensions of all of the associated pieces yout would recognize that is exactly what you are suggesting.

Please present me a detailed technical drawing where you prove that every possible arrangement and resizing of pieces and every alternative solution to the problem is impossible..

Better yet, why don't you provide a single drawing that proves any of what you suggested is possible. If you manage that, then please follow with an explanation of why an M camera with a movable sensor plus a RF to EF-M adapter is even remotely logical.

I don't know about logical. I just said possible. One of many suggestions for your poll, as you asked for. If you don't like it, just scratch it from the list. I'm not even interested in such a camera. I have no need for RF lenses. I love the EF-M lenses. And I can use EF lenses if I ever should need something special.

For someone so concerned with the size and weight of a camera, you sure seem to have an obsession with the biggest, heaviest, most expensive, and most convoluted approach.

That is your opinion, not mine.

A RF mount crop sensor camera would be smaller, lighter, cheaper, and simpler.

I wonder why you suddenly have become so possessed with size, weight, cost and simplicity? But if you are concerned about that, I can recommend the M-system cameras and lenses. Especially M5,M6,M100 and M50. You should try them. And did I say, the lenses are great, especially the new 32mm. Fantastic lens!