Would a new Canon Mirrorless ILC System replace the EOS System?

[Peter Nelson]

We will boith preorder the Canon FF digital rangefinder. I'll add 3 lenses a 24mm, 50mm and 85mm right away. That would cover Landscapes, people and general photo's and portraits. That's enough for me.

Let's see, the FF digital Barnack with a collapsable 50mm f/3.5 in one pocket (f/3.5 to keep the size and weight down), and the 24mm f/4 and 85mm f/2 lenses in other pockets.

No bag, no strap, no belt pouch. Just 2 free hands and enough good high quality primes to get any shot I like with a pocket camera.
I have the money now Canon. FYI.

Thanks ! With photographers who look further this forum gets interesting again

Well, i guess FF experience varies. This is difficult to explain. Probably more a feeling. Of course apc came first, because at the time there wasn't anything better. Then much later came a 5D and a 5DII and i thought i wouldn't look back anymore.

On my large screen it isn't comparable, the difference is huge. The FF pics have more clarity, the apc's are more opaque. An apc pic is just a pic, a FF pic is of an other order, with a 5DII landscape pic you just want to walk into my screen !

I still added an Eos 500D as a second camera or for when the going gets rough. But afterwards i always have a remorse not to have brought the 5DII because i feel some wide pictures would have been so much more realistic. And the again it isn't so much smaller .. Same quest, i bought a Sony Nex 3 last winter to replace the 500D, because i had seen really good pictures on the net and i wanted a smaller package as said. My pics were not bad, on the level of the 500D, but more transparant (+) and alas with terrible CA (-), no viewfinder (-), crazy ergonomics (-). I finished selling it, again i felt a waste not to bring my 5DII. Somehow 'not bad' is not enough for me.

Sizewise i think that a FF sensor camera will never be as compact as an apc camera.

It is not only the sensor in itself, but all peripherals such as batteries that need to be bigger to feed the bigger sensor, bigger processor etc .... That doesn't preclude that in the future a FF sensor could be fitted in a Barnack sized digital camera. The ultimate dream. (i also use a real IIIf for fun, and fun it is)

If Canon brings a rangefinder with FF sensor, i preorder today rather than tomorrow
--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

No adapters. Canon must make an entirely new Camera and Lens System.

It must be smaller than your M9, it must be the size of the Canon 35mm film rangefinder cameras.

It must be pocketable with certain lenses mounted such as the M39 screw mount 50mm f/3.5 collapsible lens or the walnut sized 35mm f.3.5 lens.

No adapters!. A new lens system must come out for the new FF Canon Mirrorless ILC pocket camera.

Any Canon Mirrorless MUST be compatible with EOS lenses if it is to be taken seriously. New Camera + adapter will provide a a body that joins the Canon system. This is Canon's biggest strength.

Certainly primes can be added specifically designed for it. Designing a camera for a loyal customer base requires respecting the costomer's investments in the system.

A mirrorless body becomes a 'second body' for many of us, then it can evolve into a flagship product as technology allows. This also allows time to build out a 'mirrorless' lens system.

Unless it is just a toy, an EOS adapter is required. Or M-mount compatablility, but that is very doubtful.

I just don't see that the technology exists today, or that Canon or Nikon are ready to take the step.

However, I decided not to wait around and took the plunge on an M9.
Just grabbed a '48 Summitar for fun.

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[jpr2]

• all fine, but somehow I don't see a screw mount to be a design with much potential success nowadays - for a simple reason: " way too slow " to unscrew and screw again repeatedly ; and too prone to potentially damaging those fine threads;

• also, esp. for longer lenses, in-body IS would be important to keep lenses small; but this would create plethora of problems for a shake-free focusing in viewfinders;

• and finally, to add to your designing spree, how about AF?

anyway, would it be as winning a design, and as versatile as that of
[D]SLR reminds to be seen ,

jpr2

There would be no problem fitting FF or crop sensors in a Barnak Body. The modern technoligies provide small PC boards, memory and wiring harnesses, batterey. The Barnak body is pocketable with certain lenses and it's still has enough top plate area for external controls. The Barnaks eventually has a rangefinder and an optical viewfinder for framing. I'm very sure that this means there is enough room for the optical rangefinder and also an optical viewfinder with a switch to turn it into a live view EVF.

Absolutly enough room on the back for a live view LCD and additional manual controls.

Like I said, the mfr's must know all this but to bring out such a camera sooner than later will prevent all the yearly upgrades of existing bodies and that would spoil the profits! They are in the camera business to make a profit not to cater to educated customers who know such a camera is possible today.
It will come and I will have one.

Canon has a real lot of Barnak body designs and updates from years ago. So when they make the digital version you can bet that there will be updated cameras coming from Canon for years and years for what would essential be the same Digital Barnak body.

Oh and the new mirrorless ILC lenses, I can hardly wait for them. The best optics at the best price and smallest size ever.
-Peter

it took about 20+ yrs. for a winning design to evolve from first sub-35mm
SLRs of 1920' to the pentaprism Zeiss Contax S in 1949;

so the teething pains might still take some time to find a
replacement through evolution (that is IF such replacement is
possible at all: so far nothing can beat versatility of DSLRs - from
macros, through landscapes, studio, action/sports, to even astro
all in one, universal body) - the x100 is a promising start, if only to be
gauged by uproar it created (and cries of disappointment afterwards),
but I doubt we'll see the x100 MkII - addressing all the unfulfilled
issues and problems - in less than 2 yrs. ??

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[Peter Nelson]

A FF digital Barnack camera does not have to be M39 screw mount,. Canon can use a vsrsion of the EOS EF lens mount if they wish or they can create a new mount.

AF is acceptable as long as they do the manual focus ring with aperture clicks at whole f stops.

IBIS would work well with the EVF and rear live view LCD. You are correct that it would not stabalize the view through an optical rangefinder nor an optical viewfinder, but the recorded image will benifit.

A new pocket sized FF digital Canon rangefinder mirrorless ILC may not be as versital as a DSLR but it would be much more used because it would be pocketable with a lens mounted. Also bringing along a couple other lenses in other pockets would be so easy because they will be small.

• all fine, but somehow I don't see a screw mount to be a design with much potential success nowadays - for a simple reason: " way too slow " to unscrew and screw again repeatedly ; and too prone to potentially damaging those fine threads;

• also, esp. for longer lenses, in-body IS would be important to keep lenses small; but this would create plethora of problems for a shake-free focusing in viewfinders;

• and finally, to add to your designing spree, how about AF?

anyway, would it be as winning a design, and as versatile as that of
[D]SLR reminds to be seen ,

jpr2

There would be no problem fitting FF or crop sensors in a Barnak Body. The modern technoligies provide small PC boards, memory and wiring harnesses, batterey. The Barnak body is pocketable with certain lenses and it's still has enough top plate area for external controls. The Barnaks eventually has a rangefinder and an optical viewfinder for framing. I'm very sure that this means there is enough room for the optical rangefinder and also an optical viewfinder with a switch to turn it into a live view EVF.

Absolutly enough room on the back for a live view LCD and additional manual controls.

Like I said, the mfr's must know all this but to bring out such a camera sooner than later will prevent all the yearly upgrades of existing bodies and that would spoil the profits! They are in the camera business to make a profit not to cater to educated customers who know such a camera is possible today.
It will come and I will have one.

Canon has a real lot of Barnak body designs and updates from years ago. So when they make the digital version you can bet that there will be updated cameras coming from Canon for years and years for what would essential be the same Digital Barnak body.

Oh and the new mirrorless ILC lenses, I can hardly wait for them. The best optics at the best price and smallest size ever.
-Peter

it took about 20+ yrs. for a winning design to evolve from first sub-35mm
SLRs of 1920' to the pentaprism Zeiss Contax S in 1949;

so the teething pains might still take some time to find a
replacement through evolution (that is IF such replacement is
possible at all: so far nothing can beat versatility of DSLRs - from
macros, through landscapes, studio, action/sports, to even astro
all in one, universal body) - the x100 is a promising start, if only to be
gauged by uproar it created (and cries of disappointment afterwards),
but I doubt we'll see the x100 MkII - addressing all the unfulfilled
issues and problems - in less than 2 yrs. ??

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[jpr2]

one of immense joys for me of using EF mount is its capacity to be
easily adaptable for mounting such a wide range of fantastic legacy
MF lenses: Zuikos, Zeiss, Leitz-R, Nikkor F (and G with 16:9 adapter), C-Y,
M42, etc.;

so the question is whether long term costs of keeping EF mount would
outweight benefits of:

• being able to immediately mount any EF lens (the flange distance of canon's M39 system was 28.8mm, so a simple 15.2mm extension tube with electrical contacts would allow such mounting with ease);
• special/dedicated new lenses, designed for this MILC, would have a lot of room to evolve, but will not need to be in any way large due only to mechanical considerations);
• and with the native FD = 28.8mm a lot more of legacy MF would be mountable (just imagine 58/1.2 Rokkor without a need of cannibalizing it with a saw ));

but... how about cons?

A FF digital Barnack camera does not have to be M39 screw mount,. Canon can use a vsrsion of the EOS EF lens mount if they wish or they can create a new mount.

[....]

A new pocket sized FF digital Canon rangefinder mirrorless ILC may not be as versital as a DSLR but it would be much more used because it would be pocketable with a lens mounted. Also bringing along a couple other lenses in other pockets would be so easy because they will be small.

it would remain to be seen whether (if ever), and when it will get over
the number of [D]SLRs in use ??

jpr2

• all fine, but somehow I don't see a screw mount to be a design with much potential success nowadays - for a simple reason: " way too slow " to unscrew and screw again repeatedly ; and too prone to potentially damaging those fine threads;

• also, esp. for longer lenses, in-body IS would be important to keep lenses small; but this would create plethora of problems for a shake-free focusing in viewfinders;

• and finally, to add to your designing spree, how about AF?

anyway, would it be as winning a design, and as versatile as that of
[D]SLR reminds to be seen ,

jpr2

There would be no problem fitting FF or crop sensors in a Barnak Body. The modern technoligies provide small PC boards, memory and wiring harnesses, batterey. The Barnak body is pocketable with certain lenses and it's still has enough top plate area for external controls. The Barnaks eventually has a rangefinder and an optical viewfinder for framing. I'm very sure that this means there is enough room for the optical rangefinder and also an optical viewfinder with a switch to turn it into a live view EVF.

Absolutly enough room on the back for a live view LCD and additional manual controls.

Like I said, the mfr's must know all this but to bring out such a camera sooner than later will prevent all the yearly upgrades of existing bodies and that would spoil the profits! They are in the camera business to make a profit not to cater to educated customers who know such a camera is possible today.
It will come and I will have one.

Canon has a real lot of Barnak body designs and updates from years ago. So when they make the digital version you can bet that there will be updated cameras coming from Canon for years and years for what would essential be the same Digital Barnak body.

Oh and the new mirrorless ILC lenses, I can hardly wait for them. The best optics at the best price and smallest size ever.
-Peter

it took about 20+ yrs. for a winning design to evolve from first sub-35mm
SLRs of 1920' to the pentaprism Zeiss Contax S in 1949;

so the teething pains might still take some time to find a
replacement through evolution (that is IF such replacement is
possible at all: so far nothing can beat versatility of DSLRs - from
macros, through landscapes, studio, action/sports, to even astro
all in one, universal body) - the x100 is a promising start, if only to be
gauged by uproar it created (and cries of disappointment afterwards),
but I doubt we'll see the x100 MkII - addressing all the unfulfilled
issues and problems - in less than 2 yrs. ??

jpr2

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[JackM]

We will boith preorder the Canon FF digital rangefinder.

Make that three of us. I just don't think it needs to be FF.

My lowly 7D took these...

I'll add 3 lenses a 24mm, 50mm and 85mm right away.

Make mine 24, 35, 85. I'm in.

 

[Peter Nelson]

You are persistant I'll give you that. So how about Canon created an adapter for EF lenses to the new FF mirrorless ILC mount with electric contacts for AF and aperture control.

Remember that the opening for Canon's EF lens mount is the largest 35mm format lens mount, almost as large as medium format. The new Canon FF Mirrorless ILC camera body will not need such a large lens mount opening as the EF mount. Because the rear element of the new FF Mirrorless ILC Lenses will be closer to the sensor plane.

Pocketability with the new native Canon FF Mirrorless ILC lenses is paramount. But it would be understood when using any EF lens the camera with adapter and EF lens mounted will not be pocketable.

If the flange distance is 28.8mm as you say then using a compact flat adapter then the older manual focus Canon FD lenses could also be used. Perhaps Canon can also provide an adapter for it's own screw mount rangefinder lenses as well.

Just remember the whole idea of a new Canon FF digital mirrorless ILC system is to be pocketable, otherwise people will go to other mfr's for their pocket ILC cameras.
-Peter

so the question is whether long term costs of keeping EF mount would
outweight benefits of:

• being able to immediately mount any EF lens (the flange distance of canon's M39 system was 28.8mm, so a simple 15.2mm extension tube with electrical contacts would allow such mounting with ease);
• special/dedicated new lenses, designed for this MILC, would have a lot of room to evolve, but will not need to be in any way large due only to mechanical considerations);
• and with the native FD = 28.8mm a lot more of legacy MF would be mountable (just imagine 58/1.2 Rokkor without a need of cannibalizing it with a saw ));

but... how about cons?

A FF digital Barnack camera does not have to be M39 screw mount,. Canon can use a vsrsion of the EOS EF lens mount if they wish or they can create a new mount.

[....]

A new pocket sized FF digital Canon rangefinder mirrorless ILC may not be as versital as a DSLR but it would be much more used because it would be pocketable with a lens mounted. Also bringing along a couple other lenses in other pockets would be so easy because they will be small.

it would remain to be seen whether (if ever), and when it will get over
the number of [D]SLRs in use ??

jpr2

• all fine, but somehow I don't see a screw mount to be a design with much potential success nowadays - for a simple reason: " way too slow " to unscrew and screw again repeatedly ; and too prone to potentially damaging those fine threads;

• also, esp. for longer lenses, in-body IS would be important to keep lenses small; but this would create plethora of problems for a shake-free focusing in viewfinders;

• and finally, to add to your designing spree, how about AF?

anyway, would it be as winning a design, and as versatile as that of
[D]SLR reminds to be seen ,

jpr2

There would be no problem fitting FF or crop sensors in a Barnak Body. The modern technoligies provide small PC boards, memory and wiring harnesses, batterey. The Barnak body is pocketable with certain lenses and it's still has enough top plate area for external controls. The Barnaks eventually has a rangefinder and an optical viewfinder for framing. I'm very sure that this means there is enough room for the optical rangefinder and also an optical viewfinder with a switch to turn it into a live view EVF.

Absolutly enough room on the back for a live view LCD and additional manual controls.

Like I said, the mfr's must know all this but to bring out such a camera sooner than later will prevent all the yearly upgrades of existing bodies and that would spoil the profits! They are in the camera business to make a profit not to cater to educated customers who know such a camera is possible today.
It will come and I will have one.

Canon has a real lot of Barnak body designs and updates from years ago. So when they make the digital version you can bet that there will be updated cameras coming from Canon for years and years for what would essential be the same Digital Barnak body.

Oh and the new mirrorless ILC lenses, I can hardly wait for them. The best optics at the best price and smallest size ever.
-Peter

it took about 20+ yrs. for a winning design to evolve from first sub-35mm
SLRs of 1920' to the pentaprism Zeiss Contax S in 1949;

so the teething pains might still take some time to find a
replacement through evolution (that is IF such replacement is
possible at all: so far nothing can beat versatility of DSLRs - from
macros, through landscapes, studio, action/sports, to even astro
all in one, universal body) - the x100 is a promising start, if only to be
gauged by uproar it created (and cries of disappointment afterwards),
but I doubt we'll see the x100 MkII - addressing all the unfulfilled
issues and problems - in less than 2 yrs. ??

jpr2

 

[Peter Nelson]

JackM,

Believe me I'm very familiar with crop cameras. I still have and use Canon 300D, (350XT Gave to student), 450XSi, 20D and 50D as well as Nikon D1H and Pentax K100D all crop sensored cameras.

My only Canon 35mm format and FF cameras are Elan 7N, EOS 1VHS and 1DsMkII and then in Nikon mount I have the FF Kodak SLR/n.

I have about 50 lenses or more made for FF and I am just so happy with thier intended FL's.

Canon could provide a crop sensored version as already stated and even a smaller the APS-C version something near u4/3 if they wish.
-Peter

We will boith preorder the Canon FF digital rangefinder.

Make that three of us. I just don't think it needs to be FF.

My lowly 7D took these...

I'll add 3 lenses a 24mm, 50mm and 85mm right away.

Make mine 24, 35, 85. I'm in.

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[jpr2]

You are persistant I'll give you that. So how about Canon created an adapter for EF lenses to the new FF mirrorless ILC mount with electric contacts for AF and aperture control.

Remember that the opening for Canon's EF lens mount is the largest 35mm format lens mount, almost as large as medium format. The new Canon FF Mirrorless ILC camera body will not need such a large lens mount opening as the EF mount. Because the rear element of the new FF Mirrorless ILC Lenses will be closer to the sensor plane.

indeed it is - this constitutes one of very strong sides of its wide appeal
to many MF legacy lens enthusiasts. And yet, being large diameter is
not necessarily a bad thing. What would be important is that a new
mount will not require a long flange. If you look at the tiny Tessar
below, it is immediately noticeable that it occupies just a center spot
of EF mount. I can easily see the same idea being applicable to our, as
yet imaginary, MILC of Canon.



Zeiss Tessar T 50/2.8 (barrel diameter 49mm) on 7D.

I'm inclined to think that if such a mount will be backward compatible,
allowing direct use of PDAF, as well as (of course) control of aperure,
and power to in-lenses IS, this would constitute quite an inducement
for many to adopt such a body as add on to their extant systems.
And giving manufacturer a time to built dedicated lenses to such MILC
body. OTOH it doesn't really matter whether such compatibility be
built-in or available through an adapter - provided that enough
room will be reserved on a front face to accommodate larger
diameter lenses. And yes, reverting to FD collection through yet
another adapter will be a pleasure. Also, pls. note that Leitz-M
flange is 27.95mm - so IF there is such a large mount as EF to
be eventually utilized, than maybe some ingenious engineering will
be able to design a slightly recessed adapter to mount M-lenses too.

Pocketability with the new native Canon FF Mirrorless ILC lenses is paramount. But it would be understood when using any EF lens the camera with adapter and EF lens mounted will not be pocketable.

If the flange distance is 28.8mm as you say then using a compact flat adapter then the older manual focus Canon FD lenses could also be used. Perhaps Canon can also provide an adapter for it's own screw mount rangefinder lenses as well.

Just remember the whole idea of a new Canon FF digital mirrorless ILC system is to be pocketable, otherwise people will go to other mfr's for their pocket ILC cameras.

OK, so lets add yet another line to the list constituting a minimal yardstick:

• interchangeable lenses;
• ability of free hand shooting, using some kind of viewfinder (shooting at arms length using back screen, even with a stabilized system, introduces too much of a compromise, esp. with longer lenses; possible solution: to use a tripod, and a black cape cutting reflections and glare - would revert us to beginnings of photography);
• OVF much preferable to EVF; a dual system offering both might be a possible compromise;
• not compromised manual focusing: using directly a focusing ring with enough throw (so far none of the offers for focusing by wire was 100% foolproof);
• pocketability; BUT this might be at odds with another important requirement: capable of delivering a paper thin DOF as well.

However, of the FLs: 14, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135, 150.... etc.
perhaps only first three would be truly pocketable, with 50mm
somewhere on the border (depending on design, as some are
small, but other are rather huge). Somehow I can't envision
mounting 85mm on MILC and to expect compactness .

jpr2

one of immense joys for me of using EF mount is its capacity to be
easily adaptable for mounting such a wide range of fantastic legacy
MF lenses: Zuikos, Zeiss, Leitz-R, Nikkor F (and G with 16:9 adapter), C-Y,
M42, etc.;

so the question is whether long term costs of keeping EF mount would
outweight benefits of:

• being able to immediately mount any EF lens (the flange distance of canon's M39 system was 28.8mm, so a simple 15.2mm extension tube with electrical contacts would allow such mounting with ease);
• special/dedicated new lenses, designed for this MILC, would have a lot of room to evolve, but will not need to be in any way large due only to mechanical considerations);
• and with the native FD = 28.8mm a lot more of legacy MF would be mountable (just imagine 58/1.2 Rokkor without a need of cannibalizing it with a saw ));

but... how about cons?

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[Tessarboy]

Something is in the air anyway ..

As said before, a few days ago i was in Bruges, a world tourist centre.

I forgot to mention that i was actually taking pictures with this 50 yrs old Canon P rangefinder.

And guess what ? 3 fellow tourists with the latest cameras aproached me and asked "is this the new Canon digital rangefinder ? " .. imagine, 2 of them were Japanese. For some reason rangefinders seem to be specially attractive to them !

I gather there is more interest in the field, than in this forum.

Btw, thanks for the invitation ! This is to much .. I feel confused ..
--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

 

[Peter Nelson]

Nice set up on your 7D. I myself would love to adapt my Leica M and M39 lenses to my Canon cameras. But I have never been able to locate the adapter.

I think you forgot that some Leica and Canon 50mm f/3.5 lenses are collapsible into the camera body so you should include these lenses or actually a new Canon version as pocketable when mounted on the camera.

Remember just because you have a pocketable camera lens combo does not mean that you cannot bring along a smallish 85mm f/2 prime or the new Canon version of the Leica collasable 90mm f/4 Elmar in another pocket as well as the walnut sized 35mm f/3.5 lens. I think Canon could have Pancake lenses in FL from 20mm through 35mm as well to keep the system really pocketable.

This is the whole idea, a digital FF Canon (Barnak style) rangefinder with small lenses enabling true pocketability. Yes provise a real optical rangefinder and a live view EVF. Rear live view LCD is usefull as well. MF and AF is fine by be as long as all the new system lenses have aperture click stops and distance scales clearly marked on the lens barrel.

Such a camera for me is immenently more usefull than my 1DsMkII. I will use this new FF digital Canon Rangefinder MILC camera everyday and get extreamly good IQ. I will also enjoy my hobby a lot more with a pocket sized system leaving my hands fee as I go about my daily business.
This is really so easy, don't you agree?

You are persistant I'll give you that. So how about Canon created an adapter for EF lenses to the new FF mirrorless ILC mount with electric contacts for AF and aperture control.

Remember that the opening for Canon's EF lens mount is the largest 35mm format lens mount, almost as large as medium format. The new Canon FF Mirrorless ILC camera body will not need such a large lens mount opening as the EF mount. Because the rear element of the new FF Mirrorless ILC Lenses will be closer to the sensor plane.

indeed it is - this constitutes one of very strong sides of its wide appeal
to many MF legacy lens enthusiasts. And yet, being large diameter is
not necessarily a bad thing. What would be important is that a new
mount will not require a long flange. If you look at the tiny Tessar
below, it is immediately noticeable that it occupies just a center spot
of EF mount. I can easily see the same idea being applicable to our, as
yet imaginary, MILC of Canon.



Zeiss Tessar T 50/2.8 (barrel diameter 49mm) on 7D.

I'm inclined to think that if such a mount will be backward compatible,
allowing direct use of PDAF, as well as (of course) control of aperure,
and power to in-lenses IS, this would constitute quite an inducement
for many to adopt such a body as add on to their extant systems.
And giving manufacturer a time to built dedicated lenses to such MILC
body. OTOH it doesn't really matter whether such compatibility be
built-in or available through an adapter - provided that enough
room will be reserved on a front face to accommodate larger
diameter lenses. And yes, reverting to FD collection through yet
another adapter will be a pleasure. Also, pls. note that Leitz-M
flange is 27.95mm - so IF there is such a large mount as EF to
be eventually utilized, than maybe some ingenious engineering will
be able to design a slightly recessed adapter to mount M-lenses too.

Pocketability with the new native Canon FF Mirrorless ILC lenses is paramount. But it would be understood when using any EF lens the camera with adapter and EF lens mounted will not be pocketable.

If the flange distance is 28.8mm as you say then using a compact flat adapter then the older manual focus Canon FD lenses could also be used. Perhaps Canon can also provide an adapter for it's own screw mount rangefinder lenses as well.

Just remember the whole idea of a new Canon FF digital mirrorless ILC system is to be pocketable, otherwise people will go to other mfr's for their pocket ILC cameras.

OK, so lets add yet another line to the list constituting a minimal yardstick:

• interchangeable lenses;
• ability of free hand shooting, using some kind of viewfinder (shooting at arms length using back screen, even with a stabilized system, introduces too much of a compromise, esp. with longer lenses; possible solution: to use a tripod, and a black cape cutting reflections and glare - would revert us to beginnings of photography);
• OVF much preferable to EVF; a dual system offering both might be a possible compromise;
• not compromised manual focusing: using directly a focusing ring with enough throw (so far none of the offers for focusing by wire was 100% foolproof);
• pocketability; BUT this might be at odds with another important requirement: capable of delivering a paper thin DOF as well.

However, of the FLs: 14, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135, 150.... etc.
perhaps only first three would be truly pocketable, with 50mm
somewhere on the border (depending on design, as some are
small, but other are rather huge). Somehow I can't envision
mounting 85mm on MILC and to expect compactness .

jpr2

one of immense joys for me of using EF mount is its capacity to be
easily adaptable for mounting such a wide range of fantastic legacy
MF lenses: Zuikos, Zeiss, Leitz-R, Nikkor F (and G with 16:9 adapter), C-Y,
M42, etc.;

 

[Peter Nelson]

Rangefinders are great cameras and a new Canon P pocket sized FF digital rangfinder system would be the best camera for most users.
Your welcome for dinner anytime.

Something is in the air anyway ..

As said before, a few days ago i was in Bruges, a world tourist centre.

I forgot to mention that i was actually taking pictures with this 50 yrs old Canon P rangefinder.

And guess what ? 3 fellow tourists with the latest cameras aproached me and asked "is this the new Canon digital rangefinder ? " .. imagine, 2 of them were Japanese. For some reason rangefinders seem to be specially attractive to them !

I gather there is more interest in the field, than in this forum.

Btw, thanks for the invitation ! This is to much .. I feel confused ..
--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[jpr2]

Nice set up on your 7D. I myself would love to adapt my Leica M and M39 lenses to my Canon cameras. But I have never been able to locate the adapter.

Peter,

just compare:

• Canon screw: FD=28.8mm, screw M42x1mm
• Leica screw: FD=28.8mm too, BUT... screw M39×26tpi
• Leica M: FD=27.95, bayonet mount

so, as I wrote earlier, the only hope to have Leicas mountable on
Barnak type of MILC would be to provide a mount with diameter
wide enough to accommodate either a screw M39×26tpi at native
flange distance, or a recessed mount for Leica-M; and I think that
the EF actually fits such requirement pretty well (besides allowing
direct mounting both AF and manual focus compatible EF lenses
with a simple application of 15.2mm extension tube with contacts).
Of course many other solutions are possible. What I'm trying to
stress is that an actual implementation of a our long time dream
of a body which allows a widest range of various lenses to be mounted
is not only universal, but also would make a marketing sense to
many.

This is the whole idea, a digital FF Canon (Barnak style) rangefinder with small lenses enabling true pocketability. Yes provise a real optical rangefinder and a live view EVF. Rear live view LCD is usefull as well. MF and AF is fine by be as long as all the new system lenses have aperture click stops and distance scales clearly marked on the lens barrel.

I think that it is not viable to construct a lens which has BOTH:

• aperture clickable scale with accurate markings
• AND being electronically operated, thus allowing wide open focusing with a subsequent shooting at a set aperture

just look at the recent crop of Zeiss ZE offerings - none has a manual
aperture ring any longer, and given a choice of the same lens with a
manual aperture scale on a barrel with stop down metering, or to be
able control aperture on a body I'd pick the latter ,

jpr2

You are persistant I'll give you that. So how about Canon created an adapter for EF lenses to the new FF mirrorless ILC mount with electric contacts for AF and aperture control.

Remember that the opening for Canon's EF lens mount is the largest 35mm format lens mount, almost as large as medium format. The new Canon FF Mirrorless ILC camera body will not need such a large lens mount opening as the EF mount. Because the rear element of the new FF Mirrorless ILC Lenses will be closer to the sensor plane.

indeed it is - this constitutes one of very strong sides of its wide appeal
to many MF legacy lens enthusiasts. And yet, being large diameter is
not necessarily a bad thing. What would be important is that a new
mount will not require a long flange. If you look at the tiny Tessar
below, it is immediately noticeable that it occupies just a center spot
of EF mount. I can easily see the same idea being applicable to our, as
yet imaginary, MILC of Canon.



Zeiss Tessar T 50/2.8 (barrel diameter 49mm) on 7D.

I'm inclined to think that if such a mount will be backward compatible,
allowing direct use of PDAF, as well as (of course) control of aperure,
and power to in-lenses IS, this would constitute quite an inducement
for many to adopt such a body as add on to their extant systems.
And giving manufacturer a time to built dedicated lenses to such MILC
body. OTOH it doesn't really matter whether such compatibility be
built-in or available through an adapter - provided that enough
room will be reserved on a front face to accommodate larger
diameter lenses. And yes, reverting to FD collection through yet
another adapter will be a pleasure. Also, pls. note that Leitz-M
flange is 27.95mm - so IF there is such a large mount as EF to
be eventually utilized, than maybe some ingenious engineering will
be able to design a slightly recessed adapter to mount M-lenses too.

Pocketability with the new native Canon FF Mirrorless ILC lenses is paramount. But it would be understood when using any EF lens the camera with adapter and EF lens mounted will not be pocketable.

If the flange distance is 28.8mm as you say then using a compact flat adapter then the older manual focus Canon FD lenses could also be used. Perhaps Canon can also provide an adapter for it's own screw mount rangefinder lenses as well.

Just remember the whole idea of a new Canon FF digital mirrorless ILC system is to be pocketable, otherwise people will go to other mfr's for their pocket ILC cameras.

OK, so lets add yet another line to the list constituting a minimal yardstick:

• interchangeable lenses;
• ability of free hand shooting, using some kind of viewfinder (shooting at arms length using back screen, even with a stabilized system, introduces too much of a compromise, esp. with longer lenses; possible solution: to use a tripod, and a black cape cutting reflections and glare - would revert us to beginnings of photography);
• OVF much preferable to EVF; a dual system offering both might be a possible compromise;
• not compromised manual focusing: using directly a focusing ring with enough throw (so far none of the offers for focusing by wire was 100% foolproof);
• pocketability; BUT this might be at odds with another important requirement: capable of delivering a paper thin DOF as well.

--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[Tessarboy]

Im afraid i'll have to correct you

Peter Nelson wrote:

Nice set up on your 7D. I myself would love to adapt my Leica M and M39 lenses > > to my Canon cameras. But I have never been able to locate the adapter.

Peter, these adapters are on ebay, but worthless. By technical constraint the lenses can then only be used for macro photography. They cannot focus at infinity anymore ! (see below)

Peter,

just compare:

Canon screw: FD=28.8mm, screw M42x1mm

•Leica screw: FD=28.8mm too, BUT... screw M39×26tpi

•Leica M: FD=27.95, bayonet mount

Wrong ! Except for the extremely rare pre WWII Canon lenses (made by Nikon ! and worth $$$$$) ALL Canon screw lenses are compatible with Leica screw lenses and with Leica M bayonet. This is named "M39" or "LTM" or "L39" mount. Look on Ebay with these searchwords. As such every Canon screwmount lens ever produced can still be used on the latest Leica M9.. Almost every known lens manufacturer produced lenses in this mount. And several still do. Voigtländer has a loyal following in these. New film cameras are still produced in this mount.
Your FD numbers however = Flange to sensor/film distances, are correct.

so, as I wrote earlier, the only hope to have Leicas mountable on
Barnak type of MILC would be to provide a mount with diameter
wide enough to accommodate either a screw M39×26tpi at native
flange distance, or a recessed mount for Leica-M;

and I think that the EF actually fits such requirement pretty well (besides allowing
direct mounting both AF and manual focus compatible EF lenses
with a simple application of 15.2mm extension tube with contacts).
Of course many other solutions are possible. What I'm trying to
stress is that an actual implementation of a our long time dream
of a body which allows a widest range of various lenses to be mounted
is not only universal, but also would make a marketing sense to
many.

The L39 mount with 28.8mm flange to film/sensor distance has the smallest focus distance ever mass produced for FF. This is one of the technical reasons why these Leica FF lenses can be made so much smaller. This also explains why, given the correct adapter, almost every vintage lens AND Canon EF can be mounted on a Leica. Because the Canon EF has with 44.0mm one of the largest FD, only very few other brands (mainly Nikon and Leica 'R'eflex and a few M42) lenses can be mounted on an FF EOS camera. Lenses with shorter FD would need a recessed converter which impedes ... the mirror movement .. unless there is a limiter which prevents the lens moving fully backward for infinity focus.

This is the whole idea, a digital FF Canon (Barnak style) rangefinder with small > > lenses enabling true pocketability. Yes provise a real optical rangefinder and a live > > view EVF. Rear live view LCD is usefull as well. MF and AF is fine by be as long as > > all the new system lenses have aperture click stops and distance scales clearly > > marked on the lens barrel.

I think that it is not viable to construct a lens which has BOTH:

•aperture clickable scale with accurate markings

•AND being electronically operated, thus allowing wide open focusing with a > subsequent shooting at a set aperture

I wouldn't be so adamant on this point. The late M42 (Pentax++) lenses and the previous Canon FD mount already had a spring activated mechanism that allowed just that ..

just look at the recent crop of Zeiss ZE offerings - none has a manual
aperture ring any longer, and given a choice of the same lens with a
manual aperture scale on a barrel with stop down metering, or to be
able control aperture on a body I'd pick the latter ,

jpr2

you are not the only one ..

Hey, when was that beautiful Epson R-D1 digital rangefinder removed from Dpreview ??

There you have it, ... it used M39 lenses !! (it was in fact a digital Voigtlander)
How could i forget that one ?! Am i getting that old ?

--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

 

[jpr2]

yes, I know thanks for catching it up, it should read:

• Canon screw: FD=28.8mm, screw M39x1mm
• Leica screw: FD=28.8mm too, BUT... screw M39×26tpi
• Leica M: FD=27.95, bayonet mount

I didn't calculate, but perhaps M39x26tpi (turns per inch) thread is slightly
different than the metric screw M39x1;

all the rest is correct, with the exception that Pentax/Practica M42 lenses
with mechanical aperture lever are not electronically setable , I've
five or six of them.

the most complete table of FDs I know about can be found here:
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html

and for most lenses with FD longer than 44mm there are adapters
available allowing them to be mounted on EF EOS bodies. Even for
Exakta/Topcon with FD=44.7mm, which means only 0.7mm diff.
it is doable, although precision tolerances are pretty tight - the
Tessar 50/2.8 T from mine example above is mounted through
such an adapter;

substituting M42x1 for M39x1 was sort of a Freudian slip

jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[JackM]

FF will be better for 20mm, 24mm wide angle and semi wide lenses such as 28mm and 35mm as well as normal 50mm and mid tele lenses of 85mm/90mm and up to 135mm. That's why FF because most photography is done in these FL's.

FF would only be better in terms of thinner DOF and 1 stop better noise. Otherwise if it's APS-C they will simply invent new lenses for this system which will cover those equivalent focal lengths. 15mm, 31mm, etc.

The reality of any Canon MILC system is that APS-C will be more marketable and therefore more likely. Both in terms of price and also the fact that the lenses will be attractive to use on other APS-C bodies (with an adapter).

Not EOS EF lenses. A new sytem of lenses designed specifically for the new mirroress ILC FF bodies. Yes there can be cropped sensored bodies that can use these new lenses from Canon.

Agreed. But FF lenses on APS-C don't make as much sense. 24mm becomes 38mm, etc, which is kind of weird.

 

[jpr2]

The reality of any Canon MILC system is that APS-C will be more marketable and therefore more likely. Both in terms of price and also the fact that the lenses will be attractive to use on other APS-C bodies (with an adapter).

if we are to avoid adapter with a lens element it would imply that the
MILC flange distance is longer that those "other" APS-C bodies - what do
you have in mind??

jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[JackM]

MILC flange-to-sensor distance should be shorter than a DSLR's, because there is no mirror to design around.

But yeah, the adapter to put a MILC lens on an SLR would need to have a lens element in it, so I guess it wouldn't be that attractive.

The reality of any Canon MILC system is that APS-C will be more marketable and therefore more likely. Both in terms of price and also the fact that the lenses will be attractive to use on other APS-C bodies (with an adapter).

if we are to avoid adapter with a lens element it would imply that the
MILC flange distance is longer that those "other" APS-C bodies - what do
you have in mind??

jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/

Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

 

[Peter Nelson]

We could use our existing manual focus older legacy lenses on the new system and Canon could provide the new AF lenses. heck Can has as you noted the old rangefinder screw mount lenses (plans and designs) as well as the FD lenses and plans and designs. Adding an AF new systerm lens seroes will be a good ideaforthe youinger crowd. We, the older photographers wouldbe content with what we already have, perhapsd adding a few ofthe new AF lenses.

DPR states the large format sensored ILMC is the fastest growing segment in most countries. So Canon should get involved. I am confident Can will provide the ultimate, best solution when the time comes (soon I hope).

Nice set up on your 7D. I myself would love to adapt my Leica M and M39 lenses to my Canon cameras. But I have never been able to locate the adapter.

Peter,

just compare:

• Canon screw: FD=28.8mm, screw M42x1mm
• Leica screw: FD=28.8mm too, BUT... screw M39×26tpi
• Leica M: FD=27.95, bayonet mount

so, as I wrote earlier, the only hope to have Leicas mountable on
Barnak type of MILC would be to provide a mount with diameter
wide enough to accommodate either a screw M39×26tpi at native
flange distance, or a recessed mount for Leica-M; and I think that
the EF actually fits such requirement pretty well (besides allowing
direct mounting both AF and manual focus compatible EF lenses
with a simple application of 15.2mm extension tube with contacts).
Of course many other solutions are possible. What I'm trying to
stress is that an actual implementation of a our long time dream
of a body which allows a widest range of various lenses to be mounted
is not only universal, but also would make a marketing sense to
many.

This is the whole idea, a digital FF Canon (Barnak style) rangefinder with small lenses enabling true pocketability. Yes provise a real optical rangefinder and a live view EVF. Rear live view LCD is usefull as well. MF and AF is fine by be as long as all the new system lenses have aperture click stops and distance scales clearly marked on the lens barrel.

I think that it is not viable to construct a lens which has BOTH:

• aperture clickable scale with accurate markings
• AND being electronically operated, thus allowing wide open focusing with a subsequent shooting at a set aperture

just look at the recent crop of Zeiss ZE offerings - none has a manual
aperture ring any longer, and given a choice of the same lens with a
manual aperture scale on a barrel with stop down metering, or to be
able control aperture on a body I'd pick the latter ,

jpr2

You are persistant I'll give you that. So how about Canon created an adapter for EF lenses to the new FF mirrorless ILC mount with electric contacts for AF and aperture control.

Remember that the opening for Canon's EF lens mount is the largest 35mm format lens mount, almost as large as medium format. The new Canon FF Mirrorless ILC camera body will not need such a large lens mount opening as the EF mount. Because the rear element of the new FF Mirrorless ILC Lenses will be closer to the sensor plane.

indeed it is - this constitutes one of very strong sides of its wide appeal
to many MF legacy lens enthusiasts. And yet, being large diameter is
not necessarily a bad thing. What would be important is that a new
mount will not require a long flange. If you look at the tiny Tessar
below, it is immediately noticeable that it occupies just a center spot
of EF mount. I can easily see the same idea being applicable to our, as
yet imaginary, MILC of Canon.



Zeiss Tessar T 50/2.8 (barrel diameter 49mm) on 7D.

I'm inclined to think that if such a mount will be backward compatible,
allowing direct use of PDAF, as well as (of course) control of aperure,
and power to in-lenses IS, this would constitute quite an inducement
for many to adopt such a body as add on to their extant systems.
And giving manufacturer a time to built dedicated lenses to such MILC
body. OTOH it doesn't really matter whether such compatibility be
built-in or available through an adapter - provided that enough
room will be reserved on a front face to accommodate larger
diameter lenses. And yes, reverting to FD collection through yet
another adapter will be a pleasure. Also, pls. note that Leitz-M
flange is 27.95mm - so IF there is such a large mount as EF to
be eventually utilized, than maybe some ingenious engineering will
be able to design a slightly recessed adapter to mount M-lenses too.

Pocketability with the new native Canon FF Mirrorless ILC lenses is paramount. But it would be understood when using any EF lens the camera with adapter and EF lens mounted will not be pocketable.

If the flange distance is 28.8mm as you say then using a compact flat adapter then the older manual focus Canon FD lenses could also be used. Perhaps Canon can also provide an adapter for it's own screw mount rangefinder lenses as well.

Just remember the whole idea of a new Canon FF digital mirrorless ILC system is to be pocketable, otherwise people will go to other mfr's for their pocket ILC cameras.

--

Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

Peter Nelson wrote:

Nice set up on your 7D. I myself would love to adapt my Leica M and M39 lenses > > to my Canon cameras. But I have never been able to locate the adapter.

Peter, these adapters are on ebay, but worthless. By technical constraint the lenses can then only be used for macro photography. They cannot focus at infinity anymore ! (see below)

Show me, please. BTW the adapters that would not provide infinity focusing were never considered by myself. As were the adapters that are micro focus only were also never considered by myself. What I meant when I said that I could not locate an M39 and M adapter to EOS EF mount was that I could not locate anything that would work normally. Please, please, if you know of such an adapter then post a link here for me to see and make the purchase.

I have a few Pentax M42 primes with the tab that when depreses stops down the lens to the selected f/stop. I have an M42 German Made Mayer-Oreston Gorlitz 50mm f/1.8 with such a Tab and it's the sharpest lens I have ever used bar none. It's abiut the size of Canons EF Nifty Fifty 50mm f/1.8.

I still use my Seiko/Epson R-D1 digital rangefinder with M and M39 llenses, but it's not pocketable so I only use it when I go out for a specific reason. If only I had a digital Barnak camera I would be set for life. You know what, I'll keep using film with my 2 Barnaks if they won't make a digital version.

Peter,

just compare:

Canon screw: FD=28.8mm, screw M42x1mm

•Leica screw: FD=28.8mm too, BUT... screw M39×26tpi

•Leica M: FD=27.95, bayonet mount

Wrong ! Except for the extremely rare pre WWII Canon lenses (made by Nikon ! and worth $$$$$) ALL Canon screw lenses are compatible with Leica screw lenses and with Leica M bayonet. This is named "M39" or "LTM" or "L39" mount. Look on Ebay with these searchwords. As such every Canon screwmount lens ever produced can still be used on the latest Leica M9.. Almost every known lens manufacturer produced lenses in this mount. And several still do. Voigtländer has a loyal following in these. New film cameras are still produced in this mount.
Your FD numbers however = Flange to sensor/film distances, are correct.

so, as I wrote earlier, the only hope to have Leicas mountable on
Barnak type of MILC would be to provide a mount with diameter
wide enough to accommodate either a screw M39×26tpi at native
flange distance, or a recessed mount for Leica-M;

and I think that the EF actually fits such requirement pretty well (besides allowing
direct mounting both AF and manual focus compatible EF lenses
with a simple application of 15.2mm extension tube with contacts).
Of course many other solutions are possible. What I'm trying to
stress is that an actual implementation of a our long time dream
of a body which allows a widest range of various lenses to be mounted
is not only universal, but also would make a marketing sense to
many.

The L39 mount with 28.8mm flange to film/sensor distance has the smallest focus distance ever mass produced for FF. This is one of the technical reasons why these Leica FF lenses can be made so much smaller. This also explains why, given the correct adapter, almost every vintage lens AND Canon EF can be mounted on a Leica. Because the Canon EF has with 44.0mm one of the largest FD, only very few other brands (mainly Nikon and Leica 'R'eflex and a few M42) lenses can be mounted on an FF EOS camera. Lenses with shorter FD would need a recessed converter which impedes ... the mirror movement .. unless there is a limiter which prevents the lens moving fully backward for infinity focus.

This is the whole idea, a digital FF Canon (Barnak style) rangefinder with small > > lenses enabling true pocketability. Yes provise a real optical rangefinder and a live > > view EVF. Rear live view LCD is usefull as well. MF and AF is fine by be as long as > > all the new system lenses have aperture click stops and distance scales clearly > > marked on the lens barrel.

I think that it is not viable to construct a lens which has BOTH:

•aperture clickable scale with accurate markings

•AND being electronically operated, thus allowing wide open focusing with a > subsequent shooting at a set aperture

I wouldn't be so adamant on this point. The late M42 (Pentax++) lenses and the previous Canon FD mount already had a spring activated mechanism that allowed just that ..

just look at the recent crop of Zeiss ZE offerings - none has a manual
aperture ring any longer, and given a choice of the same lens with a
manual aperture scale on a barrel with stop down metering, or to be
able control aperture on a body I'd pick the latter ,

jpr2

you are not the only one ..

Hey, when was that beautiful Epson R-D1 digital rangefinder removed from Dpreview ??

There you have it, ... it used M39 lenses !! (it was in fact a digital Voigtlander)
How could i forget that one ?! Am i getting that old ?

--
Tessarboy
'photography is about the quality of light'

--
Life as an artist has had some unusual times to say the least.
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes