# Patent - Canon Tilt-Shift Adapter for EF Lenses



## siegsAR (Aug 25, 2015)

> Canon’s method of getting around the tilt-shift conundrum using standard lenses with standard image circles on a full frame or APS-C camera makes me smile. It’s not quite groundbreaking. Just really smart engineering using tech in a different manner than which is was originally purposed.
> 
> You might think Canon would have used an image enlarger inside the adapter to increase the image circle size but Canon went a different route entirely.


Source: http://www.photographybay.com/2015/08/24/canons-coming-electronic-tilt-shift-adapter-that-works-with-every-ef-lens/


It has CPU inside, no optics.
Automatic in-camera cropping for tilt-shift operation.
Can shift lens and or camera.
With IS.
With AF.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 25, 2015)

I think this is referring to US patent 20150234198 

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=((Canon+AND+lens)+AND+adapter)&OS=Canon+and+lens+and+adapter&RS=((Canon+AND+lens)+AND+adapter)

Since its likely to cost as much as just buying a real tilt-shift lens, I doubt we'd actually see such a kludge.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 25, 2015)

The patent as shown is only for cameras with a short enough flange distance (it says so at the start of the patent)

What interests me more is that the entire system as described could form the tilt/shift mechanism for a new range of TS-E lenses.

Even having just the shift amount in EXIF could allow for some much more precise correction of residual lens distortions.

Who knows? ... autofocus with tilt ... just touch two points on the view screen and off it goes ;-)
(OK, three points if you want to work out the plane of tilt)


----------



## Gert Arijs (Aug 25, 2015)

I'd LOVE to see this in real life. I would even buy an EOS M for this thing...


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 25, 2015)

I may be behind on this topic, but any chance a new EOS M would step in to compete with the Sony A7R line? More of a professional system, full-frame, high resolution, but smaller profile...?


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 25, 2015)

dryanparker said:


> I may be behind on this topic, but any chance a new EOS M would step in to compete with the Sony A7R line? More of a professional system, full-frame, high resolution, but smaller profile...?



Probably not. Mount is too small for FF, and all the offerings to date are targeted for minimal size (and slower apertures). It's also not priced that way either.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> dryanparker said:
> 
> 
> > I may be behind on this topic, but any chance a new EOS M would step in to compete with the Sony A7R line? More of a professional system, full-frame, high resolution, but smaller profile...?
> ...



not it isn't the mount is the same inner diameter as the E mount. canon would have to change the internal baffling and the size of the EF-M electronic connector plate such as Sony had to do to support the larger sensor, but it would fit, since the sensor corners, like with sony can tuck under the mount slightly.


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 25, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > dryanparker said:
> ...



Right...

My question is whether they might re-design the entire system to compete.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2015)

dryanparker said:


> I may be behind on this topic, but any chance a new EOS M would step in to compete with the Sony A7R line? More of a professional system, full-frame, high resolution, but smaller profile...?



as far as this? 

probably not. to be honest - why do they have to? their existing full frame cameras compete more than well enough.

all statements from canon in regards to the M is "keeping it small" including the lenses, and they can't do that with full frame.

a TS adapter is kind of cool - it would be nice if they also did a focal reducer adapter as well - now that would be a nice addition!


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 25, 2015)

dryanparker said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Nope. If Canon comes out with something else, it won't be an EOS-M. And compete with what? Sony bodies might be a bit smaller than their Canon DSLR counterparts, but the lenses are just as big. Its 35 f/1.4 is heavier and is about the same size as the 35L.


----------



## dryanparker (Aug 25, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> dryanparker said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



The EOS M and the Sony A7R are both mirrorless systems, correct? That's what I'm talking about re: compete. You're right about lens size, etc. And I realize the A7R line is probably more of a competitor for the 5D/D800 lines than another mirrorless offering. I'm just floating the question since a previous rumor mentioned the EOS M4 would be a departure from the previous three.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2015)

dryanparker said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > dryanparker said:
> ...



I took that comment from CR as basically stating a gobal release of all items versus in the past.


----------



## Tinky (Aug 25, 2015)

Or they could make a camera with a tilting sensor?

The tech has been around in Olympus omd's for a few generations, and is in the a7ii. All thats needed is sone user controls...

I was toying with buying one of the far eastern ef-m to m42 ts adaptors, but have decided to go with the arsat lenses instead, as I am using ts lenses, shamefully, for fake minature, so ultimately effect is more important than out and out iq.

Interesting that the technology exsist with the ef mount to impart sensor crop (although the clues were there with the e-ttl-ii guns) and makes you wonder a little bit why they bothered with ef-s at all....


----------



## RGF (Aug 26, 2015)

A friend has Hasselblad and they have an adapter make all their lenses into T/S.


----------



## alliumnsk (Aug 26, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Or they could make a camera with a tilting sensor?
> 
> The tech has been around in Olympus omd's for a few generations, and is in the a7ii. All thats needed is sone user controls...


Of course camera with tilting sensor would be smaller and much more convenient (with appropriate controls, as you say).
Neither Sony nor Olympus make cameras with tilting sensors, they move in a plane but do not tilt.


----------



## alliumnsk (Aug 26, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Probably not. Mount is too small for FF, and all the offerings to date are targeted for minimal size (and slower apertures).


Lol people used to say E-mount is too small for FF, yet FF cameras appeared. EF-M mount is even larger than Sony's one.
Also you are probably failing to grasp that the adaptor in the patent is for using *EXISTING* EF lenses on a EF-M body


----------



## Tinky (Aug 26, 2015)

alliumnsk said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > Or they could make a camera with a tilting sensor?
> ...




Pitch & Yaw?

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/em1/feature3.html

Pitch & Yaw?

http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7m2-body-kit


----------



## alliumnsk (Aug 27, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Pitch & Yaw?
> 
> http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/product/dslr/em1/feature3.html
> 
> ...


Pitch & Yaw are tilts -- camera shake which IBIS designed to correct against, but not directions around which sensor moves.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 27, 2015)

*Sensor movement*

current sensor movements are far too small for any useful tilt/shift functionality.

If you consider how few people understand (or want to know) how to make effective use of T/S lenses, then adding a whole new set of movements to a body is such a niche product that has no interest to a manufacturer like Canon.

Lens tilt/shift - yes ... Adapter - maybe ... sensor tilt/shift - not a hope


----------



## Tinky (Aug 27, 2015)

I don't know how few understand, in my time with the 24ts-e and shooting on film it felt a lot like trial and error at times, there are great online explainations of the principle behind it, but no real hands on guides for things like opposite tilts, or how little acutally makes such a difference, and how easy it is to over tilt etc...

The shift bit is easy, the tilt bit needs a dummies guide...

It's more obvious on the 80mm I currently use (effectively 135) and live view helps immensely... I don't know if it is a matte focus screen issue or what.. maybe a microprism with grids would be easier..

EF seems a daft choice as the image circle hasn't a great deal of latitiude.. the canon TS-lenses are almost medium format in size, adapting EF to EF-m or Ef-s may work well... EF to EF? Without correction element for infinity focus etc...

Will be interesting to see where this one goes.

And I am a heretic. I want TS to use for interview effects (portraiture I guess) and fake minature. Burn him, burn the witch.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 27, 2015)

Tinky said:


> ...
> And I am a heretic. I want TS to use for interview effects (portraiture I guess) and fake minature. Burn him, burn the witch.


Ah, that might be why I've never addressed it in any of the articles I've written about tilt and shift ;-) 

But seriously, what is it you feel would be useful? 

I'd suggest that understanding how tilt moves the focal plane around, through a combination of tilt and focus setting is all you actually need to know? (that and practice ;-)


----------



## Tinky (Aug 27, 2015)

Things like how to shift focus according to tilt for max effect, typical scenarios with typical settings, an emphaisis on a little does a lot, folk talk about a wedge of focus, a profile diagram of what this means, and importantly, what is the counter effect...

Even a 101 would have helped me lots and lots back in the day... tilt into the plane to increase, tilt away to decrease etc, what will happen to near and distant objects on that plane..

In those days the only guide I had was 2 pages of a kodak encyclopedia, which was great for shift and shooting round objects, not so useful for playing around with dof..

Digital changed it all for me, especially live view. My 24 was quite subtle and the risk was on film that i over tilted...


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 27, 2015)

Ah, there would be my problem.

"...shift focus according to tilt for max effect, typical scenarios with typical settings"

This doesn't mean that much for me, since I don't know what the 'effect' is (or why/what you would want) and hence have no idea of what settings would be 'typical'.

It still comes down to understanding where you want the plane of focus to go. That just needs one distance measuring (or estimating) and looking at a tilt table - something you quickly remember if you do it very often.

Unfortunately I've discovered that even a simple list of numbers scares off a significant number of photographers, that and visualising a plane of focus in free space, for some people, is not the trivial matter I assumed.

I'm busy with a lot of work on the Northlight site at the moment, but I'll add another tilt article to the 'to do' list ;-)


----------



## Tinky (Aug 27, 2015)

It could be as simple as...

"For greater depth of field when the desired focal plane is -for example- to your left, tilt to the left, very slightly at first, you might find A-DEP mode is helpful or at least select the largest AF pattern and tilt half checking the shutter until the greatest number of points light up, use live view to make focus adjustments, if the near distance or far distance isn't too far out, if so, tilt less or stop down more if you can, modern cameras can go up to surprising isos to give you that extra depth of field without having to decrease the shutter speed, be careful to check the right side for artefacts such as unusual bokeh shapes of loss of focus over detail, over titling will reduce depth of field, probably more than not having a tilt to work with at all.

If you actually desire the minumum depth of field, then use an opposite tilt, if your camera is pointing down then tilt up, the more you tilt the greater the effect but remember to go through your frame carefully, as unintended near or distant objects may fall into the plane or wedge of focus, negating the intended effect, the usual rules of wider aperture, closer focus distance all apply, shift can also be deployed where available to position the sweet spot"

And key phrase:

"On 135 and APS-C based digital formats there is an element of trial and error."

No numbers, and half a clue.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 27, 2015)

Sorry - just not a way I'd look to use such lenses at all ... I suspect our definitions of simple probably vary ;-)

For me it starts from knowing where you want the plane of focus, and setting the lens to do what you want. The numbers get things in the right area, and you can tweak stuff to look good. I even do this using such lenses hand held, so there needn't be any long deliberation over it (my own minor heresy)

The numbers can save a lot of the random (unpredictable) settings and adjustment I all too often seen when people are trying out such lenses. Almost if you keep twiddling the lens adjustments, you'll eventually hit on something that (may) work.

It's this seeming randomness that seems to put a lot of people off using such kit. Then again it does ensure a good market for used lenses, as people give up on them.

Guess that's why I'm foremost an architectural/industrial photographer


----------



## dolina (Aug 27, 2015)

Looking forward to the full frame mirrorless body to match this adapter.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> Looking forward to the full frame mirrorless body to match this adapter.


Indeed, but unless a lot of EF lenses magically get enlarged image circles, its utility may be limited for a full frame sensor...


----------



## Tinky (Aug 28, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> Sorry - just not a way I'd look to use such lenses at all ... I suspect our definitions of simple probably vary ;-)
> 
> For me it starts from knowing where you want the plane of focus, and setting the lens to do what you want. The numbers get things in the right area, and you can tweak stuff to look good. I even do this using such lenses hand held, so there needn't be any long deliberation over it (my own minor heresy)
> 
> ...



Sorry Keith, I'm a bit confused, you say you are wary of writing a guide using specific numbers, then criticise me for providing such a form of words?

All the best mate.


----------



## dolina (Aug 28, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Looking forward to the full frame mirrorless body to match this adapter.
> ...


Good point.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 28, 2015)

Tinky said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry - just not a way I'd look to use such lenses at all ... I suspect our definitions of simple probably vary ;-)
> ...



Sorry, it seems we're at cross purposes - I've already written guides with numbers, that's what I use. 

If I was wary of writing something, it would be -without- the numbers... 
That's why I wondered what you'd want?


----------



## Tinky (Aug 28, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> Unfortunately I've discovered that even a simple list of numbers scares off a significant number of photographers,



I picked that bit up wrong, apologies, I took it to mean that you wouldn't use numbers period.

I don't know how useful numbers would be for the tilt function as the planes could be at any angle from the camera, each scenario is potentially unique. I've always found shift fairly straight forward if you excuse the pun, one good bit of advice I was given was to slightly undershift and let a tiny ickle little bit of perspective in, it stops the top of the structure appearing too un-natural.


----------



## alliumnsk (Sep 1, 2015)

*Re: Sensor movement*



keithcooper said:


> If you consider how few people understand (or want to know) how to make effective use of T/S lenses


That is because T/S lenses are fully manual heavy expensive cludges. When everything done via automatic it'll save users from complex manual operations and even can function in "green" modes.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 1, 2015)

*Re: Sensor movement*



alliumnsk said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > If you consider how few people understand (or want to know) how to make effective use of T/S lenses
> ...


Good luck with any user interface on that one 
Never underestimate the ineptitude and lack of understanding of your audience when designing 'easy' interfaces for complex kit. 

Light field and computational imaging will eventually be far more flexible for any 'Auto' modes, and not need the complexities (and limitations) of moving tilting elements.

Even then I suspect I'll still be enjoying my "fully manual heavy expensive kludges"


----------



## alliumnsk (Sep 22, 2015)

*Re: Sensor movement*



keithcooper said:


> Good luck with any user interface on that one
> Never underestimate the ineptitude and lack of understanding of your audience when designing 'easy' interfaces for complex kit.


Well there is already interface called A-DEP. I don't see why it can't be automatic in green modes.


keithcooper said:


> Light field and computational imaging will eventually be far more flexible for any 'Auto' modes, and not need the complexities (and limitations) of moving tilting elements.


Yes. Someday. Now there's very heavy pixel tradeoff (if you need 4x depth you need 16x number of pixels) and exit pupil of the lens has to be coupled with the sensor which makes it er... limited to fixed lens cameras.
Sensor tilting isn't more complex than double reflex mirror.


keithcooper said:


> Even then I suspect I'll still be enjoying my "fully manual heavy expensive kludges"


Why not. Some people still enjoy shooting film and manual lenses when there's digital and AF.


----------

