# Canon back to the drawingboard or is there still hope?



## MxM (Jun 17, 2015)

The industry has been shocked by the new A7(R)II series. Hasselblad and Nikon will adopt the new sensor, but what will be the answer from Canon?

- Back to the drawingboard? (Time issue)
- Not impressed, and release the new 5D(x)/1D(x) this year instead of 2016 (Otherwise Canon may/can/will lose some customers)
- Adopt the sensor and play the same game with Hasselblad and/or Nikon?
- Already lost this round

Anyway, Sony slapped the others in the face...  David vs Goliath anyone?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

YAPODFC. :


----------



## dak723 (Jun 17, 2015)

Hope for what? Since Canon cameras already take excellent photos, are very reliable, have excellent ergonomics and a lens lineup that is equal or better than anyone else, I don't think they need to do anything special. Will they lose the gear-head demographic? Perhaps. And that would be a good thing if those folks move on to the Sony forums and let Canon users enjoy their cameras and the fine photos that they take.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 17, 2015)

Reports of the demise of Canon have been greatly exaggerated. 

Canon will probably continue doing what they have been doing -- providing a photographic system that fits the needs of their customer demographic... and continue to do it well.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 17, 2015)

MxM said:


> The industry has been shocked by



You're not a very good troll.


----------



## siegsAR (Jun 17, 2015)

A lot of people thought the world would end at 2012; or are we in (mirrorless) Nirvana already?


----------



## distant.star (Jun 17, 2015)

.
No one has slapped anyone in the face. That's just plain silly.

Sony is offering nice new options for anyone interested in making good pictures. There is no way that is a threat to any company.

The more good photography equipment there is, the more people will find satisfaction in making pictures -- and that's good for everyone, Sony AND Canon included.

This is the best of times to be a photographer!


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Jun 17, 2015)

MxM said:


> Anyway, Sony slapped the others in the face...  David vs Goliath anyone?


If by "Goliath" you mean Sony. At 105th on the Forbes Global 500, the nearest camera competitor is Panasonic at 106th. Canon is down at 292nd and Nikon isn't even on the list.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 17, 2015)

Here's a look at how the game-changing world-beating A7II compared with the Nikon D750:
http://www.soundimageplus.com/soundimageplus/2015/6/14/sony-a7-ii-compared-to-nikon-d750
The author was not impressed, finding it worse in almost every way. Decided to keep his D750 and sell the A7II. Let's hope the A7RII is better.

Thank goodness Canon doesn't have to go back to the drawing board on things like:
24-70/2.8 ... Sony doesn't make one for their FE mount;
24-70/4 ... Sony's has a crazy amount of distortion like a cheap lens (but it's $1,200);
70-200/2.8 ... Sony doesn't make one for their FE mount;
70-200/4 ... Sony's is heavier than Canon's;
85/1.8 ... Zeiss's has a crazy amount of distortion like a cheap leans (but it's $1,200), while Canon's is about $350 and has almost no distortion.
Etc., etc.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 17, 2015)

zlatko said:


> Here's a look at how the game-changing world-beating A7II compared with the Nikon D750:
> http://www.soundimageplus.com/soundimageplus/2015/6/14/sony-a7-ii-compared-to-nikon-d750
> The author was not impressed, finding it worse in almost every way. Decided to keep his D750 and sell the A7II. Let's hope the A7RII is better.



So, if I understand it, a fan boy got in a a7II so he could "slap it down" and reinforce his belief in Nikon?


----------



## zlatko (Jun 17, 2015)

Tugela said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a look at how the game-changing world-beating A7II compared with the Nikon D750:
> ...



Not exactly. It's a rather practical comparison. Apparently you disagree.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 17, 2015)

Tugela said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a look at how the game-changing world-beating A7II compared with the Nikon D750:
> ...



You know a "review" is disingenuous when it starts off by attaching a battery grip and a huge Nikon lens on the Sony to kill off the size and weight advantage for Sony to begin the article. Ever heard of carrying an extra (small) battery for Sony? What about the nice and small native Sony/Fe lens like FE55 f/1.8 and FE35 f/2.8?


----------



## dak723 (Jun 17, 2015)

Tugela said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a look at how the game-changing world-beating A7II compared with the Nikon D750:
> ...



Apparently anyone who disagrees with the idea that the Sony A7 cameras are better than all of the competition are reduced to being "fan boys." That's an open-minded attitude! Having bought an A7 II to replace my Canon 6D, I too was very interested in how they compare. Of course, since I actually took photos and ignored the internet test sites, my conclusions are clearly flawed and nothing but the opinion of a Canon fan boy. But the Sony was returned. If it had taken pics that were the equal to the Canon's, then I would have kept the Sony and sold the Canon since I was really looking for a smaller, lighter camera. But - to my eye (which is the only eye that counts when you are choosing your camera) - the Canon took the better pics. Even though I prefer an OVF, if the Sony pics were the equal of the Canon's I still would have chosen the Sony, but they weren't. And since I do prefer the OVF, and since the kit lens of the Sony was very poor, the choice was actually pretty easy. 

So, I think there is still some hope for Canon.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 17, 2015)

Poorly worded Subject for this thread--"back to the drawing board" clearly implies "hope."

Market share of Sony dSLR's is no threat to Canon or Nikon compared to declining intelligence and attention span in the populations of Europe and America. 

Chew on that.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 17, 2015)

0/10

Poor trolling.


----------



## drjlo (Jun 17, 2015)

dak723 said:


> Having bought an A7 II to replace my Canon 6D, I too was very interested in how they compare...But the Sony was returned. If it had taken pics that were the equal to the Canon's, then I would have kept the Sony and sold the Canon since I was really looking for a smaller, lighter camera. ..and since the kit lens of the Sony was very poor, the choice was actually pretty easy.



Many of us are still hanging around here at CR hoping (for Years) that Canon once again becomes industry-leading in sensor technology because we do love the Canon lenses, ergonomics, availability of tons of professional/lighting products, and the far superior customer service department. 

Just like you, I bought a Sony A7r for its portability and DR to see if it could replace my Canon 5D III. I still have both... Both take great photos, and each does certain things better than the other. IME, one needs to be very careful when comparing Sony to Canon to have a fair fight.

Firstly, the Sony kit lens, as you said, is so-so, so one needs to employee at least the FE 55mm or 35mm to comparable Canon lenses. Same goes for AF speed.

Secondly, the two systems' default color presentation is very different, so to compare, one needs to equalize the color for both before comparing other aspects such as DR, noise because otherwise, one's color preference will bias you too much. I use Xrite products to color profile both. 

I actually hope the new Sony BSI sensor isn't materially better for my shooting requirements because I'd rather keep using my 5DIII and A7r instead of wanting a $3200 body, not to mention the high-priced Sony/Zeiss native lenses.


----------



## Tinky (Jun 18, 2015)

Oh there's still hope, alright.

Look at any press pack containing purely professional photographers.. see many red rings and white lenses?

Look at almost every tv crew doing documentary work.. see many c300's?

Yes. There is still hope.

Canon are doing very well at making good solid gear that folk need just now.

Remember the mass Sony CCD failure? I had canon products that failed, KonicaMinolta products that failed and even, my gosh, Sony products that failed.

Sony do great work. I'm glad there is actually an alternative though. As sony do sometimes get it wrong.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> YAPODFC. :



Just for reference.



neuroanatomist said:


> YAPODFC.
> 
> Yet another prediction of doom for Canon.
> 
> ...



It took a minute to find that one.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 18, 2015)

Thank God for hope.

Now I don't have to sell all this Canon junk.

sek


----------



## dolina (Jun 18, 2015)

Competition is good.

Without it we'd still be using rangefinders and uberphotogs will say autofocus and autoaperture are bourgeoisie concepts.

;D


----------



## dak723 (Jun 18, 2015)

drjlo said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Having bought an A7 II to replace my Canon 6D, I too was very interested in how they compare...But the Sony was returned. If it had taken pics that were the equal to the Canon's, then I would have kept the Sony and sold the Canon since I was really looking for a smaller, lighter camera. ..and since the kit lens of the Sony was very poor, the choice was actually pretty easy.
> ...



I understand that for many folks they need to have the best camera. When I bought the cameras to compare, I didn't do it to create tests and come up with "evidence" to present to others. I did it to see which camera produced the pictures I thought were best. So, yes, the cameras have a different color "look." I prefer the Canon's color. I do not need to equalize the color to compare them. I am not planning to change the color in post production. Never. Not one time. So I choose the camera that gives me the color that I want. Same for contrast or the tone curve. Canon's was much to my preference - as I believe it is for many folks who like the "punchier" higher contrast images that has been a Canon "look" for a long time. Again, not looking to equalize anything to compare in post production. Only planning to do minimal post production of only a small percentage of pics. My guess is that this is the way the majority of folks take pics with their DSLRs. They are not pros or enthusiasts - they are people taking pics of vacations, family gatherings, other special events. Even some enthusiasts like me - who have been able to sell a few pics at summer art festivals - are looking for a camera that takes the best looking pics right from the camera or with minimal post processing. We are not into the tech, we are into the images - usually the printed image. I have never needed to do noise reduction on a pic above and beyond the RAW converter default. I have never had a pic that I couldn't lift the shadows to where I wanted with my Canon cameras. So all the fancy tests and DR ratings and high ISO charts are not important when I compare cameras and choose the one I will buy. I look at THE IMAGES. I compare them. Which camera has the color I like best, the contrast or tone curve, the higher percentage of properly exposed shots, the most accurate AF, the sharper images. Pretty simple really when you take away all the internet garbage.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 18, 2015)

drjlo said:


> I actually hope the new Sony BSI sensor isn't materially better for my shooting requirements because I'd rather keep using my 5DIII and A7r instead of wanting a $3200 body



Odd. I hope that every new product is materially better than what I have - if consumers didn't expect improvements, product lines would stagnate.

A new product coming along doesn't affect what I already have. 

If you'd rather keep the 5DIII, keep it. I'm keeping mine when the A7R2 gets here, though I'll likely offload my A7R.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 18, 2015)

Shuddup and shoot.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 18, 2015)

Canon knows its market and limits.
Canon produces excellent lenses that can produce higher level of micro-contrast that Sony lenses can't and actually can't take advantage of high MP sensors they produce.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 18, 2015)

MxM said:


> Hasselblad and Nikon will adopt the new sensor, but what will be the answer from Canon?



The only problem Canon has is that their products aren't as new, exciting or interesting as the competitors. But, deep down, most people don't really care - they just want cameras that work. Canon are the Toyota Corolla of the camera world.

FWIW, I don't think Canon need to be too worried about Hasselblad's involvement in the FF mirrorless market.


----------



## MxM (Jun 22, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> MxM said:
> 
> 
> > Hasselblad and Nikon will adopt the new sensor, but what will be the answer from Canon?
> ...



How many Toyota's do you see on the road? ???
True, people just want cameras that work, but not for the prices that Canon currently put on their products. There are much cheaper (and maybe better) alternatives.

Sony listens to their customers that's what i'm trying to say, all the people at Canon can't read or are deaf...

The A7(R)II surely is a game changer, First Nikon, then Sony and who or what's next? Just fancy words don't cut it anymore.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2015)

MxM said:


> Sony listens to their customers that's what i'm trying to say, all the people at Canon can't read or are deaf...



Sony listens to people who post frequently on the internet, Canon listens to people who buy cameras.


----------



## wyldeguy (Jun 22, 2015)

drjlo said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Well I can understand why a reviewer would want to put a Nikon lens on the Sony. This would make the review about the camera itself and not have a lens give an unfair advantage to one or the other. I'm not saying Nikon lenses are better than the Sony ones, even though that is generally the case. The battery grip makes sense if you know that the Sony has a small battery and dies quickly, which can be the case with mirrorless, and don't want to be changing batteries constantly. If the only thing you can attack a review for is that they have removed the, constantly mentioned, benefit of mirrorless then I'd say it's a fair review. Besides, the camera is still smaller and lighter and the overall system is still smaller and lighter. They haven't removed your precious size and weight advantage that all mirrorless lovers cling to like lampreys.


----------



## wyldeguy (Jun 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> MxM said:
> 
> 
> > Sony listens to their customers that's what i'm trying to say, all the people at Canon can't read or are deaf...
> ...



I think Sony listens to their shareholders more. They change hardware designs faster than any other company, knowing that their fans will probably buy the newer version. Just look at the playstation. The PS3 went through something like 5 generations in 8 years, some changed hardware, form factor or software. The playstation portable is another example. I bought the original when it came out. Within 3 years they had completely changed their minds on the design and made mine useless. Both products still named the same had changed completely from the original offering with no thought given to the original users. Sony doesn't care about their "fans" they only care about profit. They know their fans will re-buy products because they have a feature they want/need. I will probably still buy a PS4 at some point, despite being screwed by them on both of the afore mentioned products, because they have games I want to play. Until they have the games I want I will continue to play Xbox. Once I'm done with Sony I will go back to playing xbox. Before people call me a Microsoft fanboy I will say this. Microsoft wasn't immune to changing its system over the same 8 years but they didn't make the original Xbox 360 obsolete like Sony did with the PS3 and PSP.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> wyldeguy said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Er, unless you are a forward thinking company, one that can make a painful decision on something core, like a lens mount once every few decades, but design it with enough future proofed capacity in it to remain competitive whichever way the market goes. Somebody that designed a lens mount, for instance, that was able to transition from film cameras to digital cameras, from 135 to APS-C and APS-H, and even a small mirrorless, as well as to various movie and video formats; a mount that has proven to be the best design with no mechanical linkages, that came to be weather sealable, with spare electrical contacts to allow for image stabilization in many generations, to encompass new features like focus distance information for advanced metering. 

A company that could protect their customer base like that, that appreciates lenses are the key to taking unique images and are the heart of a photographic system, now that is the kind of company I would be happy to spend my hard earned money on.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 22, 2015)

canon isn't going to do anything. Their entire business relies on a legacy lens system designed for the times where mirrors were essential. But today they have basically no lenses for the modern full frame miror-less future and even if they started today, they are already playing catchup, a position they don't know how to play. So they will play to the past and do what they can to prevent people from going to sony by matching some of the specs with the same old DSLRs they have always relied on to carry the bulk of their sales: low-mid end bodies.

However ultimately they lose because their system is not going to work as well as sony's a system designed from the ground up for the future where mirrors are only useful in your car and bathroom. Even if they go Thom Hogan's DSLR: basically keep the mount the same and remove the mirror, these bulky cameras will still be at a disadvantage with their film-era gargantuan mounts and extreme mount to sensor distance. Sure, they may keep the few sport and action shooters out there that are loading lenses on mules, but their vast market is basically experiencing an iphone moment: canon is blackberry and they realized the keyboard isn't needed because touch is finally good enough. Mirror-less is finally good enough it seems, and if not today, it is inevitably going to be better.

Canon needs to re-invent themselves and that means something they probably could do, but management will not do or will not do well. One only has to see their APSC offering. Basically they know they must do this but they are resisting it so much they killed it and worse yet, did it wrong being unable to ship a full frame camera with this new mount. Nikon is probably doing the same thing with the nikon 1, but at least they try to market as if they want to sell it.

So like blackberry before them, and we already see this, they are basically going to double down on their legacy and spread FUD (today's equivalent to BB's "you can't type on glass") in regards to mirrorless. Probably their fans will sing in lockstep (as did BB users). 

So while I think canon has what it takes to make a comeback as does Nikon, I think japanese managers are simply too proud to move forward when their tactical advantages of the past are no more and they are forced to play as challengers again. If 10 years down the road I saw companies are still doing big ass DSLRs for the few people who shoots sports and that is all they amount to, while wedding, portraits, landscape and basically everybody else is with another OEM, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a new era.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 22, 2015)

<So while I think canon has what it takes to make a comeback as does Nikon, I think japanese managers are simply too proud to move forward when their tactical advantages of the past are no more and they are forced to play as challengers again.>

Odd statement. You realize Sony is a Japanese company right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2015)

psolberg said:


> canon isn't going to do anything. Their entire business relies on a legacy lens system designed for the times where mirrors were essential. But today they have basically no lenses for the modern full frame miror-less future and even if they started today, they are already playing catchup, a position they don't know how to play.



Yeah, mirrorless killed the dSLR right on schedule, last year. Somehow we all missed it – what silly, unobservant people we are. Today, it seems Canon really has missed the boat since unit sales of mirrorless cameras are growing dramatically...arent they?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > canon isn't going to do anything. Their entire business relies on a legacy lens system designed for the times where mirrors were essential. But today they have basically no lenses for the modern full frame miror-less future and even if they started today, they are already playing catchup, a position they don't know how to play.
> ...



2009: mirrorless is gonna finish off DSLR's!
2010-2014: each year was surely the year!
2015: this is the year man, I can feel it!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 24, 2015)

Well a link to senior Canon Japan personnel stating the EF mount is now a limitation would be a damn sight more interesting than the totally superfluous Wikipedia link you did supply.

Now look into the limitations and compatibility issues those companies that kept their mounts have. Nikon is far and away the worst offender, indeed it is easier to use older Nikon lenses on an EOS body than on a Nikon. http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility

Or I could point out the Sony lens compatibility farce, you know, the cutting edge company that has been making interchangeable lens cameras for what, nine years, and has two completely separate mounts, two versions of each mount and numerous crossover issues, they obviously copied Nikon with their lens mount strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_A-mount_lenses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_E-mount


----------



## Tinky (Jun 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Well a link to senior Canon Japan personnel stating the EF mount is now a limitation would be a damn sight more interesting than the totally superfluous Wikipedia link you did supply.
> ...



Point of pedantry.

Nikon were ahead of the game when it came to cropped lenses. Their DX (croped image circle) lenses mount fine on their FX cameras. The cameras detect they are DX lenses and crop the image accordingly.

You can't mount a stock EF-s lens on a canon EF mount body, regardless of whether its a 10D with a cropped sensor, a 1D with a different crop or full frame.

I once again detect a hint of 'full frame or nothing at all'. Ok it's a gear forum. Not everybody is shooting or aspires to shoot full frame. I think Canon have generally got it right. Lots of lovely EF lenses that fit all EOS users, a small selection of EF-m and EF-s lenses that play to the unique strengths of those systems.

As discussed before and ad infintum.. EF is the key to Canons system. They should, in my opinion concentrate on making great lenses can be adapted for use by all EOS users... they might want to play to the strengths of the EF-m and make a couple more pancakes, but overall I think they have got it right.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 2, 2015)

dak723 said:


> I understand that for many folks they need to have the best camera.


No, the _want_ the "best" camera (by which they mean the one which supposedly has a miracle sensor) because off-the-shelf sensor bragging rights are easier to acquire than talent.

And in the meantime, many of us continue to take fantastic pictures with our Canons anyway...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Point of pedantry.
> 
> Nikon were ahead of the game when it came to cropped lenses. Their DX (croped image circle) lenses mount fine on their FX cameras. The cameras detect they are DX lenses and crop the image accordingly.
> 
> ...



Your points are not pedantic, they are germane.

However your opinion of them is not necessarily shared.

Yes you can mount DX lenses on FX cameras, but many wouldn't consider that an advantage, how does a compulsory crop actually help? Now can that FX body actually focus that DX lens? Some can, some can't. OK, but can that FX body meter with that DX lens? That isn't a give. How about aperture control? Again, not a given.

So your opinion is it is better to be able to mount a lens that gives you a compulsory crop, might not focus, have no aperture control, or be able to meter, than it is to not be able to mount the lens. Given the choice I would prefer a system that doesn't allow me to mount the lens.

Being able to mount the lens is one thing, actually retaining the functionality of the lens so you can take a picture is another.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 2, 2015)

What FX bodies (fx meaning full frame digital) will not AF or control aperture on a dx lens?

If I had said full frame then fair enough, but I was specifically careful to say fx...

Ok lets ignore fx/dx, lets look at Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, who all make lenses specifically for canon aps-c cameras, but using the EF mount. It's a 12 year old debate right enough, but I sometimes wonder why canon couldn't do the same?

If canon concentrate on making high quality 'affordable' lenses in ef mount then every eos user wins. Although for hobby shooters a canon body and 10-250mm trio of lenses for under a grand is actually very difficult to argue with.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 2, 2015)

Tinky said:


> What FX bodies (fx meaning full frame digital) will not AF or control aperture on a dx lens?
> 
> If I had said full frame then fair enough, but I was specifically careful to say fx...
> 
> ...


Canon still holds the patent right for the EF-S mount. Therefore non body dares to make lens with EF-S mount. The patent right for EF mount has expired. Therefore it is free for all. Also it is easier to make APS-C lens than the FF lens. That is why Canon makes EF mount and EF-S mount (cost saving and/or better performance).


----------



## Tinky (Jul 3, 2015)

Hi Rocky

only half answers my question though... I think it might have been better if there was no ef-s mount at all, that canon should have went down the route taken by Nikon, in that canon retained their main mount the EF.

I get the safety implications that a short back focus lens could collide with the mirror, but sigma tamron tokina samyang all seem able to make lenses that use the ef mount, concentrate the image circle over an aps-c inager and don't break 135 format dslr mirrors...

Anyway, like I said, old debate... rekindled I suppose by the ef-m, but thats a different kettle of fish anyway, one where I think the adaptability to ef is key, rather than native ef... i.e there should be a range of tiny ef-m lenses that cater to the strengths of the system.. not the same old plasticky, slow aperture zooms, just slightly smaller. Fast ef-m prine pancakes all the way...!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Hi Rocky
> 
> only half answers my question though... I think it might have been better if there was no ef-s mount at all, that canon should have went down the route taken by Nikon, in that canon retained their main mount the EF.
> 
> ...



And I don't. 

I doubt Canon do either, the purity and 100% compatibility of all EF lenses to every EOS camera is so core to who Canon are.

Also, don't lose track of the god awful cock ups Nikon made in the first few years of digital. First they were insistent there would never be a need for FF digital sensors and they stuck to that for years, all their 'digital' lenses couldn't be used on their film cameras (their only FF option), they pissed about with in body AF, then in lens AF and the compatibility issues that arose from that, the DX bodies couldn't focus the film body lenses because they didn't have the in body AF motor and most of the film bodies couldn't AF the DX lenses because they didn't have the lens connectors and the lenses didn't have the image circle anyway. Then they realised they were going to have to make FF digital sensors, even after making so called 'FX' lenses that didn't cover the FF image circle, have you seen the list of 70-200 f2.8's they have had to make to keep track of their ever changing road map? I know a Nikon using pro who had to upgrade his top of the line 70-200 f2.8 four times in something like eight years to eventually get one that worked with all his cameras. 

Any EF 70-200 will work, not just mount but fully work, on any EOS camera from 1984 until they stop making EOS bodies. I prefer that kind of forward thinking engineering solution and the minor side route taken to give entry level shooters cheaper and smaller EF-S lenses is perfectly fine with me.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 3, 2015)

any sigma dc lens with an Ef mount will mount and operate on any EOS camera...
any tamron di lens with an EF mount will mount and operate on any EOS camera...

but it is what it is.

I'm agreed that the EF mount is core to canons success.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 3, 2015)

psolberg said:


> canon isn't going to do anything. ...
> However ultimately they lose because...
> Canon needs to ...
> So like blackberry before them,...
> So while I think canon ...




Lots of pronouncement, speculation and analogy, yet very little evidence.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > canon isn't going to do anything. ...
> ...



YAPODFC. 

I've now typed that frequently enough that my iPhone autocompletes it. Canon is still here.


----------



## Zen (Jul 3, 2015)

I can't believe this! It is all just so much baloney!

If you don't like the cameras, don't buy 'em! 

Just go out and take pictures, or, if you prefer, make images!


----------



## George D. (Jul 3, 2015)

The industry is not a shooting gallery for Canon. Each competitor has a place in the sun. 5D S/SR is a great product, so is A7R and D810. Actually the launching rate of good products is so fast it's becoming faster than return of investment. You should aim for 100-200k pictures (the shutter's lifetime) before switching to a newer dSLR otherwise your ROI is compromised. Unless you're becoming a ...gear collector.


----------



## ykn123 (Jul 3, 2015)

man is it boring ,yet another: - "sony is doing so well, dslr is dead, all canon users must be oldscool, silly or both" - thread. 
I still hate an EVF, i still love the Canon DSLR ergonomics. 
I DONT want a small, mirrorless camera just because it might be the current thing some photographers or wannabe photographers felt in love with.
You know what ? I just purchased a 1DsM3 - yes - indeed. Its because i have one client that i take between 75.000 and 100.000 photos for per year. I wanted/needed FF and >16MB.
I wanted to have a shutter that let me use the camera for about the next 3 years for that jobs and the camera should provide good IQ at a reasonable speed. 
(its a studio setup so i'm not in need for my 1DX 12fps kind of thing). Well and if it smashes to the ground it should have a chance to just continue to still work.
I used to have 5DM2 for this but wanted a longer shutter lifecycle AND more AF points to move on and focus to where i want to have the focus.
I got a used one for a very nice price (below 2000€) and i love it. And heck, the camera was introduced in 2008. 
Like the 5DM2s it will generate 100K revenue per year and just works and produces great images. 
I dont need to jump on every new gadget and trust that Canon likein the past will continue to offer me a number of choices. And if not, then maybe i purchase a nother brand somewhen and later one purchase another Canon - who knows, who care's. I never actually told people to buy Canon over something else. I just dont get that Sony Hype and especially why people try teach everybody that Canon is dead. Its not. Definitely not now.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 3, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Hi Rocky
> 
> only half answers my question though... I think it might have been better if there was no ef-s mount at all, that canon should have went down the route taken by Nikon, in that canon retained their main mount the EF.
> 
> ...


Tinky, Your other half of the question has already been answered in my previous reply. "Also it is easier to make APS-C lens than the FF lens. That is why Canon makes EF mount and EF-S mount (cost saving and/or better performance)"


----------



## Tinky (Jul 3, 2015)

No, because as nikon, sigma, minolta / sony, tamron tokina all prove, you can make a lens with an aps-c image circle, but still use a 135mm mount. Sigma, tamron and tokina have proved you can even do it on an EF mount.

I'm not debating the market or need or benefit of aps-c lenses. I'm debating the use of different mounts.

It seems to be broadly accepted, including by me, that the EF mount (and therefore access to the EF system) is a major, if not the major factor in Canon's continued success. 

So thats what I'm getting at... whilst its true that Nikon have kind of botched the F mount for 40 years of its life, canons EF mount continues to rise to modern challenges, such as cinema cameras, and arguably to a point, mirrorless. For all that, I think Nikons approach to DX/FX (note, exclusively in the digital realm) was somewhat to be envied. 

No round pegs and square holes. Just a smarter camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 3, 2015)

You have your reasons for thinking Canon made a mistake, I don't agree with you, it is as simple as that. Of course there is no reason why Canon couldn't make EF-S lenses fully compatible with FF mirrors, they made a deliberate choice not to that i agree with.

What Canon have said before is that every EF lens will work correctly on every EOS camera, if they had not changed the mount for EF-S lenses then those 'DX' EF lenses wouldn't have worked correctly on ff digital cameras. I think that is the right choice, you don't, we just have to agree to differ.


----------



## weixing (Jul 3, 2015)

Tinky said:


> No, because as nikon, sigma, minolta / sony, tamron tokina all prove, you can make a lens with an aps-c image circle, but still use a 135mm mount. Sigma, tamron and tokina have proved you can even do it on an EF mount.
> 
> I'm not debating the market or need or benefit of aps-c lenses. I'm debating the use of different mounts.
> 
> ...


Hi,
May be Canon want to prevent user accidentally mount a "DX" lens to a FF camera and only to realized that all the shots taken earlier was in "DX" mode?? May be Canon want to prevent dishonest shop selling a "DX" lens to an uninformed FF camera user at FF lens price?? 

Anyway, at least it easier to differential "DX" lens and "FF" lens in Canon and the chance of accidentally buying a "DX" lens for a FF camera is very small.

Have a nice day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2015)

Tinky said:


> No round pegs and square holes. Just a smarter camera.



Nikon APS-C user who upgrades to FF can keep using the DX lenses. 

Canon APS-C user who upgrades to FF must give Canon additional money for lenses to cover their EF-S range. Canon likes money. 

Smarter camera...or smarter company?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > canon isn't going to do anything. Their entire business relies on a legacy lens system designed for the times where mirrors were essential. But today they have basically no lenses for the modern full frame miror-less future and even if they started today, they are already playing catchup, a position they don't know how to play.
> ...



I just have to wonder why some of these people think Canon would have to design a whole new lens system or mount for a mirrorless camera... if that really is the future. 

I would think Canon would design the camera around the great lenses it already has rather than a whole new system. That way Canon would already have a built in market for a new mirrorless camera. Somebody might say mirrorless would absolutely require a new lens mount and series. I think a smart bunch of engineers may end up proving them wrong. Of course, this is all pure speculation. 

If Canon did decide to come out with a mirrorless camera with an EF mount I don't think it would portend the death of the DSLR, but rather the birth of a new era of market dominance with the wedding of the DSLR / Mirrorless choices under the EF mount.

Couldn't resist that last paragraph.


----------



## weixing (Jul 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > No round pegs and square holes. Just a smarter camera.
> ...


Hi,
Hmm... May be Nikon is the smarter company because Nikon know that in the end, user will buy a FF version of the DX lens after upgrade to a FF camera. By making their DX lens compatible with FF camera, user will buy a DX lens first without much consideration thinking that they can use the same DX lens in FF camera when they upgrade. But when the user upgrade to a FF camera, they'll realized that in order to utilize the FF camera, they still need a FF lens... so in the end user will buy a FF version of their DX lens.

On other hand, Canon is "honest" and by making their "DX" lens not compatible with FF camera, they basically force the user to think more about the future... if you going to buy a FF camera in the future, don't buy EF-S lens.

Have a nice day.


----------



## weixing (Jul 3, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...


Hi,
IMHO, Canon current DSLR ergonomic is very good, so Canon should just use the same mount and same form factor as the current DSLR for their "serious" mirrorless camera in the future... just remove the mirror and replace the prism with an EVF. Also, using the same form factor mean that it can have a larger battery and mirrorless camera will need a high capacity battery.

EF-M mount camera will be for those who want a smaller mirrorless camera.

Have a nice day.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Jul 3, 2015)

I wonder if Canon will be forced to update their cameras sooner... like the quick (2 year) update done to the Nikon D800 and D800E, as well as their D4 to D4s upgrade.
It has been nearly 3.5 years since the 5D mark III was launched and we still don't have a 5D mark IV announcement.

Canon is going to have a hard time competing with fresh products that keep rolling out from Nikon and Sony if they don't change to a ~2 year release cycle OR release a killer camera that is ahead enough to last that long.


----------



## Proscribo (Jul 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nikon APS-C user who upgrades to FF can keep using the DX lenses.
> 
> Canon APS-C user who upgrades to FF must give Canon additional money for lenses to cover their EF-S range. Canon likes money.
> 
> Smarter camera...or smarter company?


I really like this idea of using DX lenses on a FX body. It's like.. you get to use maybe >1400€ (if you don't buy used cameras) to a FX body and then get lower quality pictures with much less pixels with that new, shiny body. 

Honestly, what's the point of using DX lenses on a FX body? Fisheyes maybe.. and some lenses work somewhat but mostly you're just lowering you picture quality. (Unless your DX body was something like D70?)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 3, 2015)

[mera...or smarter company? 
...Canon is "honest" and by making their "DX" lens not compatible with FF camera, they basically force the user to think more about the future... if you going to buy a FF camera in the future, don't buy EF-S lens.
[/quote]

Think more about the future...buy a more expensive lens today. I wonder how many of those people never even get a full frame camera?


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

mistaspeedy said:


> I wonder if Canon will be forced to update their cameras sooner... like the quick (2 year) update done to the Nikon D800 and D800E, as well as their D4 to D4s upgrade.
> It has been nearly 3.5 years since the 5D mark III was launched and we still don't have a 5D mark IV announcement.
> 
> Canon is going to have a hard time competing with fresh products that keep rolling out from Nikon and Sony if they don't change to a ~2 year release cycle OR release a killer camera that is ahead enough to last that long.



You know that the D800/E has had quite some issues (AF issues, pentaprism issues, broken external shutter control sockets inside the body, the green tinted screen etc...) Read here: http://www.martinzimelka.com/pages/D800_8.html , and that the D810 is mainly the bug fix version of the same camera? Same goes for the D4 and D4s ... of course they also included some other improvements with software and some other parts of cameras hardware to improve IQ and DR a bit ... 

As my 5d MK III after over 125.000 pics still works fine and I got about the first one on the first day my local dealer had I slightly disagree that canon is in need for such short upgrade circles ... 

and btw. Canon released a killer camera for most professional users 4 years ago (1DX) which is together with the telephoto lenses still ahead of Nikon (Nikon will probably match Canons 2012 system (camera and lens) by the beginning of 2016, when their new 500 and 600mm lenses become available) I still have to see a pro sports photographer who regularly needs to push shadows for 5 stops ... same goes with most wildlife photographers ...

However it is to be said that Sony/Nikon is better with some aspects of their cameras which are mainly related to the sensor ... but the combination of 5DsR/1DX which most pros doing Landscape/ detailed big print work and fast action photography will soon have is not really behind much only more specialized to one or the other use ...


----------



## emko (Jul 3, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> mistaspeedy said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if Canon will be forced to update their cameras sooner... like the quick (2 year) update done to the Nikon D800 and D800E, as well as their D4 to D4s upgrade.
> ...



Same got 5D3 day one and then had to get the lightleak issue fixed by Canon adding some black tape WOW


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

emko said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > mistaspeedy said:
> ...



And we all know that this problem really only existed at 12PM in a dark coal cellar ... btw I did not have mine fixed till today (just too lazy) maybe out of boredom when my other body finally arrives I will finally do it (but I have no real reason for doing so bc. of actually seeing a problem somewhere in my pictures) ...


----------



## Tinky (Jul 3, 2015)

And so it rumbles on....

Sorry for reviving an ancient debate, my point was merely that I agree the EF mount is pivotal to canons success...

I hate myself for doing this, but heres a scenario.


Uncle Bob buys a rebel. Quite likes it. His friends and family all tell him he's a natural. The guys in the shop all tell him how great his pictures are, and oh, do you not think your kit lens is starting to hold you back a wee bit?

Why not try the 60mm macro, also makes a great portrait lens? Really you need ring usm, really you need f2.8, we've got the EF-s 17-55 on offer just now, great cashback deal from canon? Check the reviews, virtually an L etc etc

So Uncle Bob has his rebel and a step up with his glass. He'd like EF lenses, but hey they are a lot more money for say a 16-35... and he's never going to be able to afford a 1Ds anyway, 5D anyway, 5D2 anyway... whats that you say? My lump sum at the same time as the 6D comes out...

Oh but I've a bag of EF-s lenses says Uncle Bob. 

And Nikon have just brought out the D800...

Those extra 16MP are bound to bag me a camera club prize, and as I can't use my EF-s lenses anyway...


All of which is a long way of saying.. those are the tricks I used as a retailer. And Neuro has hit the nail on the head.

Nikon users meanwhile get a soft transition rather than having to buy all new kit at once...

Okay the crop is hefty, but if you are only posting to flickr? And lets not forget how big a 6MP print can be on your living room wall...

I have no data whatsoever... but I think if Canon had given x0D/Rebel users a soft transition to full frame it would have been better for everybody, including Canon.

But it didn't happen that way. And you all obviously disagree. So Phucket. Lets move on.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 3, 2015)

Tinky said:


> And so it rumbles on....
> 
> Sorry for reviving an ancient debate, my point was merely that I agree the EF mount is pivotal to canons success...
> 
> ...



I think you're over analysing it, perhaps not in the last sentence.

This whole 'FF is the holy grail' thing is only applicable to a small minority when looking at all 'serious' camera sales. Offering dedicated lenses for the smaller image circle of APS was the right way to go IMO, and looking at the price and quality they can achieve now it makes _me_ wonder why _I'm_ not using crop.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 3, 2015)

Tinky said:


> And so it rumbles on....
> 
> Sorry for reviving an ancient debate, my point was merely that I agree the EF mount is pivotal to canons success...
> 
> ...



Just why would uncle bob buy a Canon Rebel if he is a Nikon shooter ??? or Penatx or Sony or Panasonic ??? This is screwed: if he likes Canon it needs a lot to get him away from Canon and most ppl. don't buy into FF systems bc. they want to shoot DX lenses in crop mode ...


----------



## Tinky (Jul 4, 2015)

I worked in camera retail from the late 90s to the mid 2000s.

Right on the transition.

Brand loyalty didn't really come into it.

Most folk of ordinary means bought a compact. Were quite impressed. When the Rebel came out they bought that. A lot of pentax and minolta users delayed then betrayed their brand loyalty because these companies weren't coming up with the goods, or were far behind the curve when they did. The first pentax dslrs ran on AAs...

And there were no panasonic users in the DSLR market back then..


Anyway.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 4, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > And so it rumbles on....
> ...



FF is a lot of trouble for most casual camera users actually ... I only say weight/size ... M4/3 systems are imo the best for ppl. who want a bit more but not all the package of a nikon/canon/sony FF ... and there are some pretty good lenses too ... up to quality Leica glass ... just look at the little Panasonic 7-14mm lens - actually that thing looked way better than anything what canon could do 3 years ago ...


----------



## RobertP (Jul 5, 2015)

Why I won't be buying a Sony A7RII -

There isn't a native mount lens that I want at a price I'm willing to pay.
I can use Canon lenses but I have to spend more and add more weight by buying an adapter.
The focusing with a Canon lens is nearly as fast as a 6D or a 1DX but we haven't been told which.
I don't need IBIS for tripod mounted work.
I want a body that copes with 99% of my shooting wants so it will have to be good at wildlife and birds with a 100-400 lens and reasonable with an added teleconverter.

I could see me buying a Nikon but I won't be going over to Sony. The A7RII has nice marketing features but lacks a supporting system. All Canon needs to do is release a body with improved DR and that may be in development.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/04/eos-5d-mark-iv-to-use-eos-c300-mark-ii-technology-cr2/


----------



## danski0224 (Jul 5, 2015)

Count me in with the folks that wonder why Canon designed the EF-S lenses in such a way that they are incompatible with the EF mount.

Yes, I get that the image circle is smaller.

Like Nikon, a crop mode could have been put into the EF camera firmware. The gradual transition that others have mentioned.

The incompatibility may also hinder sales of Canon EF-S lenses. Outside of the 60mm macro, I didn't buy any other EF-S Canon lenses. It is strange how Canon chooses not to exploit the supposed advantage of the EF-S lenses and make a few "L worthy" standouts besides the 3 or 4 that are currently well regarded. 

Some of the 3rd party APS-C lenses for Canon cameras do fit and work on an EF mount camera just fine.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 5, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Count me in with the folks that wonder why Canon designed the EF-S lenses in such a way that they are incompatible with the EF mount.
> 
> Yes, I get that the image circle is smaller.
> 
> ...


EF-S lens is taking advantage of the smaller mirror and can use a shorter distance between the back of the lens and the sensor( especially for the wide angle zoom). If the EF-S lens is mounted on the FF body. It will damage the mirror.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 5, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> Count me in with the folks that wonder why Canon designed the EF-S lenses in such a way that they are incompatible with the EF mount.
> 
> Yes, I get that the image circle is smaller.
> 
> ...



I read somewhere, sometime ago that the current Nikon mount makes it impossible to design lenses beyond f1,4 (that being the actual reason why Nikon does not have such offering at 50 or 85mm and why also Zeiss is limited at 1,4f if it wants to remain compatible with both looks at the Otus being f1.4 ). 

Further than that you must remember that EFs mount was made when Canon FF DSLR (5D1 and 1DII) had about 12-15MP, now a crop on this would really not be too nice detail wise ... Maybe Canon just wanted its then users to shot nice pictures and not something weird bc. technical it can be done, but makes no sense in IQ ... 

Nikon's transition to high resolution FF was faster than Canons so their crop mode makes a bit of sense - with Canon it does not make any sense IQ wise before the 5DsR ...


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 5, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> I read somewhere, sometime ago that the current Nikon mount makes it impossible to design lenses beyond f1,4 (that being the actual reason why Nikon does not have such offering at 50 or 85mm and why also Zeiss is limited at 1,4f if it wants to remain compatible with both looks at the Otus being f1.4 ).



Another internet myth. 

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1435/NIKKOR-50mm-f%252F1.2.html


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 5, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > I read somewhere, sometime ago that the current Nikon mount makes it impossible to design lenses beyond f1,4 (that being the actual reason why Nikon does not have such offering at 50 or 85mm and why also Zeiss is limited at 1,4f if it wants to remain compatible with both looks at the Otus being f1.4 ).
> ...



Hardly a current design: Designed in 1981 this MF lens is mainly for Film cameras ... Nikon seems to be really innovative with its f1,2 line ;-) Maybe I should add "current" to what I wrote above as there is no current lens that works anymore ...


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 5, 2015)

If it would be easy today I really think Nikon would have designed such lenses for use in Fashion/Portrait photography ... Canon did 4 already in the current EF mount : 50mm f1 50mm f1,2 85mm f1,2 85mm f1,2 II


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 5, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



True, but it suggests the mount diameter isn't the limiting factor. Also bear in mind that even on the EF mount, for digital Canon 'fix' the data to accommodate f/1.2 exposure, much more so on the 5DII than the original 5D. I dread to think what it's doing with the 5Ds.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 5, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> If it would be easy today I really think Nikon would have designed such lenses for use in Fashion/Portrait photography ... Canon did 4 already in the current EF mount : 50mm f1 50mm f1,2 85mm f1,2 85mm f1,2 II



Not necessarily. In cameras Nikon and Canon are under different pressures. Cameras are part of Canon whereas Nikon is part of Mitsubishi. Given the pressure on Nikon to perform for Mitsubishi I imagine they feel the return in f1.2 lenses isn't worth the development and manufacturing cost, so they are leaving Canon alone on that one. Similar situation with the 7DII too. It's this difference why (IMO) Nikon cameras are getting cheaper (in quality) when compared with Canon - Nikon are probably under more pressure to make more margin per unit.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 5, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > If it would be easy today I really think Nikon would have designed such lenses for use in Fashion/Portrait photography ... Canon did 4 already in the current EF mount : 50mm f1 50mm f1,2 85mm f1,2 85mm f1,2 II
> ...



not sure if a lens design really makes much difference if specifications are known and you don't have to reinvent the wheel ... I mean you really think to design a f1,2 is so much different cost wise from a zoom or telephoto ... after all the 1,2f they could sell for considerably more than their current product: 50mmf1,2 - 1750 USD ; 85mm f1,2 2250 USD ... 

I also think the f1,2 lenses are show off lenses ... the pictures captured with these are very much in the public eye (fashion magazines, heads of state and international stars, playboy... etc) so they brand advertisement ... that's why Canon put a lot into the 50 f1,0 & 85mm f1,2 to capture the fashion market back in the days... as they did with the big whites for sports ...


----------



## danski0224 (Jul 5, 2015)

Rocky said:


> EF-S lens is taking advantage of the smaller mirror and can use a shorter distance between the back of the lens and the sensor( especially for the wide angle zoom). If the EF-S lens is mounted on the FF body. It will damage the mirror.



Some of the EF-S lenses will physically attach to a EF mount with a little modification. Not all of them work or work at all focus ranges due to interference. Many of the 3rd party EF-S (or "crop") lenses will work just fine on a FF camera without issue.

Canon should make a few standout L designated lenses for the EF-S lineup and take advantage of the supposed "cost savings". Otherwise, it is hard to come up with a reason besides making the user buy more lenses.




1982chris911 said:


> Further than that you must remember that EFs mount was made when Canon FF DSLR (5D1 and 1DII) had about 12-15MP, now a crop on this would really not be too nice detail wise ... Maybe Canon just wanted its then users to shot nice pictures and not something weird bc. technical it can be done, but makes no sense in IQ ...



It isn't simply about the MP count.

Have you used a 4.2mp Canon 1D? That camera puts out some impressive files, even today. Sure, you can't crop away 80% of the image, but if the capture fills the frame and is taken within the standard ISO range of the camera, it is still quite good.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 5, 2015)

1982chris911 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 1982chris911 said:
> ...



We're talking opinions here, but bear in mind Nikon would have to produce a lens which competed with Canon's 1.2, and it would be expensive to produce relative to what they would be able to sell it for. Also I think it is an exaggeration to say Canon took the fashion world by storm with the fast 50s and 85s. Judging by the involvement I've had in this area I'd say lenses like the 300 f2.8 were the favoured optic where possible. It would be interesting to know how many units Canon sells in the f/1.2 range. I would image it is minute compared with overall sales. Also I don't think it was the optics that resulted in Canon jumping ahead in sports; more like the AF.

Anyway, it's only opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Another internet myth.



We've had our share of those lately.


----------



## TAF (Jul 5, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...




Mirrorless might start making a dent if the designers weren't fixated on making miniature cameras with lousy ergonomics (I have an M, thank you very much).

The 50th percentile human has hands of a certain size. A 6D is a really excellent fit for those hands. Take out the mirror and see what happens.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 5, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Here is the technical explanation why there is only the old 50mm f1,2 and Nikon CANNOT really make a new one with AF - the back element of such a lens would be too big for the AF pins to fit into the body ... otherwise they would need a solution for this 

You can see it here: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-nikkor-50mm-f-1-4d-lens-review-21466
so the old 50mm f1,2 is the only one possible as it does not need those pins:

Canon's EF mounts has the pins further out and flat so you can use more room for the back element:
http://cdn-ae.pricena.com/files/images/products/original/136/Canon-EF-85mm-f12L-II-USM-Lens_5155_5f92b8f8fb776d68823ffd8677dbf50f.jpg


----------



## romanr74 (Jul 6, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Not sure this still holds true when you add an AF module to the design...


----------



## psolberg (Jul 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > If it would be easy today I really think Nikon would have designed such lenses for use in Fashion/Portrait photography ... Canon did 4 already in the current EF mount : 50mm f1 50mm f1,2 85mm f1,2 85mm f1,2 II
> ...



For nikon's financial pressures, look at Thom Hogan's site. He does the best job at this. As for the D400: the reason is nikon wanted to move people up to nikon's FX formt. Clearly that didn't go so well. They'll make a D400. It is trivial for them. They simply misjudged anybody cared for DX. Again, Thom Hogan called them out often and he was right: some people still care for APSC. As to when, it is anybody's guess.

The days where f1.2 glass is needed for low light photography are long gone. That is why canon no longer bothers with f1.0 lenses: the quality you're going to get on today's sensors would not be acceptable at the price they can sell it to. The current optical quality at f1.2 is also dismal which is why you don't see Zeiss put out such a thing because merely doing f1.2 for marketing while it is a mess of CA and softness is pointless. The OTUS line, which run circles around any f1.2L or faster lens is a testament to the lack of value in f1.2 lenses: you're just not going to get quality there and the cost and weight will go up. Zeiss doesn't answer to nikon or canon. They just want to make the best glass at a price you can actually afford (being relative here). f1.2 just isn't a means to quality and its small advantages over lighter and cheaper f1.4 lenses just isn't an issue anymore, at least not for a mere 2/3 of a stop. 

I don't know if canon will keep making f1.2 lenses or that nikon won't get around to it. It don't think it matters anymore with sensors as good as they are at high ISO and given the optical flaws of fast primes wide open are only going to be magnified by newer sensors. I'm guessing the decline in the DSLR market will push companies for more practical gear. Making a f/1.4 lens that performs at 50+MP will be more practical than one that does this at f/1.2. But who knows. The future of f1.0 and faster glass may be with mirrorless. Nikon already has a 1.2 prime for the 1 inch sensor. These are still practical as they can be made to perform given the smaller image circle they need to project.

Ultimately if Nikon or sony put out an f1.2 prime for full frame, I think it will be a heavy expensive niche lens. 



> Here is the technical explanation why there is only the old 50mm f1,2 and Nikon CANNOT really make a new one with AF - the back element of such a lens would be too big for the AF pins to fit into the body ... otherwise they would need a solution for this


They can solve it how canon did the 85 1.2, the AF contacts intrude in the back element. Or how canon did the 50 f1.0, where the contacts were even visible in bokeh white open.

Nikon can do this. The AF contacts aren't a problem for a mere 1.2 lens. They just have to do what canon has already done. I think they'd be more of an issue for a 1.0 lens, but again nobody makes those anymore due to their terrible performance wide open.

the intrusion of the contacts on the optical path of the rear element is exactly how canon solved this, and how nikon would.







the contacts would not be visible since they will be out of focus and the frame is rectangular, not square. It may yield for some funky artifacts for nikon depending on their geometries like they did on the canon f1.0

http://fstoppers.com/gear/ultimate-lens-bokeh-canon-50mm-f10-5059

notice the circles are clipped. 



> Not sure this still holds true when you add an AF module to the design...


AF module or not, same answer. It is just harder to do it but a 50 1.2 is perfectly possible if canon managed to work around the issue on the 50 1.0 and the 85 1.2. It isn't as if the problem hasn't been solved by canon already for more extreme cases where the EF mount was challenged. 

here is the 50 1.0 notice how the contacts clearly get in the way






conclusion: nikon can make such a design at least for a 50 f1.2. Again, the practicality of f1.2 is questionable today. Unless nikon went for an OTUS approach, f1.2 is going to look as flawed as it does on the EF lenses. And given such lens would probably run 10K, who'd buy it?

lastly here is the 50 1.2 nikon





notice how there is still room in there to do what canon did. in fact keep in mind nikon also has an aperture arm in there which they get rid of with their E lenses, so it is even easier now as before they would also have had to make room for the aperture arm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

psolberg said:


> at he contacts would not be visible since they will be out of focus and the frame is rectangular, not square. It may yield for some funky artifacts for nikon depending on their geometries like they did on the canon f1.0
> 
> http://fstoppers.com/gear/ultimate-lens-bokeh-canon-50mm-f10-5059
> 
> notice the circles are clipped.



That's the mirror box, and it happens with the 85/1.2L as well. Interestingly, you also see mirror box-clipped bokeh with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on APS-C cameras.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > at he contacts would not be visible since they will be out of focus and the frame is rectangular, not square. It may yield for some funky artifacts for nikon depending on their geometries like they did on the canon f1.0
> ...



fair enough. Still, the point remains: AF contacts in the way of a rear element isn't really holding nikon back on something like a 50 1.2. It is a problem that isn't exclusive to nikon with solutions that are arrived to by creative minds. My bet is they won't bother to pursue this. If they do, I bet it will be in the mirror-less era which would require a new mount and they may as well make life easier this time by ensuring such a lens doesn't have to be harder to design than it should.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

psolberg said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



Mirrorless alone would actually be worse, not in terms of contacts but in terms of oblique light angles. Already Canon and Nikon have to clandestinely boost ISO on fast lenses because the microlenses block very oblique light. Moving the lens closer to the sensor would make that worse (higher pixel densities also make it worse). Better to wait for BSI sensors...


----------



## psolberg (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Why stop at BSI. That has been done. Stacked sensors like on the RX100m4 are the next thing. Sony even demonstrated a curved sensor to address this very issue in addition to the normal fallout which we still get in the mirror era. Better yet, with a curved sensor you also will get rid of field curvature in some lenses 

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2279255612/sony-s-curved-sensors-may-allow-for-simpler-lenses-and-better-images


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

psolberg said:


> Why stop at BSI. That has been done. Stacked sensors like on the RX100m4 are the next thing. Sony even demonstrated a curved sensor to address this very issue in addition to the normal fallout which we still get in the mirror era. Better yet, with a curved sensor you also will get rid of field curvature in some lenses



Get rid of it for some lenses that have it...introduce it to lenses that don't. Seems interesting for a fixed-lens camera, not an ILC.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Why stop at BSI. That has been done. Stacked sensors like on the RX100m4 are the next thing. Sony even demonstrated a curved sensor to address this very issue in addition to the normal fallout which we still get in the mirror era. Better yet, with a curved sensor you also will get rid of field curvature in some lenses
> ...



If you design your entire system around a curved sensor, it doesn't matter. Lenses get refreshed. nothing really lasts more than 10 years. It would be perfectly viable for manufacturers to do this even on existing lenses: increase the DOF enough and the curvature dissapears, but you still retain the benefits of the angle at which the photon hits the photosite. Sony will do this. watch it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

psolberg said:


> If you design your entire system around a curved sensor, it doesn't matter. Lenses get refreshed. nothing really lasts more than 10 years. It would be perfectly viable for manufacturers to do this even on existing lenses: increase the DOF enough and the curvature dissapears, but you still retain the benefits of the angle at which the photon hits the photosite. Sony will do this. watch it.



Sure, let's rely on Sony to build a stable of lenses. They've got a great track record there. You're probably right about them doing it, though...throwing lots of different crap products at the wall to see what sticks.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > If you design your entire system around a curved sensor, it doesn't matter. Lenses get refreshed. nothing really lasts more than 10 years. It would be perfectly viable for manufacturers to do this even on existing lenses: increase the DOF enough and the curvature dissapears, but you still retain the benefits of the angle at which the photon hits the photosite. Sony will do this. watch it.
> ...



regardless: sony sensors are used everywhere. If they market this new curved CMOS, it will find its way to other lens systems. It may very well become the way all sensors are designed given they give sony won't be the only one seeking to push the bounds. They are just the leaders. There are bound to be followers catching up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2015)

psolberg said:


> regardless: sony sensors are used everywhere. If they market this new curved CMOS, it will find its way to other lens systems. It may very well become the way all sensors are designed given they give sony won't be the only one seeking to push the bounds. They are just the leaders. There are bound to be followers catching up.



Indeed, just like Nikon is a follower catching up by incorporating fluorite elements into their telephoto lenses...only a few decades after Canon led the way.


----------



## Tinky (Jul 9, 2015)

when i used to shoot on an sr-t303, one of the lenses I hankered after was the 24mm vfc lens.

Minoltas camera division was bought over by sony... maybe somewhere in a dusty filing cabinet there are the drawings to inspire a better solution than a curved sensor...


----------

