# Patent: Canon Reversible Mount Lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 13, 2016)

```
A patent showing a lens design from that shows the ability to reverse mount for greater macro magnification has appeared.</p>
<p>Patent publication number 2016-206568 (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Release date 2016.12.8</li>
<li>Application date 2015.4.28</li>
<li>Reversibly attachable lenses</li>
<li>Reverse attachment detection switch</li>
<li>Switch control according to installation position</li>
</ul>
<p>There have been a few adaptors over the years that would allow you to reverse mount certain lenses for macro usage.</p>
<p><a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-12-12">Egami suggest</a> that this patent may have been part of the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro lens development.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 13, 2016)

Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants. Canon, if you want to sell variations of lenses, sell them in IS versions.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 13, 2016)

As long as I can control aperture of the lens it can be useful for macro. I was wondering when Canon would provide a solution similar to Novoflex reverse ring for Ef mount.


----------



## lw (Dec 13, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> Egami suggest that this patent may have been part of the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS Macro lens development.



Ah. I can see the idea now.
Reversable lenses with EF-M at one end and EF at the other. No need for mount adaptor.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 13, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants.



+1 exactly

IF anything, then Canon should come up with a native/"original Canon" reverse mount adapter with tight tolerances and guaranteed lens-mount-protocol functionality.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Dec 13, 2016)

Looks like I'm going against the flow but I think this is an intriguing idea. The one real shortcoming of the MP-E65 is the 1:1 minimum magnification, but if this could be eliminated in a future replacement by having a normal macro range and an extreme macro range depending which end was attached, that could be a fascinating prospect.

The execution would have to be good - once attached it would have to feel like using a normal lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants.
> ...



Yeah, we know, we've heard it from your crew incessantly. Canon is ******* because they fail to innovate. Canon is ******* because they innovate, but not in the way that you think they should. Canon is *******. CHWAC. 

The EF-M 28mm Macro is a pretty innovative lens. Compact, built in ring light, good IQ...but it's still another lens to carry, and the point of a MILC system (for some) is the small size of the kit. Consider the application of this patent – an EF-M 11-22mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or an EF-M 22mm f/2 IS, where you reverse the lens and it becomes a macro lens. One lens to carry, two lenses worth of functionality. But it doesn't fit in with your petty, private little world views of what products Canon should make just for you…so it's a bad idea. 

And for you two in particular, it's amusing how one of you wants Canon to never make another dSLR, and the other wants Canon to make new versions of all of them and update just about every EF lens in the current lineup. Both of you claim Canon is ******* if they don't follow your advice, and your advice is at opposite ends of the spectrum. What a joke you guys are! CHWAC.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 13, 2016)

CHWAC. 
[/quote]

Neuro - you lost me on that one. 

Coalition of Hispanic Women Against Cancer? (from Google)

Campers High Without Any Cannabis? 

Comments Having Wavy Artistic Characters?

Chefs Holding Waffles Against Canon?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 13, 2016)

Only you are stating "Canon is *******" ... in this thread.

EF-M 28 Macro is a fine lens, integrated LED light is a (modestly) innovative approach. 

Topic of this thread is that patent for a reversible mount lens, which was not implemented with EF-M 28. Probably for good reason, since in most lenses the front lens is a much larger element than the rear lens. Putting an EF(-M) mount on both ends of a lens would certainly limit lens design options.

But m ost importantly - and that's what douglaurent has pointed out in his post - it is a solution seeking a problem. Simple reverse adaptors are already invented and a much better solution. Works when needed, does not impede lens design, are small and inexpensive. They are not bound to only one single lens. 

Canon does have no shortage of areas where resources and money would be much better spent.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2016)

I find this a clever idea. Condense two lenses to one without needing a complicated integral macro close-focusing. I took a moment to think out if a lens with _two lens mount caps_ would work in a changeout to a traditional EF lens, and I believe it would work (you wouldn't run out of mount caps or lens caps).

But it would be somewhat tricky to implement:


Marking instructions on this lens will need to be intuitive in either orientation or kept to a minimum to avoid confusion. I recognize this is far more likely for a kit lens than an L lens, so things like a distance scale and a bank of switches may not be in the picture, but the focus ring markings would need to be carefully thought through.


Hood attachment would be straight forward (use the mount cap attachment), but I have no idea what they would do for filter threads. They could make some hybrid of a mount cap and a step-up ring, I suppose, but that would likely not play well with the hood I just mentioned. Could they actually cut threads on the inside of the metal lens mount? (That'd be a tiny diameter filter!)


Unless this is for a new lens mount altogether, the 'entrance pupil' of this lens could be no bigger than the rear opening of an EF lens today, which is not huge. One would think that would limit the max aperture of these lenses.


Clever, simple idea. 100% worthy of the patent, but I'm far less confident that this is a product we will ever see in real life.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Only you are stating "Canon is *******" ... in this thread.



It's the CHWAC mantra...I think you chant it to yourself every night as you go to sleep. 




AvTvM said:


> Topic of this thread is that patent for a reversible mount lens, which was not implemented with EF-M 28. Probably for good reason, since in most lenses the front lens is a much larger element than the rear lens. Putting an EF(-M) mount on both ends of a lens would certainly limit lens design options.



Most likely it would be a wide prime like the 22/2 that would be reversible. Tiny front element. How about a 22/2 IS pancake reversible macro? You know you'd buy it... 




AvTvM said:


> But m ost importantly - and that's what douglaurent has pointed out in his post - it is a solution seeking a problem. Simple reverse adaptors are already invented and a much better solution. Works when needed, does not impede lens design, are small and inexpensive. They are not bound to only one single lens.



Most importantly, Canon would probably much prefer people to buy two lenses rather than one dual-purpose lens...more revenue that way. A good idea...but not an ideal product. That's why it's a patent, and not a product. Smart Canon.




AvTvM said:


> Canon does have no shortage of areas where resources and money would be much better spent.



And you have no shortage of guidance on how they should spend it. Remind us again why Canon hasn't retained you as a consultant? :


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



Maybe you just stop repeating the "Canon is *******" phrase I never wrote hundreds of times, and explain in detail why a lens with a macro reverse front mount is better than a dedicated external macro adapter that could be used on any existing lens, like the one from Novoflex.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 13, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants. Canon, if you want to sell variations of lenses, sell them in IS versions.



This is a patent. IS in an existing lens would not need a patent.
Patent is statement of ideas, not that they are making it, not even that they are designing it. Companies like Canon have whole department looking at all their research and all their new ideas, looking for potential applications of those ideas and research and patenting them in case they are needed.

So what are you getting all so worried about? Stop worrying your pretty, precious little brain cells because I think you have more serious thing on which to predict the demise of Canon.

Besides, would this not add one more to your collection of lenses so widening your knowledge of camera designs and functionality?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Maybe you just stop repeating the "Canon is *******" phrase I never wrote...



Is your memory so poor? Or is your metacognition so inadequate that you fail to comprehend the meaning of your own words?



douglaurent said:


> By 2017 Sony will have destroyed their business if they don't wake up and come around with some better specs as well.






douglaurent said:


> ...explain in detail why a lens with a macro reverse front mount is better than a dedicated external macro adapter that could be used on any existing lens, like the one from Novoflex.



Why have a ring light built into a macro lens like the EF-M 28mm, when there are dedicated external ring lights from both Canon and 3rd parties that can be used on any existing lens? Less to carry around. Plus it's just pretty darn cool.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 13, 2016)

I have a eos reverse mount adapter that works for manual aperture lenses. They are cheap and easy to find, 

I doubt that we will ever see this, it might have been considered, but its unlikely to happen soon.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Less to carry around. Plus it's just pretty darn cool.



Nutty idea -- why even remount it?

Like we've said, this will likely be a short FL / not huge aperture lens, so why not just give it a taller outer housing and _rotate the optical internals 180 degrees inside of the lens housing_ with a knob on the side of the lens? 

For a shorter crop macro, I don't imagine such a design would be that big, perhaps 1.5x a hockey puck standing on edge.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Less to carry around. Plus it's just pretty darn cool.
> ...



You may need this...







Or go here: https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered

;D


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> You may need this...
> 
> Or go here: https://efs.uspto.gov/EFSWebUIUnregistered/EFSWebUnregistered
> 
> ;D



Ha! I actually have a decent number of patents, but I've never actually populated these forms myself. I don't know how this doesn't sound super-bougie and privileged, but _we have people that take care of that_. [hand to face, I know, I know, shoosh, I said good day sir]

I, like many enthusiasts here I would presume, am an engineer who designs things for a living. But ideating is sooooo much more fun than actually writing up the hot lava you just conceived.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

As one who also 'has people for that', I must say that you sound neither bourgeois nor pompous. With all due respect to those folks in IP departments, I think I'd club myself to death with my 600/4 if that was my day job. Ok, maybe a little pompous.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 13, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Why bother developing a mirrorless fullframe camera, when instead you can invent the most useless product ever? Got numerous reverse rings like the electronic one by Novoflex and like it, but having a mount on the front of the lens instead of having an adapter is probably the worst idea and the last thing anybody wants. Canon, if you want to sell variations of lenses, sell them in IS versions.



can't be much worse than the most useless post ever.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> As one who also 'has people for that', I must say that you sound neither bourgeois nor pompous. With all due respect to those folks in IP departments, I think I'd club myself to death with my 600/4 if that was my day job. Ok, maybe a little pompous.



It's just that younger me thought I'd be the renaissance man who would become highly skilled in all 50 hats my job would have me wear. I'd be the sharpest kid at CAD, FE, analysis, regulatory work, finance, project management, etc. -- you get the idea. For a while, I was well on my way to getting there.

And now we just have 'people' for all that. Less about me and more about working at larger companies these days, but still.

Upside: I can focus on what I love. And how. Pretty damn great.

Downside: Knee-bucklingly humbling moments of technical incompetence surface periodically. _Hoooow exactly does this newfangled coffee machine or networked copier work again? _;D

- A


----------



## rs (Dec 13, 2016)

Perfect for those who were struggling to find somewhere to keep their second DSLR


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2016)

rs said:


> Perfect for those who were struggling to find somewhere to keep their second DSLR



I think the future of macro isn't reversing lenses or making better dedicated macro lenses, it's getting more macro functionality out of multipurpose glass. 

The 100L is a fine macro instrument and a damn good portrait lens.

The 24-70 f.4L IS is a fine standard zoom and its unheard of 0.7x max mag -- a marvel to this day -- is a joy. Sure it has a very short working distance and is not 'serious macro' friendly, but in good light it does very well. My 100L is the tool I reach for for flora and such, but if I'm traveling or hiking, the 24-70 f/4L IS is all I take. Functionality that lets you leave other things at home is value for me.

I have no bone to pick with dedicated macro gear, mind you, but I love the thought of one lens doing two jobs very well, and I hope Canon does more of this. This patent is one way to do that, but perhaps they can go a different route.

- A


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe you just stop repeating the "Canon is *******" phrase I never wrote...
> ...



Canon has cut their sales in half the last 5 years. A lot of the items Sony and other manufacturers have sold could have been sold by Canon. If Canon continues this path, their business will go further down - especially once Sony managed to release the fusion of an A7RII and A99II, which means there is little reason to buy a 1DX2 or 5D4 anymore - except for the decreasing amount of people like you who seem to know only gear of one brand.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Canon has cut their sales in half the last 5 years. A lot of the items Sony and other manufacturers have sold could have been sold by Canon. If Canon continues this path, their business will go further down - especially once Sony managed to release the fusion of an A7RII and A99II, which means there is little reason to buy a 1DX2 or 5D4 anymore - except for the decreasing amount of people like you who seem to know only gear of one brand.



Oh, so that's your best attempt at a cogent explanation of why Sony is losing market share to Canon? Pathetic. 

CHWAC.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 13, 2016)

It could also allow you to put a body on either end of the lens so you can take macro photos of the sensors ;D ;D ;D


----------



## tmroper (Dec 13, 2016)

Seems like the "Seinfeld" episode with the reverse peephole might be prior art for a patent like this. But maybe not.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Canon has cut their sales in half the last 5 years. A lot of the items Sony and other manufacturers have sold could have been sold by Canon. If Canon continues this path, their business will go further down - especially once Sony managed to release the fusion of an A7RII and A99II, which means there is little reason to buy a 1DX2 or 5D4 anymore - except for the decreasing amount of people like you who seem to know only gear of one brand.



Let's unpack that, shall we?

First: when an entire industry goes sideways due to disruptive technology, calling out the biggest company (and _*only*_ calling out the the biggest company) for not stopping that gravitational industry change is giggle-worthy. That's like calling out Capitol Records in the year 2000 and telling them they should have seen music piracy coming and _acquired the internet_ to overcome it. _Stupid Capitol Records._

Second: Let's assume the mythical A9 gripped super mirrorless rig arrives. For fun, let's give it 20 fps, 75 MP, IBIS, 500 AF points, 8K video and five times the A7R II present battery life. Do you honestly think that after the A7R II -- studded for war technology-wise -- Sony is just missing _another new body with more technology_ to begin the great exodus of professionals from Canon and Nikon? 

Third: There are reasons to buy a camera body other than the specs the body has. Some bodies bolt on to a wide ecosystem of lenses and communicate ideally with them for best AF performance. Some bodies have wonderful, intuitive controls and menus that _*don't*_ make you want to kill small woodland creatures with a hammer. Some bodies actually have grips that are appropriately sized for a human hand and a 70-200 f/2.8 payload. But, sure, Sony has _technology_ -- have at it, son.

- A


----------



## hbr (Dec 13, 2016)

http://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Tokyo-Market/Market-Scramble-Canon-s-rise-looks-frail-without-earnings-support

This report talks about the decline of the Japanese market in general and loss of profits yet it also says, "Canon overtook Keyence in market capitalization last week to become Japan's most valuable electronics maker for the first time in about five months."

Canon is *******, ******* I tell you.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > ...once Sony managed to release the fusion of an A7RII and A99II, which means there is little reason to buy a 1DX2 or 5D4 anymore - except for the decreasing amount of people like you who seem to know only gear of one brand.
> ...



Related to this, I believe is that many, if not most, people really aren't looking for major changes. Doug may own 50 different camera bodies, but who would want that? The higher up the chain you go, I believe you'll find people want familiarity. I don't want to have to learn new controls. I want the next body I buy to function like the one I'm already used to. That's why Canon makes its top three bodies (7D, 5D and 1Dx) virtually interchangeable as far as controls go. 

For me personally, I can't see ever switching brands, simply because the differences in specs are so small that it's not worth the learning curve to adapt to a new body. I'm sure many Nikon shooters feel the same way.


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



This is how I feel. With all the talk about superior image quality and dynamic range of Sony or nikon, people make it out to sound like canon cameras can't even create an image. For me, I have yet to see anything from a stills perspective that would have me consider switching brands and dealing with swapping gear, from a unprofessional point of view. 

The gentleman I purchased my 1dx off of, switched from canon to Sony for his wedding photography. He told me, he didn't realize how good canons service was until he had to send his Sony in for repair. 3 months it took for him to get his camera back, and they didn't give him a loner. He was considering switching back when I spoke to him.

From what I've read, and experiences shared with me ( with no experience myself) Canon is top tier for those who use their gear every day and rely on the tools and services they provide.


----------



## hbr (Dec 14, 2016)

I don't have the money to have multiple systems so I certainly have no plans to switch, even it the other competitors offer cameras that have better specs in some areas.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 14, 2016)

So Dilbert has morphed; he's right here in this thread, at least in spirit. 

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Related to this, I believe is that many, if not most, people really aren't looking for major changes. Doug may own 50 different camera bodies, but who would want that? The higher up the chain you go, I believe you'll find people want familiarity. I don't want to have to learn new controls. I want the next body I buy to function like the one I'm already used to. That's why Canon makes its top three bodies (7D, 5D and 1Dx) virtually interchangeable as far as controls go.
> 
> For me personally, I can't see ever switching brands, simply because the differences in specs are so small that it's not worth the learning curve to adapt to a new body. I'm sure many Nikon shooters feel the same way.



Have a +1, my friend.
Dammit, have a +100.

Do Canon take advantage of this? Sure they do.
But what it does mean is that they can afford to take time to make sure they introduce technologies they know will work, they have a level of reliability that gives the customer confidence, and I end up with a system that has continuity and does the job it was intended for with minimum fuss.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Related to this, I believe is that many, if not most, people really aren't looking for major changes. Doug may own 50 different camera bodies, but who would want that? The higher up the chain you go, I believe you'll find people want familiarity. I don't want to have to learn new controls. I want the next body I buy to function like the one I'm already used to. That's why Canon makes its top three bodies (7D, 5D and 1Dx) virtually interchangeable as far as controls go.
> 
> For me personally, I can't see ever switching brands, simply because the differences in specs are so small that it's not worth the learning curve to adapt to a new body. I'm sure many Nikon shooters feel the same way.



yes, agreed. there are some very good and valid reasons for "brand loyalty" and "market inertia". 

BUT
... if the difference in functionality and or price exceeds a certain threshold, that inertia can quickly turn into a landslide.

if nikon instead of Canon had offered me the EOS M mirrorless system: ultracompact, APS-C sensor, decent IQ, decent and compact lenses ... and all of it at very affordable prices ... i would have bought it as my "compact and light" system for travel and mountaineering/outdoor use. even if controls would have been somewhat different from my 5D3 and raw files were NEF, not CR2 requiring some changes in my post workflow. same if Sony had not only brought A6000/A6300/A6500 but also lenses matching Canon EF-M lineup (small, good, cheap). Nikon 1 system failed, because sensor is too small and because they never offered a fully featured V-body and because they asked "APS-C prices" for that system. 

had sony's not only launched A7 and A7R Series camera bodies, but also a range of *good, compact and not grossly overpriced* FE lenses ... i would not gave bought 5D3 as my last mirrorslapper. and more other Canon and Nikon users would have switched. but ... sony decided (stupidly) to only offer lenses as big as and significantly more expensive than Canon/Nikon's ... so me and millions of other potential customers did not buy into Sony's mirrorless system, despite their compact mirrorless camera bodies with great sensors and IQ. also A7 first series was riddled with shutter shock problem, very poor battery charge and sub-par AF. Now A7 series II is riddled with not so compact bodies and significantly higher prices. makes 'em less attractive.

end result: inertia prevailed for good reasons, landslide switching did not happen. but that is no prediction it won't happen tomorrow. it is just a matter of supply. market demand - for highly compact, fully capable camera systems at reasonable prices - is there.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> end result: inertia prevailed for good reasons, landslide switching did not happen. but that is no prediction it won't happen tomorrow. it is just a matter of supply. market demand - for highly compact, fully capable camera systems at reasonable prices - is there.



In any industry where the competition is tight and new technologies are arising, the first stage is one of playing chicken - who will be the first to make a drastic move and switch significantly because incorporating new technologies takes time and money...a lot of money and as a corporation like CaNikonyou cannot afford to get it wrong. Basically Sony had nothing to lose and everything to gain by switching to their mirrorless models. Olympus and Panasonic similarly dived in the MFT market (the consortium enabled them to effectively share development costs and reduce risks). It is also significant that SOny have made no great strides since then and do not look like making great strides anytime soon and this gives CaNikon time to develop their own systems.

CaNikon are caught in that hinterland of seeing where the market is gong but not wanting to lose their core customer base because you abandon them at your peril. 

As a result Sony jumped to their mirrorless systems and they then had a choice of either spending more money to develop their lens range or (as they did) sell your camera as a platform for third party lenses. Despite all the hullabaloo when it appeared, the A7 series has still not seduced enough people because the idea still seems...well...weird to to most people. Sometimes I wonder if they convinced themselves the advantages of their body size was that they did not need to develop a mirrorless in the mould of the Canon M series, or maybe they wanted to but their need to make the Sony series compatible with CaNikon lenses meant they needed a throat diameter on the mount that dictated the size of future lenses. And if acting as a platform is their business model, then they also need CaNikon to develop a range of compact mirrorless lenses for Sony's own compact mirrorless to act as a platform for. 


Meanwhile CaNikon, knowing their customers well, knew they did not need to pump millions immediately in to their compact mirrorless and could take their time while still selling enough to keep the company solvent. And they are doing just enough to keep the mirrorless afficionados in their respective camps - I call that smart marketing!

Compact mirrorless will come.
Superb wifi connectivity will come.
All those other fancy fandangles will come
And in the long run I agree with you that they are all on that edge where if they misjudge it they could face a sudden shift in sales. But one thing these companies are not ignorant of is where the market is going.


----------



## M_S (Dec 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...


Giving a friendly feedback is beyond you I guess. Perhaps they don't teach that anymore and "know it all guys" with Putin attitude is the norm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> if nikon instead of Canon had offered me the EOS M mirrorless system: ultracompact, APS-C sensor, decent IQ, decent and compact lenses ... and all of it at very affordable prices ... i would have bought it...



Ohhhh...if. But who got your money? Smart Canon. 




AvTvM said:


> had sony's not only launched A7 and A7R Series camera bodies, but also a range of *good, compact and not grossly overpriced* FE lenses ... i would not gave bought 5D3



Ohhhh...if. But who got your money? Smart Canon.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 14, 2016)

not so smart Canon. Mainly they profited from competitor's mistakes and inability. 
Had Canon been REALLY smart and launched kick-ass EOS M system in 2012 and kick-ass FF MILC system in late 2013, Sony and Fuji would have today hold 0,1% market share ... combined. And Nikon would already be bankrupt.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ohhhh...if. But who got your money? Smart Canon.



I'm not going to suggest Canon aren't smart, but I held off buying the replacement for my 5D III (well, maybe second replacement as I already have the 5DSR) until the 5DIV was announced.

For me, the 5D IV was good, but didn't really offer me anything of a major incremental advantage that I couldn't do with my 5DSR or 5D III. Technically it was better in many ways, but it didn't allow me to do anything differently than before. So, I got an A7R II instead. I don't think the 5D IV is a bad camera - far from it - it's just not what I need right now.

At least from me Canon didn't get my money. For now 

Jolyon


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> not so smart Canon.



Smarter than you, at least when it comes to making and selling cameras. After all they got your money…and despite not following your unsolicited 'advice', they remain the clear ILC market leader, and in fact have gained market share. The rest of your post is pure conjecture, perhaps applicable in the AvTvM Universe, but not in the real world.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ohhhh...if. But who got your money? Smart Canon.
> ...



I have a 1D X and didn't find the 1D X II sufficiently tempting. It puzzles me that people continue to assume the main target demographic for any new body is owners of the immediately previous body in that line. These are well-built products, and for most users they have a lifespan of much longer than 3-4 years. Broadly speaking (big picture view), within-line updates are pretty incremental, we know that and Canon knows that. A 5DII, 6D or 80D user would likely find the 5DIV very tempting. 

AvTvM spouts his opinions as if they were fact, but he has no objective data to support his statements. Canon has years of extensive market research data to support their decisions of what features to put into what new products. Some of that research is explicitly funded (surveys, focus groups, etc.), and some of it is 'free' – every time someone fills out a product registration, they tell Canon about themselves, what gear they already own, and what they are planning to buy…and longitudinally Canon can look at buying habits by demographic across the globe.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 14, 2016)

Things may well go the way they are with It gear. Apple does not build compelling products any longer. Lenovo is Chinese. HP is weak and Dell just recuperating a bit from a multi-year slump in terms of "innovative, highly functional products".

So ... if companies do not build and offer what WE want ... we build it ourselves. 
http://eve-tech.com/
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/eve-v-the-first-ever-crowd-developed-computer-laptop-tablet#/

As soon as I see a compact, fully capable FF-sensored MILC appear on kickstarter or Indiegogo, I will back it. Then Canon [and rest of industry] is definitely *******. 8)

And if not, well then maybe "camera as a service" ... https://www.dpreview.com/news/7563884632/relonch-is-a-camera-and-photo-editing-service-all-in-one-that-costs-99-per-month 

Should be the logical next step for all those Adobe "rental-software-lovers" around here. ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> not so smart Canon. Mainly they profited from competitor's mistakes and inability.



Alternatively - Canon, through their knowledge of the market did not make the mistakes their competitors made which helped them maintain #1 status. That is very, very smart


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Things may well go the way they are with It gear. Apple does not build compelling products any longer. Lenovo is Chinese. HP is weak and Dell just recuperating a bit from a multi-year slump in terms of "innovative, highly functional products".
> 
> So ... if companies do not build and offer what WE want ... we build it ourselves.
> http://eve-tech.com/
> ...



And the lesson of this story is that any company worth its salt can, and probably has, made a huge leap forward then found it hard to maintain that level of ingenuity in which time everyone else catches up. 

Nikon did it with the D800
Canon did it with video in the 5DII
Sony did it with the A7RII
Olympus did it with the E-M5
Panasonic did it with the GH4

Everything since then for each company has been incremental.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 14, 2016)

I do apologise in advance for drifting back to the subject of the patent for reversible mount lens, but thinking a bit more about this the only sensible reason I could see for Canon doing this would be to create a future MPE-65 replacement that could be a little bit more versatile than the Macro Monster.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 14, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> I do apologise in advance for drifting back to the subject of the patent for reversible mount lens...



How dare you!


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 14, 2016)

jolyonralph said:


> I do apologise in advance for drifting back to the subject of the patent for reversible mount lens, but thinking a bit more about this the only sensible reason I could see for Canon doing this would be to create a future MPE-65 replacement that could be a little bit more versatile than the Macro Monster.



Call me crazy, but a not-that-light lens that telescopes out like _this_ won't be reverse-mounted. 

This entire idea seems to make more sense for a more light and compact construct, like a 50mm f/2.5 Compact 1:2 Macro or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, but I have not read the embodiments.

Can someone peel through this app and flag what sort of focal length / aperture combinations are offered in it?

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 18, 2016)

How does the Novoflex adapter work?

Specifically, does it correctly reverse the commands to the AF motor?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 19, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Maybe you just stop repeating the "Canon is *******" phrase I never wrote hundreds of times, and explain in detail why a lens with a macro reverse front mount is better than a dedicated external macro adapter that could be used on any existing lens, like the one from Novoflex.



Why are super telephone lenses better than dedicated teleconverters which work on many existing lenses?



douglaurent said:


> once Sony managed to release the fusion of an A7RII and A99II



A fusion of the A992 and A7R2 would be what? Either mirrorless, or SLR.

For it to be competitive with 1Dx / D5, it would need competitive autofocus performance with long lenses. Currently, my A7R2 hasn't met a long lens it likes, perhaps because there are no native options, or perhaps because the tiny imaging pixels aren't ideal or perhaps because the small power source can't move things effectively. Have there been any reviews on the A992 with the longer a-mount lenses?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Why are super telephone lenses better than dedicated teleconverters which work on many existing lenses?



irrelevant comparison. demagogic rethoric, 100% BS. 

A native, decent quality Canon reverse ring adapter would be welcome, since it came with full support for lens mount protocol, not re-engineered guesswork (like Novoflex etc.). A Lens with mounts on either end however is a solution for no problem. 

But who knows, maybe it is really only a "blocking" patent on Canon's part ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 19, 2016)

You clearly don't know what a demagogue is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> super telephone lenses



Like this?






;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > super telephone lenses
> ...



Hah!

Typo will remain for posterity!


----------

