# Patent: Lens Mount Adaptor For Different Flange Distances



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 19, 2018)

```
<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/mirrorless-camera-rumours/">Northlight</a> has uncovered a <a href="http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20180107098">USPTO</a> patent application that shows a design for a lens mount adaptor that allows for different flange distances with different adaptors.</p>
<p>The patent covers a lot of options, so this may be part of many more patents that deal with adaptors and lens mounts.</p>
<p>This patent also covers options for including lenses in the adapter for both wide and tele conversion.</p>
<p>Obviously there could be some full frame mirrorless camera implications with this sort of patent.</p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 50%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-34661 gallery-columns-2 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/adapter-2.png'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/adapter-2-168x168.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/adapter-2-168x168.png 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/adapter-2-144x144.png 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/adapter-1.png'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/adapter-1-168x168.png" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/adapter-1-168x168.png 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/adapter-1-144x144.png 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Bennymiata (Apr 20, 2018)

Nice sized grip on it, the body looks quite thick too.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Apr 20, 2018)

It looks a little clunky with the wings sticking out but if it future-proofs my EF glass, I like it!


----------



## tmc784 (Apr 20, 2018)

Will Canon FF-M camera adopt this design ?


----------



## nostrovia (Apr 20, 2018)

Looks like an XC10-style body, no?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 20, 2018)

It's obviously a Cine camera and they already have interchangeable mounts, this is just a logical next step.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 20, 2018)

The sketches in a patent are generic and do not even try to look like a actual camera. Trying to see a design from them is a fruitless endeavor, they never look like a actual product.


----------



## Rocky (Apr 20, 2018)

Looks like a tinker toy to me.


----------



## sanj (Apr 20, 2018)

If the new mirrorless with work with adaptors, I will not buy them.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 20, 2018)

If I was to buy a (FF) mirrorless camera and if I had the choice of using this mechanics or an external adaptor with the same functionality and the same behavior on the lens (AF, etc.) I'd go for the external adaptor.
Reasons:

size of body could be smaller without this mechanics
extra costs on the body
cost saving because external adaptor could be reused on next body
higher risk for this variable lens mount to fail/break or getting damaged by external impact
if something breaks down, repair/replacement is cheaper

If it is for cine market the perspective and arguments could be different.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 20, 2018)

I don't buy the 'Canon mirrorless FF camera might / will have a different mount' story.

Difference throat diameter & flange distance? Possibly.

Additional contacts and enhancement to protocol? Possibly.

All new mount, with different contacts and protocol? Haven't heard concrete reasons for Canon to do that, much the less such that would justify the reaction of existing customer base.

This patent might be nothing more than asset management (IP being assets), or plans to develop speed boosters, say EF -> EF-S or EF -> [super 35 compatible mount].


----------



## Quackator (Apr 20, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The sketches in a patent are generic and do not even try to look like a actual camera.



Well, in this case it does. Go check the XC series of cameras.


----------



## Cochese (Apr 20, 2018)

Seems more like a standalone adapter than it is a camera with a built in adapter. The camera is just in the drawing for example. If this is what they come up with for the Mirrorless to EF conundrum, it's pretty much what I was thinking they'd do. Though, an adjustable adapter doesn't make much sense for FF mirrorless. It makes perfect sense for a Crop though, since you'd have a couple of different mounts outside of EF-M to choose from.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 20, 2018)

sanj said:


> If the new mirrorless with work with adaptors, I will not buy them.



If the new mirrorless will not work with adaptors, I will not buy them.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 20, 2018)

Basically, it's a replaceable mount and done in a way that looks like it'd be sturdy and weather sealed.

So, EF-M FF lenses, EF lenses and, with some inevitable third party ingenuity, possibly autofocus adaptors for Nikon G glass too.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 20, 2018)

This may very well be the "elegant fix" Canon has come up with. One twist and the contacts move forward and then back depending upon the flange distance. Looks like there is a second piece in there, with an optical unit, but also allowing for a different physical mount.

So, this leaves me torn. On one hand, if there are size/weight/cost savings coming with the new mount, if it is the future, then I get it. It is an eventuality. But that also means that I am, at some point, looking at a transitional period for my entire kit (as I won't want to use an adapter forever), when I am very happy right now. So, while I can see this working well, call me something less than excited. Plus, isn't one of the big advantages to get aware from that moving mirror? Here you are introducing at least two new moving parts. Granted, they move not with each actuation, but with each lens change. 

If this is the case, I am more likely to stay with a mirror slapper for as long as possible. So, come on with the 5DV, 1Dx III, 5Ds II and others. Give me one and even two more generations of mirrorslappers and another 10-15 years before I have to turnover the lenses in my kit.


----------



## BillB (Apr 20, 2018)

docsmith said:


> This may very well be the "elegant fix" Canon has come up with. One twist and the contacts move forward and then back depending upon the flange distance. Looks like there is a second piece in there, with an optical unit, but also allowing for a different physical mount.



Elegant? It looks to me like it has a bunch of moving parts, with the main advantages being the ability to adapt lenses with several different flange distances to the camera, and to insert wide angle and telex lens elements. This seems to be a pretty complicated solution if all you care about is adapting EF lenses to a new fullframe mirrorless camera mount and you don't care about inserting lens elements. Not sure how rugged it would be either.


----------



## zim (Apr 20, 2018)

Lovin the wing nuts ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 20, 2018)

Nothing about it is new and how they can claim a patent in beyond me. You can change mounts on Arri Alexa cameras for instance from PL to Panavision retaining electrical contacts, you can change a C700 from EF to PL in fact you can go back to the sixties and see cameras where mounts were changed altering the back focus. 
Panasonic / Olympus made adaptors to move from 4/3rd to m4/3rds with electrical contacts. 

Nothing of significance is shown in this patent.


----------



## amorse (Apr 20, 2018)

nostrovia said:


> Looks like an XC10-style body, no?


That's what it looks like to me - I don't think that the sketch is representative of the upcoming mirrorless cameras. Even if you don't think it looks like the XC10, the sketch seems to have a vent on one side - which none of Canon's weather sealed cameras would have. It seems like this is a cinema application.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 20, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Nothing about it is new and how they can claim a patent in beyond me. You can change mounts on Arri Alexa cameras for instance from PL to Panavision retaining electrical contacts, you can change a C700 from EF to PL in fact you can go back to the sixties and see cameras where mounts were changed altering the back focus.
> Panasonic / Olympus made adaptors to move from 4/3rd to m4/3rds with electrical contacts.
> 
> Nothing of significance is shown in this patent.



As far as I can tell, it is a patent application, not an approved patent. And we do not know from that if the patent is for the idea or how it is implemented. 
So yes, there may be some significance. 

And increasingly the US Patent office is getting lazy. With borderline cases they sometimes take the view of 'it looks OK, but I don't understand it. I will approve it and let the court make the decision if someone challenges it". I know from experience that most patent applications are really there to stall the opposition not to actually get the patent.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 20, 2018)

BillB said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > This may very well be the "elegant fix" Canon has come up with. One twist and the contacts move forward and then back depending upon the flange distance. Looks like there is a second piece in there, with an optical unit, but also allowing for a different physical mount.
> ...



Hence the quotes around "elegant." 

About a month ago I remember one of the sources stating that Canon had an "elegant" fix to the transition in mounts. Of course, now I can't find the quote, so maybe they used another word to describe it. I should have referenced it or not included the word elegant.

I can see something like moving the contact part as being a "fix" for the EF to EF-x lens mount as it allows both lens mounts to be used. Unless this is flawless, I can see myself trying to avoid this transition by staying with a mirror slapper and EF lenses for as long as possible. If this is Canon eventually making the EF mount obsolete, it is pretty easy to see their dilemma. They are essentially putting their entire core market into prisoners dilemma, after we know our relationship with EF/mirror slappers is ending, our behavior will change. 

Specifically for me, I can see rounding out my EF kit, and then stop investing in the EF lineup if I know it will eventually be obsolete at some point. Then, at some point after, I'll assess all options (Sony, Nikon, etc) as I am essentially swapping out my entire kit. 

This is all based on the assumption that this patent is meant to be the EF to EF-x adapter. But, I for one really hope that Canon keeps the EF mount going for years to come.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 20, 2018)

docsmith said:


> If this is the case, I am more likely to stay with a mirror slapper for as long as possible. So, come on with the 5DV, 1Dx III, 5Ds II and others. Give me one and even two more generations of mirrorslappers and another 10-15 years before I have to turnover the lenses in my kit.



Canon is not in the business of reducing consumer choice, despite what some people on this forum imagine. Mirrorless is a choice not a replacement. DSLRs will be with us as long as people keep buying them and all the evidence shows that people are going to keep buying them for many more generations.


----------



## MayaTlab (Apr 20, 2018)

The connecting pins aren't adjusted by the body's mount mechanism, apparently they're pushed forward with springs. The body mount looks just like a breech lock mechanism to me. 

There is one very interesting things with the idea of movable pins. 

Let's imagine that a user buys Canon's next FF mirrorless with a shorter flange distance, and owns two lenses with this new mount / flange distance, and three with the regular EF mount. If that user wants to quickly change lenses with a different mount, he'll rather have to buy three EF to EF-??? adapters (instead of constantly removing and putting on the adapter), which could be expensive since they need to carry electrical contacts. 

With this approach the adapter can be dumb as a brick and possibly less expensive. So people would be able to buy several of them and slap them to their EF lenses. That I think could be the "elegant" part. 

It's much less useful to people who may be planning on keeping all their lenses EF for a while, but mix both DSLR and shorter flange mirrorless cameras for a while.


----------



## Talys (Apr 20, 2018)

docsmith said:


> This may very well be the "elegant fix" Canon has come up with. One twist and the contacts move forward and then back depending upon the flange distance. Looks like there is a second piece in there, with an optical unit, but also allowing for a different physical mount.
> 
> So, this leaves me torn. On one hand, if there are size/weight/cost savings coming with the new mount, if it is the future, then I get it. It is an eventuality. But that also means that I am, at some point, looking at a transitional period for my entire kit (as I won't want to use an adapter forever), when I am very happy right now. So, while I can see this working well, call me something less than excited. Plus, isn't one of the big advantages to get aware from that moving mirror? Here you are introducing at least two new moving parts. Granted, they move not with each actuation, but with each lens change.
> 
> If this is the case, I am more likely to stay with a mirror slapper for as long as possible. So, come on with the 5DV, 1Dx III, 5Ds II and others. Give me one and even two more generations of mirrorslappers and another 10-15 years before I have to turnover the lenses in my kit.



Right. As amazed as some people are and eager to change to something radically different (or spend money) -- I'm actually very happy with my kit right now.

I would be satisfied with minor iterative improvements, plus a flagship with a tilty-flippy, if for no other reason than that I periodically buy cameras simply due to wear, or the need for another more-or-less-identical body.


----------



## miketcool (Apr 20, 2018)

This is an adapter that allows for quick changing between EF and PL mount Cinema Lenses. No further commenting needed. If you've ever worked on a shoot where you need to go between the two lenses, you know it's a nightmare.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 20, 2018)

patent application that shows a design for a lens mount adaptor that allows for different flange distances with different adaptors.

Interesting concept.
I really hope a FF mirrorless is just a straight EF mount.
Just have the throat extend to the proper distance.
That empty space put an insertable filter holder.
Or just don't make the camera all that thin as it is easier to hold a bit thicker camera.
Look at a Canon FTb. Does anyone consider it too thick? It is full frame. Obviously it does not have a sensor and the screen on the back but the engineers can adjust things to make the camera be perceived as thinner but again is it that necessary with a 70-200 f2.8 or a 100-400 L lens? Balance counts.
I just hope they figure that the EF mount is excellent for FF and for mirrorless should be just fine size wise of the camera for FF users.


----------



## zim (Apr 20, 2018)

miketcool said:


> This is an adapter that allows for quick changing between EF and PL mount Cinema Lenses. No further commenting needed. If you've ever worked on a shoot where you need to go between the two lenses, you know it's a nightmare.



I'm not a pro and I've never worked with such equipment, not trolling or whatever it's called, I'm genuinely interested in why that's a nightmare?


----------



## miketcool (Apr 21, 2018)

zim said:


> I'm not a pro and I've never worked with such equipment, not trolling or whatever it's called, I'm genuinely interested in why that's a nightmare?



For the most part, you can convert EF to PL lenses because EF lenses do not go past the mount into the camera body meaning the adapter gives the PL mount lens the correct flange depth. The flange depth for EF mount cameras is right at the opening of the body. For PL mount cameras, the lens extends into the body to a deeper flange depth. If there is a deeper flange depth on a PL mount camera you have to match that on an EF lens, meaning it has to come into the camera. Because EF lenses do not taper, you would have to significantly widens the opening which cannot be down with an adapter.

The solution is to physically swap the mount on the camera and change the opening. 

The solution to swapping mounts on set? There isn't one. 

I've seen it done by a couple of Assistant Cameras when the wrong mount was on a camera needed for the shoot. They had to disassemble the camera while crew waited on them. One of the guys stripped a screw and delayed the shoot. Typically if you need to swap between lens styles like this, you send the camera to one of the rental houses or service centers. It isn't typical because the Director of Photographer prefers to use the same camera and the same lenses for an entire shoot because they all have their own color and focus quirks. Professional cinema lenses guarantee the same look across a lineup.

There are situations where we unfortunately have to make decisions that involve mixing lenses. Right now the most common reason is that Canon offers some incredible EF lenses that their Cinema lineup does not meet, like shooting at 11mm on the Canon EF 11-24mm. Another reason may be that you are shooting on Canon glass for a look or a budget but the Director wants a sequence shot on Anamorphic. Someone has to schedule the camera to get the swap (send it in on a Saturday and break up the different shots between Friday/Monday) or use a second camera body (which isn't preferred because sensors can create variables between cameras).

This article does a great job breaking it down. Canon would need to make a mount that is flexible enough to allow the front of the Cinema EOS body to adapt to multiple flange depths and opening widths.

https://thecinelens.com/2012/02/09/canon-ef-to-pl-is-it-possible/


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2018)

;D ;D ;D The patent is for an adapter and people are commenting on how they like or don't like the fake camera.   :


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Nothing about it is new and how they can claim a patent in beyond me.



Come on, buddy. Your understanding of how patents work can't be this bad. Execution is everything.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2018)

docsmith said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > docsmith said:
> ...



A Bentley is elegant. Thousands of moving parts, but that is a different kind of elegant.

In this case elegant = "...pleasingly ingenious and simple."

How anyone here knows how many moving parts there are or how robust they might be is beyond me. The negativity around here is brutal.

If this is Canon's way of allowing EF glass to be used on the new mirrorless lineup that is coming then I'm happy. A straight EF mount would have been nice. I guess we'll see.


----------



## zim (Apr 21, 2018)

miketcool said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a pro and I've never worked with such equipment, not trolling or whatever it's called, I'm genuinely interested in why that's a nightmare?
> ...




Ah, understand now, appreciate the detailed reply and insight into your business. Thanks


----------



## sanj (Apr 21, 2018)

miketcool said:


> This is an adapter that allows for quick changing between EF and PL mount Cinema Lenses. No further commenting needed. If you've ever worked on a shoot where you need to go between the two lenses, you know it's a nightmare.



I once had to make the chairman of Unilever wait for 1 hr because rental house showed up with wrong mount. I know what you mean!!


----------



## docsmith (Apr 21, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> A Bentley is elegant. Thousands of moving parts, but that is a different kind of elegant.
> 
> In this case elegant = "...pleasingly ingenious and simple."
> 
> ...


First, the moving parts are actually detailed in the patent. Many photos and much text are spent detailing the movement, that the contacts can move forward and back with the movement of a lever. Also looking at the patent, there are potentially more that one part necessary for the adapter.

If you can look at this in a preliminary assessment and conclude this is something you might want to adapt all your gear to a new camera, good. My preliminary assessment was that I'd prefer the mount of any new camera I buy to fit my lenses natively or with an "elegant" adapter that would be virtually unnoticeable. Not difficult to look at the pictures in the patent and realize that this would be very noticeable.

But, the actually the unit pictured by miketcool looks great. And I totally get it for cinema where Canon sells the same camera with different mounts and the general bulk associated with these set ups is far greater than a typical event/street/etc photographer. Different systems. 

Finally, what Canon did with the Cinema line is potentially and interesting solution for when they release their mirrorless cameras. Produce cameras with either a EF or an EF-X mount and then have an adapter for those that want both mounts in their bags. That actually might make everyone happy. It would cost Canon more, but, as unfocused pointed out, Canon is in the business of providing options, not taking them away.


----------



## jedy (Apr 21, 2018)

Bennymiata said:


> Nice sized grip on it, the body looks quite thick too.


These are illustrations to showcase the lens mount adapter. I don't think the camera body is meant as a new product, just to show the adapter mounted to a generic camera body. Bear in mind this adapter could be for a new mirrorless camera, design of which as yet unknown.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 21, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Nothing about it is new and how they can claim a patent in beyond me.



Interestingly enough, I still have my bellows to go with my OM-1..... I got them used about 40 years ago..... the original lens mount adaptor for different flange distances....


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2018)

docsmith said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > A Bentley is elegant. Thousands of moving parts, but that is a different kind of elegant.
> ...



True, but what one person thinks is an elegant solution may be different from what another thinks. I think an adapter provides more options. If I interpret you correctly, you do too.


----------



## miketcool (Apr 22, 2018)

sanj said:


> I once had to make the chairman of Unilever wait for 1 hr because rental house showed up with wrong mount. I know what you mean!!



Oh man! This is why I stopped working on jobs where equipment arrives on the day and they don't want to pay for prep. Inevitably something important gets missed costing production thousands of dollars over paying someone a few hundred bucks to get it right the day before.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Apr 22, 2018)

I can see this working for cinema cameras (they already have something similar) but this is far from an "elegant solution" on a standard ILC camera. Talk about over engineering. Either stay with EF mount and build the flange distance into the camera or go with EF-M mount and lower the flange distance on the camera.

Ideas like this look good for a year or two and then look absolutely ridiculous further down the line when Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Leica and everyone else don't have to. Nikon will be biting the bullet and dropping their dated mount. Canon's whilst less dated (electronic) could do with the same.

Don't half arse another thing Canon...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 22, 2018)

It reminds me of an item I received from an estate. A nut-driver with a push-retractible hexagonal insert set that will accommodate about 4 nut sizes and is awfully large in diameter when trying to use it over a small nut. Pretty ingenious (elegant) unless your smaller nuts are in tight quarters, and then it's useless. 

Jack


----------



## fingerstein (Apr 24, 2018)

Eoshd has more info: https://www.eoshd.com/2018/04/canons-rival-to-the-gh5-leaks/
I think in the same way: "If this camera has Fuji X-H1 standard 5 axis IBIS and a Super 35mm sensor, with Canon colour and 400Mbit codec, as well as Dual Pixel AF and handles like a miniature C300 Mark II, but with option for an official Canon Speed Booster to make it full frame, then we are game on.

If it is anything less than you can probably forget about it and buy a GH5 or A7 III!"


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 25, 2018)

Interesting. Get ready for the disappointment.

Jack


----------

