# Would you buy more EF lenses if new FF mirrorless uses a new lens mount?



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2018)

If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses? 
Maybe wait a while to see how things play out?
Maybe wait for an adapter to be reviewed and have some time in the field?

Or do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Or do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?



Simply looking at the EOS M series' effect (or rather, lack thereof) on Canon's APS-C DSLR lineup provides the answer to that question.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Or do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?
> ...




The EOS M, in my opinion, is not even a pro-sumer camera. Most APS-C lenses are not equal in quality or price to L series lenses. Yes, we can base some assumptions on the this comparison, but not many, and not especially good for forecasting. 

I'd like to see sales figures for the EOS M compared to total Canon dSLR sales. I've never seen one in the wild, despite living in a town with many enthusiasts. Are sales large enough to affect much of anything yet?


----------



## BillB (Jul 21, 2018)

As long as you have a camera with an EF mount, you can use EF lenses, Canon is not going to stop making cameras with EF mounts any time soon, and there is nothing that says you can't keep using the camera you have Almost certainly you would be able to use EF lenses with an adapter on a mirrorless camera with a new mount. 

Either you have a use for a new lens or you don't. If you do have a use for a new lens, then why not go ahead and get it? (Over the years, it has gotten harder and harder to convince my self that a new lens would be of any use to me.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> The EOS M, in my opinion, is not even a pro-sumer camera. Most APS-C lenses are not equal in quality or price to L series lenses. Yes, we can base some assumptions on the this comparison, but not many, and not especially good for forecasting.
> 
> I'd like to see sales figures for the EOS M compared to total Canon dSLR sales. I've never seen one in the wild, despite living in a town with many enthusiasts. Are sales large enough to affect much of anything yet?



Canon is #2 in global MILC sales. Behind only Sony, ahead of Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, etc. That's certainly 'large enough to affect' the market. 

The fact is, despite the market success of the M line, Canon has not slowed down the APS-C DSLR line (if anything, they've added more segments), nor slowed the release of EF-S lenses (which was never very fast-paced to begin with). 

The realities are that DSLRs comprise ~63% of the ILC market, and that even though APS-C ILC sales far outnumber FF ILC sales, Canon sells more FF ILCs than anyone else (and without a FF MILC). 

Adding up all those facts yields the logical conclusion that a Canon FF MILC will have no major impact on their DLSR lineup for several years.


----------



## denstore (Jul 21, 2018)

It depends on what lenses they would release. If they would release a new 50/1.2 IS in the new mount only, I would probably buy it. If the same lens would be released in both the new mount and in EF, and that difference in performance with a converter would be small, I would probably buy it in EF configuration. I still have DSLRs, and I probably will use them for at least 5-10 years more. And since I at times use my old 1V for black and white film photography, I would be happy to see new modern lenses that could be used on my older cameras.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Or do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?



Maybe you could say this, in the years to come FF mirrorless will have a significant impact on the dSLR line up.

But really this doesn't matter to Canon. If Canon loose a dSLR sale to someone choosing a Canon FF mirrorless it would be a lateral move. Canon still sells 1 camera.

And what does it matter to us the consumer?
Fear is all, are we afraid this new technology will leave us with thousands of dollars of obsolete glass?
Are we afraid a new mount on a mirrorless will force us to buy new lenses?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ...do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?



That is your answer. 

You can lock the thread now. Let's not waste time on irrational fears. Take a Xanax and relax.


----------



## rpt (Jul 21, 2018)

No.

Ran out of cash 2 years back :'( :'( :'(


----------



## stevelee (Jul 21, 2018)

Since it is very unlikely that I will buy a camera with the new mount for at least five years to come (if ever), then I fail to see how the mount would affect any of my lens purchases. 

I buy lenses to use, and am not particularly concerned about their resale value to my estate.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 21, 2018)

Good grief! Another _*PANIC*_ thread.

Repeat after me:

Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
Canon will continue to make DSLRs and EF lenses for many years to come.
.........


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jul 21, 2018)

Yes, still will buy EF lenses. (and I shoot mirrorless Sony apsc when I have to. shot a performance with the a6500 Wednesday and I had 1/10 keepers, yay. usually about 1/4 for the 5d4) I still have Canon FD lenses laying around. The threat to Canon right now, as far as my bank account goes is Tamron.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jul 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?
> Maybe wait a while to see how things play out?
> Maybe wait for an adapter to be reviewed and have some time in the field?
> 
> Or do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?



Probably but i'm in no hurry to purchase a mirrorless camera, but if it does eventually come down to that I would probably take the opportunity to switch to Nikon over switching Canon mounts.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?


Yes, 11-24, for those cases where 17 TS-E is not wide enough.

By the way, which FF lens do _you_ want to buy next (EF or non-EF)?


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 21, 2018)

I will definitely buy EF(s) lenses if there are interesting offers like:

* EF-S 20-60 4.0 IS with good "macro", distance scale and without focus by wire
* EF 40-200 4.0 L IS USM
* sth. like EF 50 1.4 IS USM

Why? After using and liking the M50 for a lot of hours I really like the mirrorless concepts but I also see its limitations. SLR concepts will be there at least for 10 years maybe longer. And if the hybrids are coming (switchable / overlayable EVF-OVF) EF will maybe live longer than 20 years.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2018)

unfocused said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?
> ...



The topic of the thread is relevant and current. Asking others in a Canon rumors forum how they would respond to a new mount on a FF mirrorless camera is straightforward. Still not sure why the topic agitates you as much as it does.

Personally, I'd choose letting things shake out a bit, having time for a consensus to form on the performance of lenses with an adapter. 

Whether I'd buy the new mirrorless and native lenses PLUS hang onto dSLR bodies, that's a whole other thread. :

The common sense expectation is that Canon is going to make a gradual transition--not discontinue dSLR's right away. But with so many photographers other than hobbyists and working professionals happily using smartphones and other alternatives far easier to carry around than a 5DIV, how long can Canon maintain a dSLR line AND a FF mirrorless line and remain profitable? (Ok, here comes the core of members who remind us weekly that Canon is number one and will always be so.  )

Unfocused, I can see that you don't like the speculation, that you might think some conjecture is too far fetched. Fine. But why are you so clearly angry about asking what others will do if EF is slated to be phased out? Why even get involved in a thread you think is not worth your time? Do you have a website that depends on click-through to EF lenses???


----------



## jd7 (Jul 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> The common sense expectation is that Canon is going to make a gradual transition--not discontinue dSLR's right away. But with so many photographers other than hobbyists and working professionals happily using smartphones and other alternatives far easier to carry around than a 5DIV, how long can Canon maintain a dSLR line AND a FF mirrorless line and remain profitable? (Ok, here comes the core of members who remind us weekly that Canon is number one and will always be so.  )



I think the first issue there is whether DSLRs are going to be discontinued at any point in the foreseeable future. I'm not convinced that will necessarily happen. Obviously some people are very excited about FF mirrorless but the question is what proportion of the market do those people represent? For all the hype around Sony, from what I understand of the sales figures Sony FF mirrorless hasn't grabbed that much market share despite being the only player on the market for a few years now. Time will tell but at this point I am just not excited about the idea of FF mirrorless. Sure it has its advantages but it has its disadvantages too - so as usual it's a case of weighing the set of trade offs involved in any piece of gear and deciding if you prefer that set of trade offs to the trade offs involved in the alternatives. Maybe something will come out (from Canon or Sony or someone else) which wows me and I'll change my mind, but so far I prefer the set of trade offs involved in a DSLR.

If Canon releases a FF mirrorless with a new mount so it requires an adapter to use EF lenses, it will be a(nother) reason weighing against me buying a FF mirrorless (it may not be a major factor if there is a good adapter, but I'd prefer not to have to worry about one).


----------



## Bennymiata (Jul 22, 2018)

Yes.
A 11-24 and the new 70-200 f4.
I mainly use my 5d3 and M5. I've got all the lenses for the M5, but I'm waiting for a new 5DSR2 so I can retire my 5d3 and 70d.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> But with so many photographers other than hobbyists and working professionals happily using smartphones and other alternatives far easier to carry around than a 5DIV, how long can Canon maintain a dSLR line AND a FF mirrorless line and remain profitable?



As already stated, APS-C sales/revenues far exceed FF sales/revenues. So, how long can Canon maintain a dSLR line AND an APS-C mirrorless line and remain profitable? Six years and counting, with no end in sight. 

Funny thing about facts...ignoring them doesn't make them go away.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > But with so many photographers other than hobbyists and working professionals happily using smartphones and other alternatives far easier to carry around than a 5DIV, how long can Canon maintain a dSLR line AND a FF mirrorless line and remain profitable?
> ...



I do hope your are right. Choice is always great for consumers. Personally, until I'm convinced an EVF works better, I'd rather stick with the dSLR. Otherwise I see no reason to not be open to going all mirrorless--even if it means using an adapter on current EF lenses. But, as said earlier, I wouldn't be an early adopter.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 22, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ...Unfocused, I can see that you don't like the speculation, that you might think some conjecture is too far fetched. Fine. But why are you so clearly angry about asking what others will do if EF is slated to be phased out? Why even get involved in a thread you think is not worth your time? Do you have a website that depends on click-through to EF lenses???



I simply don't suffer foolish threads gladly. I have no problem discussing any number of topics, but prefer to focus on ones that have a rational basis. 

This thread is nothing more than an offshoot of the other thread you started, that suggested that by introducing new EF lenses, Canon was somehow setting the stage to abandon EF lenses. I'm still scratching my head over those mental gymnastics.

Now you've taken the next leap and seems to be suggesting that others should share your unfounded fears about the future of EF lenses. 

I don't get why you feel compelled to ask the same question in multiple ways and then instead of accepting people's answers, you keep hanging on to your irrational worries. Starting multiple threads covering the same topic and then holding on to a viewpoint that others have clearly explained is irrational, is a form of trolling.

I don't think you mean it that way, but that's the effect and I'm not a fan of trolling.

I'd suggest you read and take to heart dak723's excellent response:


dak723 said:


> Good grief! Another _*PANIC*_ thread.
> 
> Repeat after me:
> 
> ...


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 22, 2018)

unfocused said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...Unfocused, I can see that you don't like the speculation, that you might think some conjecture is too far fetched. Fine. But why are you so clearly angry about asking what others will do if EF is slated to be phased out? Why even get involved in a thread you think is not worth your time? Do you have a website that depends on click-through to EF lenses???
> ...



I think readers will see that I'm genuinely seeking a discussion about EF being replaced. I own and use Canon dSLR gear. Not a concern to you? Don't care for my style? Fine. There are plenty of other topics to choose!


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Jul 22, 2018)

[/quote]

I think readers will see that I'm genuinely seeking a discussion about EF being replaced. I own and use Canon dSLR gear. Not a concern to you? Don't care for my style? Fine. But you are the only one posting insults like a troll in this thread. Get over yourself already.
[/quote]

I have been though fl to fd lens mounts thinking fd lens will not change but then the t80 happed with its primitive auto focus system still have the body and the lens. but I kept on using my ftb-n and ae1 program well into the 2000 with a 28 2.8 fd 50 1.8 plus 50 1.4 fd mounts 85 1.8 fd 135 3.5 fd lens no zooms manual focus one autowinder a2.if canon is moving on to a new mount mirrorless so be it when its time and when I am ready I will move to the new mount but my ef lens will work along side me until then. yes I plan on buying new ef lens. the 85 1.4 the 50 1.4 a new 70-200 2.8 are all on my short list. the glass are tools that make my photos mine. mounts well they can change. enjoy your art now and the advances in technology can wait.


joe


----------



## Otara (Jul 22, 2018)

I have an M5, and found that I have only bought one EF-M lens, if thats any use data wise. The size difference isnt big enough to get something that only works on the m5, and they tend to cost more, I find EF-S lenses and EF lenses a better buy overall for my needs with it.

For a FF, I would do the same, unless there was some kind of massive increase in quality in some way - part of the appeal of a Canon FF mirrorless would have to be good compatibility, or lower cost, otherwise theres no compelling reason other than familiarity (to me at least) over considering a switch to another brand, eg Sony.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> The topic of the thread is relevant and current.


So, are you _buying_ FF lenses or not?

Which lens would you buy next if a new FF mirrorless uses the EF lens mount?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2018)

Kit. said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > The topic of the thread is relevant and current.
> ...



I've asked the question to reach out to other Canon shooters to get their thoughts because there are a couple of lenses I've been wanting to get. One would be a new tilt-shift, though I haven't decided on the best focal length. I'd love to see Canon come out with a fantastic ef 50mm f/1.2 II. And then a big white is in the mix.

The one I'd really put to good, heavy use is the 50mm, so that's the top of the list.

But I do want to see how the new mount plays out, get some sense of the direction and commitment Canon has in mind for FF mirrorless. If Canon seems to take a long pause releasing new EF lenses after a non-EF FF mirrorless is announced, that would be telling.

We'll know soon whether mirrorless FF has EF!


----------



## Kit. (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > So, are you _buying_ FF lenses or not?
> ...


Tilt-shifts are expensive niche lenses that get little if any benefit from a shorter flange distance. It's highly unlikely that Canon will spend money redesigning them for a new mount any time soon.



YuengLinger said:


> though I haven't decided on the best focal length.


The focal length depends on what you are going to use it for.



YuengLinger said:


> I'd love to see Canon come out with a fantastic ef 50mm f/1.2 II.


Then you need to wait, no matter which mount the new FF mirrorless uses.



YuengLinger said:


> And then a big white is in the mix.


As Canon is currently updating those, it expects them to sell well in EF mount version. Which means that:

1. Canon expects them to work well on a body with the new lens mount; or
2. Canon expects little demand in big whites for bodies with the new lens mount; or
3. Canon doesn't want to make a new lens mount.

In any case, you can safely buy them.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 23, 2018)

If they are new lenses they'll likely work fine with the adaptor for the new mount, so I'd certainly buy.


----------



## neonlight (Jul 23, 2018)

I could be wrong of course, but I think Canon's FF MILC will be EF, with body similar size to 5D etc.
Has to be, or it may hasten those wanting to jump ship to S*** or N****.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2018)

neonlight said:


> I could be wrong of course, but I think Canon's FF MILC will be EF, with body similar size to 5D etc.
> Has to be, or it may hasten those wanting to jump ship to S*** or N****.



I'd like to believe this, but apparently the new Nikon FF will have a new mount. So Nikon is taking the chance of losing customers "wanting to jump ship" too. It could be an engineering issue. We are in a time of transition.

If an adapter is needed, would Canon bundle it to further encourage current EF quiver owners?


----------



## stevelee (Jul 23, 2018)

For me this question is a lot like asking what lenses I’d buy if they discontinued orange M&Ms.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I'd like to believe this, but apparently the new Nikon FF will have a new mount. So Nikon is taking the chance of losing customers "wanting to jump ship" too. It could be an engineering issue. We are in a time of transition.


Actually, Nikon is catching up here. Canon got rid of its screwdriver autofocus mount and moved to a wider mount throat 30 years ago.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 23, 2018)

stevelee said:


> For me this question is a lot like asking what lenses I’d buy if they discontinued orange M&Ms.



+1


----------



## unfocused (Jul 23, 2018)

Kit. said:


> ...In any case, you can safely buy them.



Says it all. Your response was far more patient and polite than my reaction. Unfortunately, I don't believe it will deter the hand-wringing.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?


If the sun would never rise again, would you still buy sunglasses?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?
> ...



Of course.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2018)

So, the consensus seems to be that Canon will release a FF mirrorless with a new mount, but that an adapter will be an attractive enough compromise to keep using EF lenses.

And I'm hearing that Canon will keep two lines of FF cameras going for a very long time, dSLR and mirrorless, so the EF lenses will continue to be a good current investment.

But if they make a FF that is good enough to consistently compete against Sony and Nikon, wouldn't a lot of customers yearn for the mirrorless and want native-mount lenses for it? On the other hand, if the mirrorless is disappointing compared to Sony or Nikon, but can't use EF lenses, there will be a lot of thoughts about switching brands.

Time frame? No idea. But at some point, and I'm wildly guessing here, less than 10 years, EF is going to be adapter only on all but discontinued bodies. Somebody is going to be left holding a bag full of EF lenses. For most people, that is too far away to worry about, even if the new mirrorless bodies definitely have a new mount.

We can have faith that Canon has figured out how to make the glide-path safe and profitable.

Interesting times.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> So, the consensus seems to be that Canon will release a FF mirrorless with a new mount,


No, there is no such consensus.

Neither is there a consensus that Canon will stop producing new SLRs.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2018)

Kit. said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > So, the consensus seems to be that Canon will release a FF mirrorless with a new mount,
> ...



I should have said, regarding a new mount, "within this thread." I don't think many posts I've read here say Canon is not going to have a new mount, but that the new mount won't affect the longevity of EF lenses.

AS for "stop producing new SLRs," I didn't make such a claim above; in fact, I said the consensus seems to be that Canon will keep making dSLRs and mirrorless FF together for a very long time. (Though I don't agree with that, unless 5-7 years is a very long time.)


----------



## Talys (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



CR guy has posted a couple of times now that his sources have told him that it's some kind of slick or sexy solution to deal with EF.

That would imply to me that there is likely a new/hybrid mount that is either straight-on compatible (can mount EF directly) or has some kind of cool, non-traditional adapter solution. Because sticking an adapter to increase FFD onto the body is about the furthest thing from sexy.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ...But at some point, and *I'm wildly guessing here*, less than 10 years, EF is going to be adapter only on all but discontinued bodies. Somebody is going to be left holding a bag full of EF lenses...



"Wildly Guessing" is a massive understatement. 

No one can predict whether or not mirrorless will someday overtake single lens reflex cameras. Right now, neither technology has a clear advantage over the other. It is entirely possible that mirrorless will become popular with some customers and SLRs will remain popular with others. 

Eventually Canon and Nikon could incorporate mirrorless technology into the existing form factor of SLRs, so that people who use and prefer the SLR style of body can continue to do so seamlessly. This would happen only if mirrorless technology eventually gets to the point where it can comfortably replace SLRs with no compromises, and we are far from there yet. I can envision a 1Dx V that has no mirror in it, but looks virtually identical to the current SLR version and takes EF lenses natively.

At a minimum it would take Canon 10-15 years to convert it's entire EF lens line to a new mount and that is at a pace that exceeds their normal lens release pattern. 

Ask yourself, if you were Canon, which would you do: convert dozens of lenses to a new mount or create three new camera bodies? 

Customers may eventually have a choice of a small mirrorless body for shooting in the 24mm to 135/200mm range and a SLR clone body that natively accepts all EF lenses. Even Fullstop/AvTvM admits there is no reason to have special mirrorless lenses at the long and extreme short ends or even at large apertures.


----------



## slclick (Jul 23, 2018)

While the rest of the world (on their phones) is proclaiming the end to cameras, the photography world is heralding the end to mirrors. One piece at a time I guess.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Kit. said:
> ...



Haven't read this. Seems like it might be a very satisfying workaround solution from the one camera company that puts service so high up in their list of priorities. I'm loyal to Canon because of performance and service, and even if they aren't constantly bleeding edge, they keep excellent gear working year after year with CPS.


----------



## DZY (Jul 23, 2018)

IMO the transition from FD to EF is revolutionary because the AF mechanism. I think the transition from EF to any new mount will be evolutionary as long as we still control the lens by electronic signals. On the other hands, new mount may open up new optical designs for shorter focal length. So what I feel is the new mount allows easy designs of a better WA/UWA lenses, but I don't think it make much difference for teles.
I own and use DSLR and ML, and talked to people from varies of level. Most daily users/soccer moms like ML, while most pro/sports like DSLR. To me, the artificial image from EVL stopped me from getting further to ML, as well as the response curve, lag, contrast, etc. BUT, I do think the focus peak, real time histogram, enhanced night vision etc are undoubtable superior than DSLR. I am keeping my eye on the development of LCD tech. Until then, I bet DSLR is still favorable to real photographer. It is the same story of cell phone vs dedicated camera. I just had a birthday party at home this passing Saturday. Everyone including me used iphone for pictures, but when selecting which picture to put on to the web, they all came to my Canon files.
Back to the EF lens, I think it is safe to buy the long/big lenses, there will be no real difference either by size and/or weight, if there were a new mount coming out soon. But you can wait for a few months to see the new mount if you are going to purchase a short lens.
To me, the ML-SLR appears to be a new type of point-and-shoot or a cell phone with large sensor. It is supposed to be compact and light weight. When entering into good size and good control, big size and weight is inevitable, as well as good response, accurate rendition, etc. It seems Canon is trying a hybrid viewfinder, is that the real future?
I am a EE in the mil/space industry, I think I know electronic more than the optics, but I don't think we can put all our attention on sensor/IC/electronics of a camera.
So a new mount will be very much compatible with the EF, which we call backward compatible.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 23, 2018)

put it like this....

Canon came out with a mirrorless crop mount...

Sales of EF-S lenses are still going strong....

What would be different if a new Mirrorless mount came out?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 23, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> put it like this....
> 
> Canon came out with a mirrorless crop mount...
> 
> ...




"L" series lenses cost a lot more, and many of us have become accustomed to believing that we can resell them for a good price when desired.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Who's common sense expectation? Maybe that is your sense of the direction things are taking (phase out of DSLR and EF), but it obviously isn't the common sense around here.

Guess what? A smartphone will always be easier to carry around than any ILC, including MILC. Your point is moot.

My answer? Yes.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 23, 2018)

"The new Canon FF MILC isn't skinny and EF isn't going away! Oh nooooo..."


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > put it like this....
> ...



If you are one of those people who believe your glass is an "investment".

"L" series lenses have been downgraded from "hold" to "sell" by many lens analyst.


----------



## Lurker (Jul 23, 2018)

> If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?



For me the question is backwards. It assumes that I will buy mirrorless or at least that mirrorless will have an influence on my life. If Canon mirrorless does not support EF I won't buy mirrorless. I believe it will take a long time for Canon to convert the current lens lineup to a new mount. By the time they do I will be long done spending money on camera equipment and happily go through the rest of my life with a DSLR and EF glass.

Mirrorless has some interest for me but I've worked in tech for 30+years and am smart enough to not get caught in a technology freeze, always waiting for the next best thing since sliced bread. When I'm ready to buy I will buy into an available system that is best for me. Not to say I won't wait a couple of months for the 600 DO to roll out or maybe the next 7D but within a year I hope to be pretty much set with a top notch system that will last the rest of my life.

Resale doesn't play into the picture for me. Buy the tools now that you need (and can afford) to do what you want done. Deal with the future when it gets here because you never know how things will change between now and then.


----------



## applecider (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> "L" series lenses cost a lot more, and many of us have become accustomed to believing that we can resell them for a good price when desired.



Stock in Microsoft apple or Facebook is an investment, and yes in another sense a lens portfolio is a type of investment as well to some but a tool to others. 

I think if you are worried about your lenses from an investment point of view and being hit by a sudden lens depression, then selling all but your most necessary lenses would be prudent.

I will be in the market to buy EF lenses the day after canon announces the new mount, and am expecting yard sale pricing. The only question is which lenses do I want!

I hope everyone buys the latest EF lenses before announcement so the new stuff is available...

Canon please release the 600 f4 DO before the new mount so many are orphaned.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 23, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > put it like this....
> ...



Wearing my “pro” hat..... Lenses and camera bodies are a tool. You buy what you need to get the job done as long as it fits in your budget. As to who makes it, or guesses as to what will happen in the future, it really does not matter. You get what you need, when you need it, and get the job done. Today, I ended up ordering 8 more tripods and 8 more gearheads for a project.... I will probably never again need a dozen at once, but that does not matter, it’s getting the job done that counts..... same with cameras, same with lenses.... so yes, even if Canon did the insanely unlikely thing of announcing the end of all EF lenses next year, if I needed to buy a 600F4 for a project, I would.

At home, usage is a lot more varied and the budget is a lot lower. Obsolescence is a much greater worry and I tend to avoid companies with a history of dropping or not supporting products.... anyone want a used Sony Vaio laptop, or some 4/3 camera lenses from Olympus?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 24, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Canon owners have long enjoyed great resale value. This has nothing to do with "investments." We have known for years we can sell to upgrade or downsize and not face a huge loss. This has been one of the many benefits of owning Canon lenses.

On the other hand, working pros who profit from photography invest in gear just as any business invests in equipment. Different meaning from the resale angle, but still nothing to do with hoping to see an increase in value over time.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 24, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Canon owners have long enjoyed great resale value. This has nothing to do with "investments." We have known for years we can sell to upgrade or downsize and not face a huge loss. This has been one of the many benefits of owning Canon lenses.
> 
> On the other hand, working pros who profit from photography invest in gear just as any business invests in equipment. Different meaning from the resale angle, but still nothing to do with hoping to see an increase in value over time.



I'm not sure I agree with this perspective. I've never bought a single lens or camera thinking about resale value. And resale value would certainly never deter me from buying a camera or lens. 

But, if that is an important factor for you, there is nothing about the introduction of a niche market mirrorless camera and the adoption of a new lens mount for a handful of lenses designed for that new camera that should deter you from buying the broader, more widely marketed and much more flexible EF mount lenses. 

If you are really concerned about resale value, then don't invest heavily in the new mount. That's the untested market.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 24, 2018)

A few years ago while sitting at the poker table I met a pro photog that owned a studio in town.

He hated Canon with a passion. His first question to me was what camera do I shoot.

His hatred didn't come from pixel count, dr or any of the other silly arguments we see now.

It came from the FD to EF mount change years ago. He was a Canon user and felt shafted by Canon, and his complaint was around all the investment he had in Canon gear going obsolete. (yes his gear was an investment since he was using it to generate income, if you are an amateur your equipment is not an "investment")

So to sum this story up, Canon didn't care much in the late 80's and early 90's that it upset loyal followers. Canon will gladly bring a new mount to market with a new FF mirrorless that creates new lens sales and more revenue, while making a few loyal followers mad.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 24, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> A few years ago while sitting at the poker table I met a pro photog that owned a studio in town.
> 
> He hated Canon with a passion. His first question to me was what camera do I shoot.
> 
> ...



The EF mount is the Electo Focus mount. Changing from FD to EF allowed Canon cameras to AF electronically. FD was mechanical, EF is digital. Changing mounts brought a lot of new capability to the cameras. Canon had no choice in the matter, this was a case of adapt to the digital world or die. Those first EF lenses are still usable today and the mount has survived the change from film cameras to digital cameras.... One might even say that the EF lens lineup allowed Canon's success in a digital world.

Changing the EF mount to a new mount brings ZERO new features into play. They can mess around with the size of the mount, but it will only make a very few lenses smaller... and some will end up bigger, plus there is the increased vignetting and chromatic abberation of a shorter flange distance. In doing so, they would run the risk of alienating their user base and pissing them all off like your above mentioned friend, except that in this case, instead of introducing new features and capabilities with the change, they would just be fiddling around with it to cause discord.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > A few years ago while sitting at the poker table I met a pro photog that owned a studio in town.
> ...



Thanks, Don. Once again, you are the voice of reason.


----------



## Click (Jul 24, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Thanks, Don. Once again, you are the voice of reason.



+1


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > A few years ago while sitting at the poker table I met a pro photog that owned a studio in town.
> ...



So there is no new features that can be integrated in a 30 year old electronic mount?
In 1987 think about what computers were available. In the digital world that is ancient history.

Canon felt it was necessary to change in 1987, as you mentioned it was a success. 
Would they do do it again if they believed it was necessary to keep up with the times and the current technology? Of course they would.

Are they going to change the size of the mount? I think that discussion is just background noise from those who like to speculate about things they have little inside understanding or knowledge of.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 24, 2018)

Click said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Don. Once again, you are the voice of reason.
> ...



or to put it another way,

+1 Thanks for assuring us that our $35K investment in lenses and bodies will not be totally worthless in the coming months.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 24, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> So there is no new features that can be integrated in a 30 year old electronic mount?
> In 1987 think about what computers were available. In the digital world that is ancient history.
> 
> Canon felt it was necessary to change in 1987, as you mentioned it was a success.
> ...



Please read Don's explanation. A decent analogy would be an electric plug and a wall outlet. You plug the lens into the camera and it makes a connection that allows power and data to travel between camera and lens. The mount has no other functions other than to make an electronic connection and physically hold the lens to the camera.

Same reason why you can plug an electric appliance into a wall outlet from 1950 as easily as one from 2018 (Ignoring, of course, the safety aspect of grounded outlets). All it has to do is transfer the power from one object to the other. The camera and lens connection does exchange data of course, but again it's just a simple connection.

What "inside knowledge or understanding" do you think you have that would lead you to make it more complicated than it is?


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > So there is no new features that can be integrated in a 30 year old electronic mount?
> ...



The same amount you of "inside knowledge or understanding" as you. 

So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?



'Room for improvement' is irrelevant unless there is a need for that improvement and a meaningful benefit to be derived from it. 

If I want to electronically transmit a 7 letter word (for example, asinine or foolish), does a gigabit ethernet connection offer meaningful benefit over dial-up? No.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 24, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> So there is no new features that can be integrated in a 30 year old electronic mount?


There are _plenty_ of new features that were "integrated" into the same mount since then.



takesome1 said:


> In 1987 think about what computers were available. In the digital world that is ancient history.


RJ45 is still exactly the same as then, too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2018)

Kit. said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > In 1987 think about what computers were available. In the digital world that is ancient history.
> ...



Indeed. High-speed internet is carried over a connector with 8 pins. The EF mount on a DSLR has....wait for it....8 pins.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...




Actually..... in 1987 we were still using vampire taps on co-ax cable for our ethernet.... RJ45 like connectors appeared in 1988.....


In 1988 you carried data over that connection at 10Mbps..... now you carry it at 10Gbps (typically), and the gear at both ends negotiates the highest practical shared speed..... If only Canon would do the same and negotiate higher shared speeds between lenses and cameras.... oh wait! They just patented a version of that!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?
> ...



In the case of cameras and lenses, the problem isn't the sustained average data rate, but a latency problem when doing more data intensive tasks like AF.... With a higher speed link, it takes less time to send the required data and reduces the latency.

Of course, a higher speed link is an electronics problem and has virtually nothing to do with the physical size of a mount, and can just as easily be introduced on the existing EF mount as on an imaginary new mount, particularly if this new mount is also to have imaginary adaptors to adapt to EF lenses....

So yes, there IS room for improvement, but that is with the electronics on the ends of the mount. The physical mount itself has no bearing on the problem.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Jul 25, 2018)

The FD to EF mount change, really offered no good options for users of FD mount. The jump from Manual focus to Auto Focus was too much. However, EF-M mount and any future mounts Canon may develop will allow useage of EF lenses with or without a converter and rather good options for all users. To be honest, using EF lenses on the EOS M5 is fine. Sure the M5 could be faster at focusing, but I don't see it is being handicapped by the EF-M mount in particular. 

I am thinking a transformer type mount permanently integrated on the camera that allows EF-M, and EF, EF-S lenses where the mount can retract inside the camera body when not being used. Allowing all EF lenses to be used. That EF-T (transformer mount) would be for the flagship model and another with just EF and EF-S mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> In the case of cameras and lenses, the problem isn't the sustained average data rate, but a latency problem when doing more data intensive tasks like AF.... With a higher speed link, it takes less time to send the required data and reduces the latency.



The 1D X II can achieve 14 fps while focusing between shots. The limitations on that speed are the aperture motor (setting more than four stops down from wide open slows the frame rate) and image processing (too high an ISO slows the frame rate). I agree that transfer speed can be improved, but the current limitations suggest that the data transfer latency isn't a bottleneck.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > In the case of cameras and lenses, the problem isn't the sustained average data rate, but a latency problem when doing more data intensive tasks like AF.... With a higher speed link, it takes less time to send the required data and reduces the latency.
> ...



Good points! I wonder what effect this would have on video and tracking? Or if it is needed for higher frame rates.... Anyway, a bit more speed on the serial link certainly will not hurt


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 25, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> I am thinking a transformer type mount permanently integrated on the camera that allows EF-M, and EF, EF-S lenses where the mount can retract inside the camera body when not being used. Allowing all EF lenses to be used. That EF-T (transformer mount) would be for the flagship model and another with just EF and EF-S mount.



Wouldn't that be getting quite mechanically complex and have problems with alignment and solidity?


----------



## dak723 (Jul 25, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> However, EF-M mount and any future mounts Canon may develop will allow useage of EF lenses with or without a converter and rather good options for all users. To be honest, using EF lenses on the EOS M5 is fine.



I think you will find a lot of differing opinions on this - depending on the lenses, of course. When I got the M5, I got the adapter to use with my old 28-105mm EF lens. Not a big or heavy lens compared to many - but no, very uncomfortable for me to use. I believe mainly due to the width of the lens at the mount. Also had a EF-S 55-250mm which I was looking forward to use. Again, very uncomfortable - so much so that I sold the lenses and the adapter. I can see why the 55-200mm is the longest lens for the M system. Anything longer is very unbalanced, in my opinion.

Any FF with an "M" mount will be OK for only if the grip and body are somewhat - perhaps considerably - bigger than the M5.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?
> ...



Nobody does it better than Neuro. Nobody.


----------



## sanj (Jul 25, 2018)

No. I will not.


----------



## padam (Jul 25, 2018)

EF lenses had enough time to prove themselves to last for a very long time. Also, some people loathe the electronic fly-by-wire focus that STM lenses use, and from what I've seen most of the EF lenses with the USM motor work just as well with DPAF as well as aftermarket ones.
The camcorders are likely to continue using the EF-mount.
But it is nice to have the flexibility between a big ecosystem and a considerably smaller size with a 35mm f2 or similar.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



+1


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 25, 2018)

stevelee said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sure, Neuro is great at transmitting 7 letter words. With over 22,000 posts this is a well established fact.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > So you think the same connection used to exchange data with a 30 year old design has no room for improvement?
> ...



But, do you have the inside knowledge of Canon's R&D department to say they are not working on an improvement that would be a meaningful benefit?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



No more than you. But I do know they're working on a faster mount communication protocol, one that's backwards-compatible with older/slower lenses. The protocol seems applicable to the existing lens mount.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That would be a positive, one could take that as an indication the EF mount might last a few more years (decades) before replacement.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 25, 2018)

I’m likely to last a few more years, but probably not a few more decades myself, so I’m not much worried.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 25, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I’m likely to last a few more years, but probably not a few more decades myself, so I’m not much worried.



Do not worry. The Grand Kids will be able to get adapters to use your lenses. Just like now if I wanted to use an FD mount lens they sell adapters.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 25, 2018)

This is an excerpt from an interview with Canon officials that was posted on DP Preview.

That’s a difficult question to answer. There was a lot of discussion and debate about that shift, in 1987, and we’re going through the same thing now. We want to nurture and support our [existing] EF customers and we’re in discussion about that at the moment.


*Canon's recently-announced EF 85mm F1.4L, showing the electronic contacts which are a defining element of the EF lens system, first introduced more than 30 years ago to replace the all-mechanical FD lens platform.
In 1987, the shift was from a mechanical interface to an electronic interface. That [precluded cross-compatibility]. Despite that shift, the change provided significantly more value for our customers, which is why we went ahead. If it turns out that [the introduction of mirrorless] will create a similar situation, this might be a decision that we would take [again]. But we’re not sure yet.

Because we’re already using an electronic interface, the shift will be more gradual [than it was in 1987] so [we would better able to] maintain compatibility.*

I think the most any of us can say is, they might decide to change the mount, they might not or they might do some kind of gradual change. 

Or, until they decide we do not know what they will do.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 25, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > I’m likely to last a few more years, but probably not a few more decades myself, so I’m not much worried.
> ...



No grandkids, and I doubt any relatives will be interested in my stuff. That’s why I’m leaving contents of my house to a couple friends who live nearer. Especially with my recent L lens purchases, I do need to let one of them know that he should be able to get decent money out of whatever equipment he doesn’t want to keep and use.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 26, 2018)

more important question: would you still buy any Nikon F-mount lenses today? ;D


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?



Definitely not - because _obviously_ Canon will at that point immediately stop making EF cameras; and any existing bodies we happen to own will _obviously_ immediately not work any more...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I think readers will see that I'm genuinely seeking a discussion about EF being replaced.



Nope, you're coming across an obsessive, to the point of trolling, about your current _bête noire_.

Any such discussion would be an utterly pointless speculation-fest, the only purpose of which would be to fuel your histrionic paranoia about an unknowable future.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 26, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> "L" series lenses have been downgraded from "hold" to "sell" by many lens analyst.



And the proof of this is where?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 26, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> It came from the FD to EF mount change years ago. He was a Canon user and felt shafted by Canon



And I know a number of Nikon users who felt similarly indignant when Nikon changed their lens mount (and in particular, stopped making bodies that would drive old screw-drive AF lenses).

Guess what? They're over it.

By the logic of this point, _everyone_ must hate Sony...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 26, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > "L" series lenses have been downgraded from "hold" to "sell" by many lens analyst.
> ...



Don't you know?

Used Canon EF "L" lenses are traded on the New York Stock exchange......


----------



## fullstop (Jul 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Used Canon EF "L" lenses are traded on the New York Stock exchange......



no, rather in Chicago [CME/CBOT] ... along with livestock, soybeans and pork bellies. ;D


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 26, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I think readers will see that I'm genuinely seeking a discussion about EF being replaced.
> ...




In this forum we discuss the fine points of pretty much all aspects of Canon gear. How wide are the zoom rings? How far are they from the focus rings? Which way do they turn? How many AF points does the latest body have compared to the previous generation? What color is the paint on the lens? Does the lens hood have a little access window to adjust a CP?

All compelling topics to somebody, surely, but within the context of Canon, a new FF lens mount is a pretty big deal. They only come along every 30 years or so. 

Apparently you aren't concerned about the likely upcoming change to Canon's FF mount for mirrorless. Perhaps you think it won't affect dSLR's for years, or that not many dSLR owners would soon change over to mirrorless. Reasonable viewpoints, shared by many in this thead, but I think if Canon has a huge hit with mirrorless, the native EF mount will be phased out sooner rather than later. Not only will that affect resale value, for those who consider that aspect of lens ownership, but it will give a reason to wait for new lenses to come out for the new mount.

What is it about the topic question that set you off?


----------



## stevelee (Jul 26, 2018)

I still can't detect flavor differences between different color peanut M&Ms.


----------



## RGF (Jul 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?
> Maybe wait a while to see how things play out?
> Maybe wait for an adapter to be reviewed and have some time in the field?
> 
> Or do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?



would this lead to whole sale switch to Nikon if their ML used their dSLR lenses?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 26, 2018)

RGF said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?
> ...




Not sure why Canon owners with a quiver of EF lenses (especially L series) would see this as a good idea. Nikon seems to have already decided to go with a new mount. Nikon lens owners are going to face adapters and other non-native mount issues too.

My question is about EF lens owners buying more EF lenses if Canon is introducing a new FF mount--not leaving Canon.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> but within the context of Canon, a new FF lens mount is a pretty big deal. They only come along every 30 years or so.



exactly. And guess how much resources Canon will have left to bring out new EF lenses when they got all hands full to churn out brand new EF-X glass and a few more EF-M as well?  

Mirrorslappers are on the way out and so is EF. Just face it. 

But if you plan to shoot DSLRs and long white glass, I would not be concerned to buy EF. 
But WA to 100mm EF lenses ... no way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Mirrorslappers are on the way out and so is EF. Just face it.



The earth will be destroyed when the sun expands into a red giant. We know the latter will happen in about 10 billion years. We don’t know when...or even if...the former will happen. MILCs aren’t a paradigm shift, they’re a minor evolution. MILC sales haven’t even really increased since separate CIPA reporting started back in 2012. A Canon FF MILC is a niche product. Any ILC costing >$2K is a niche product, and your idea of a $999 FF MILC is a pipe dream. Just face it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 26, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorslappers are on the way out and so is EF. Just face it.
> ...




Join me later this afternoon for tea in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



Only if they serve fish, and I can express my gratitude for them as we say goodbye.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



And they are holding their value better than Facebook today.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 26, 2018)

No. OR..... Yes. It depends if I need (OK, want) the EF lens in question. I buy gear that will enable me to do new things,


----------



## fullstop (Jul 26, 2018)

to me *and millions of other potential customers* mirrorfree cameras that deliver the same functionality with less slapping, vibration noise and in in a smaller and LESS EXPENSIVE package ... is a paradigm shift. I will buy the mirrorfree option. And millions of others too. Mirrorslapping is *******, like it or not. And it wil NOT take 10 billion years. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> to me *and millions of other potential customers* mirrorfree cameras that deliver the same functionality with less slapping, vibration noise and in in a smaller and LESS EXPENSIVE package ... is a paradigm shift. I will buy the mirrorfree option. And millions of others too. Mirrorslapping is *******, like it or not. And it wil NOT take 10 billion years. ;D



A digital interchangeable lens camera with a mirror versus a digital interchangeable lens camera without a mirror. Not even close to, "A fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions." 

As even you state, the functionality is essentially identical. Less vibration…clearly not fundamental. Less noise…we've covered this, people generally leave the artificial shutter sound on anyway, clearly not fundamental. What is your evidence that mirrorless cameras are LESS EXPENSIVE, by the way?

The fact that you would buy one type of ILC and not the other does not make it a paradigm shift.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



I can only speak for myself. It's not the topic so much as it is your continuously repeating the same worries over and over again even after others have patiently and rationally explained that the concerns are unfounded. This isn't a discussion. It's people responding to your concerns and you constantly returning to the same concerns over and over again, despite everyone's best efforts to talk you off the ledge. 

As others have explained, comparing an additional lens mount to the wholesale conversion from FD to EF is not valid. If you can't understand the difference after so many people have explained it...well...you probably never will. 

I don't understand why you can't comprehend that EF lenses are going to remain the core lens product for Canon for many many years (decades at least) and that the niche market mirrorless lenses are unlikely to extend beyond a handful of walkaround zooms and maybe a couple of small primes. That any EF lens you buy today will always work on a Canon mirrorless or DSLR camera. 

I feel like we are talking to Eeyore. You seem deadset on looking at the cloudy side no matter how bright the sun is.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 26, 2018)

unfocused said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...



Actually, you are speaking for Keith_Reeder--and you are repeating yourself.

I can "comprehend" your hope, your belief that the EF is here to stay for "decades at least." But I don't have that power of prophecy in an era where cameras are, for a huge part of the market now, becoming technology commodities. dSLR sales have been steadily declining the past five years (though in part because the market has been saturated). I think they are down about 25% industry-wide.

You can't separate the EF mount's future from that of Canon dSLR sales. How could you predict what Canon will decide to do if the downward trend continues?

Yes, in the past two months, with the prospect of a new mount coming, I've brought the topic up in a few other threads, but only in a handful of posts. This thread is focused on the topic, and there have been some great insights. This is not "continuously repeating the same worries over and over again."

I'm no forum saint, for sure. I reply with snark from time to time. But you would be much more persuasive, if that is your intention, without resorting so frequenlty to outraged dismissiveness, personal insults, and accusations of trolling.

You may totally disagree with the stats and conclusions of the links below. Fine. And yes, I can understand that if you are invested in L lenses, it's not fun to think about their value declining rapidly, and repair services winding down. 

But it's a valid topic, it's relevant, and it's interesting.

https://www.diyphotography.net/camera-sales-report-2016-lowest-sales-ever-dslrs-mirrorless/

https://petapixel.com/2018/03/14/death-dslrs-near/


----------



## fullstop (Jul 26, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> dSLR sales have been steadily declining the past five years (though in part because the market has been saturated). I think they are down about 25% industry-wide.
> https://petapixel.com/2018/03/14/death-dslrs-near/



DSLR sales have HALFED from 2012 to 2017. And they will really PLUMMET now, when mirrorless lineups with APS-C and FF sensors become available. 

EF mount will definitely NOT be around for decades. I expect the last Canon mirrorslapper to be produced by 2025. Not many more new/ "updated" EF lenses, once EF-X is launched. Well, maybe Mk. III paintjobs.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 26, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> What is your evidence that mirrorless cameras are LESS EXPENSIVE, by the way?



Basically, it is the same thing, except you remove the mirror, AF unit, and optical viewfinder from it, and replace it with an EVF.... add a driver port to the main board, some software, and you are good to go!

It should be cheaper to produce and install the EVF than the other stuff....

That said, when you look at the cost to make the body, the sensor the motherboard, all the associated electronics/buttons/switches/etc... that the cost savings is probably one or two percent.... but you also have to pay for the R+D....

There is an old saying; A difference that makes no difference is no difference at all.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > dSLR sales have been steadily declining the past five years (though in part because the market has been saturated). I think they are down about 25% industry-wide.
> ...



Why do you assume that Mirrorless requires a new mount?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Don, as you can see from my posts, I'm hoping that, somehow, Canon can continue with EF on the new generation of FF mirrorless.

Are you assuming FF mirrorless will not have a new mount?

I didn't start reading articles such as these in the links below until unfocused accused me of being paranoid and worried about nothing for broaching the topic!

https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/09/canon-and-nikon-are-reportedly-both-planning-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras-this-year/

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/7/25/17611108/nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-system-announced

And several others assume that a new FF mirrorless will have a new mount. Seems like Nikon has already decided.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What is your evidence that mirrorless cameras are LESS EXPENSIVE, by the way?
> ...



At issue is people buying these cameras, and in that context it's retail cost that matters, not production costs. Any evidence that MILCs cost less that roughly equivalent DSLRs?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> DSLR sales have HALFED from 2012 to 2017. And they will really PLUMMET now, when mirrorless lineups with APS-C and FF sensors become available.



What happened to MILC sales over that period? They fell, until 2017 when they finally managed to climb above 2012 levels (with the help of the post-quake rebound). 




fullstop said:


> EF mount will definitely NOT be around for decades. I expect the last Canon mirrorslapper to be produced by 2025. Not many more new/ "updated" EF lenses, once EF-X is launched. Well, maybe Mk. III paintjobs.



Canon kept on releasing new EF-S lenses after EF-M launched. But sure, it'll be different with FF. : :

AvTvM, allow me to introduce you to Facts. It appears you two haven't met.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 27, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



My assumption is that there will be both. 

I believe that Canon will continue with high end FF mirrorless cameras that have the EF mount and a similar form factor to today’s DSLRs, and it will be the best quality, features, and ergonomics.

I also believe that they will come out with a lower level line of FF mirrorless, which will have a short flange Mount and a limited number of smaller and slower lenses.

for medium to longer focal lengths, and fast lenses, you have no real size savings and you may actually make image quality worse. What we will have (my prediction) is the FF equivalent of the M series and the 7D/80D.... 

Rather than design to the weaknesses of one mount or the other, design to the strengths of both.... those who want big cameras and lenses and the ultimate in quality are happy, and those who wish to sacrifice a bit of controls/speed for size are happy


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



A MILC should cost less, once demand levels out, RD is covered etc. I would think it would be more than one or two percent, but then I have never bought and installed a mirror.

Some versions may cost more. When the first M3 was released the biggest complaint was a view finder. Then they add one and along comes the viewfinder on the M5, again I have never bought the components inside the M5's view finder but I would bet the digital components cost more than a mirror.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EF mount will definitely NOT be around for decades. I expect the last Canon mirrorslapper to be produced by 2025. Not many more new/ "updated" EF lenses, once EF-X is launched. Well, maybe Mk. III paintjobs.



I expect my EF lenses to be around for decades, except that I'm not likely to be around for many more decades.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 27, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



How many percent difference is anyone’s guess..... but it is not going to be $999 like some people are claiming. Not when a 6D2 is twice that....


----------



## fullstop (Jul 27, 2018)

without access to makers' cost accounting, we dont have solid evidence for cost of product - Mirrorslappers and mirrorfree cameras. but some logic and educated guesses are still valid: if mirrorfree APS-C cameras like EOS M50 or Fuji X-T100 can be sold retail for 549 - including reasonably good electronic viewfinders and sensor + functionality at least on par with an EOS 80D then:
* mirrorfree is very likely less costly to produce than mirrorslappers
* and an FF version for 999 retail would be economically NOT "unrealistic" 
only difference is sensor and a slightly larger body shell. for 550 difference retail this should easily be covered.

it will remain "unrealistic" that we ever get it, if we dont vehemently demand it, but rather continuosly apologize current price levels and some are happy to consider 2 grand for a lower middle-class camera (6d class) or 3.5 grand for upper middleclass (5d class) and 1 grand or more for any decent prime lens and 2 grand plus for any decent zoom lens "a bargain offer".


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I’m likely to last a few more years, but probably not a few more decades myself, so I’m not much worried.



I'd be happy to last at least 3 more decades. The problem is that they seem to pass faster and faster as I age. Maybe it is because we remember less and less each week? Whatever it is, it sucks. :'(


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Yes. But you know? He's so adept at it that even if I were the victim I couldn't help but be in awe, and so honored I could never take offense. I mean, it is so smooth. It's like getting ripped open with a hatchet and then sewn back up by some Beverly Hills plastic surgeon to the stars. Then we're new enhanced boobs and nobody is the wiser.  Like waking up from the anesthetic and not even noticing one's soul has been ripped out by the roots and crushed under dirty sneakers. Yeah. It's like that.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



R&D is continuous. R&D never stops and doesn't necessarily cost less as the years pass. In my never humble opinion there wasn't a whole lot of new to do, making mirrorless. The tech is already there. Just a matter of rearranging the furniture.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> But I don't have that power of prophecy...



Whew! Finally, after X number of threads you've started on this topic... finally, you can stop now.

It was a nice run while it lasted. BTW: You stated that people who have a quiver of Canon L glass might be worried about a new mount and service winding down etc... and imply that is why they cannot stomach the "fact" that there will be a new mount. I think that is a little bit too far. I don't believe that to be the case.

The resistance is to your steadfast prognostication (your crystal ball, your prophetic declarations, your tea leaf reading, your seances, phrenology, etc.) that there has to be a new mount and that EF will be going away as though EF will be gone soon and that maybe we should think twice about buying EF glass.

Some of us honestly believe EF is here to stay for a long while. Some of us _*know*_ that mirrorless design does not necessitate a thin flange mount no matter what your dogma.

When they state these honest beliefs you continue to hammer your fanatical thin mount mirrorless theology... thumping all the way. It's borish, and by now, it is trolling. So please, just stop. We'll all know soon enough.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> If Canon's new FF mirrorless camera does not use the old EF mount, would you continue to buy EF lenses?
> Maybe wait a while to see how things play out?
> Maybe wait for an adapter to be reviewed and have some time in the field?
> 
> Or do you believe a new FF mirrorless with a new mount would in no way affect the current dSLR lineup for many years to come?



IF I were going to be in the market for a new lens, I would go ahead. I have learned the hard way (not with Canon) not to be an early adopter. So if I needed/wanted a lens now, I wouldn't put it off. In 2025, I may not even be alive (seriously).

Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Don't take it personally. You asked him for his feedback, and he gave you feedback. Next time, if you can't handle negative feedback (and I believe it was respectful feedback), don't ask.

Respectfully, 
Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



The only thing that you could possibly hear that would mean ANYTHING would come from Canon. This talk is all speculation and perhaps pipe dreams. The earth is still spinning, and we have settled nothing.
Respectfully, 
Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Jul 28, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > put it like this....
> ...



Many of us purchas an L lens for the lens and not the resale, myself included.

Scott


----------



## stevelee (Jul 28, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > I’m likely to last a few more years, but probably not a few more decades myself, so I’m not much worried.
> ...



When I turned 32, it sort of seemed like that the time from age 16 to 32 was about the same as from 8 to 16. Or at least it seemed enough like that for me to wonder if each doubling of age seemed about the same. So I decided to remember that thought when I turned 64 and see how that worked. At 64 I somehow remembered, and it really had seemed longer form 32 to 64 than it had from 16 to 32, but not by a lot.

Time does seem to be passing much faster, but I don't expect to be 128 any time soon.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 28, 2018)

scottkinfw said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Accusations of trolling are not respectful. He has a right to say it, I to reply, and you to chime in. Thankfully CR fosters a good balance of frankness and civility.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > dSLR sales have been steadily declining the past five years (though in part because the market has been saturated). I think they are down about 25% industry-wide.
> ...



I too predict this...


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2018)

I just noticed that there is lots of respect in this thread. Clap clap.


----------



## RGF (Jul 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorslappers are on the way out and so is EF. Just face it.
> ...



And everyone was saying the Yellowstone was going to be another super volcano and bury 1/2 the US in ash. Now there is thought that Yellowstone has slid off the hot spot and the danger is passing.

Bottom line - things are not as they seem


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 28, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...



There is evidence that practice makes perfect.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 28, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...




My bet is that the components cost more, but the assembly/alignment is easier.... I can't see there being a significant difference.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 28, 2018)

I have a lot of great Canon lenses already.
I would presume a superb adapter from Canon should the new camera require it.
_If_ needed a new lens I would want one that worked on all my bodies.
If the lens was uniquely critical to my business I would suck it up and get it.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 28, 2018)

to take full advantage of Mirrorfree camera systems, a new mount us absolutely necessary. EF mount has 44mm solely because it was necessary to bridge the space taken up by the mirror box. no more mirrorbox, no more necessity for a lobg flanga focal distance and retrofocus lens constructions in the most frequently used focal length range.

only canon fam bois are asinine enough to not understand and accept that fact.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> to take full advantage of Mirrorfree camera systems, a new mount us absolutely necessary.


Wrong. EF-M is enough.



fullstop said:


> no more necessity for a lobg flanga focal distance and retrofocus lens constructions in the most frequently used focal length range.


In the digital era, if you don't need decent glass, you don't need full frame.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 28, 2018)

decent glass does not have to be retrofocus any longer on mirrorless cameras.

mirrors where only inteoduced to get thru-the-lens viewfinding an metering. with digital cameras and electronic viewfinders there is no more need whatsoever for mirrors and mirrorboxes. and no more need for long flange focal distance lenses and mounts. as simple as that.

EF-M is not FF capable. fact. the very canon folks who designed it said so publicly. 

any more questions?


----------



## Kit. (Jul 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> decent glass does not have to be retrofocus any longer on mirrorless cameras.


Only if it is telephoto - but then it doesn't need to be retrofocus on SLRs as well.

Wide angle lens so far needs to be retrofocus just to be distortion-free and corner-sharp. Nothing to do with mirrors.



fullstop said:


> EF-M is not FF capable.


And doesn't need to be. APS-C is enough if you don't need decent glass.



fullstop said:


> any more questions?


There were any questions?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> decent glass does not have to be retrofocus any longer on mirrorless cameras.



So you'll be happy with a 35-xx mm standard zoom. I'm glad that works for you. Do you think 'millions of people' will also be happy with that? For me, it's a non-starter.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 28, 2018)

retrofocus construction is only needed to bridge long focal flange distance due to mirrorbox in mirrorslappers.

looking forward to see new Nikkor Z-Mount 24-70/4.0. i expect it to be a really decent lens. Fully FF capable lens and lens mount. no compromised. clean break from 20th century reflex antiquities. bye bye mirrorslap. decent f/4 zooms, decent f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes. everything compact, good and hopefully affordable. 1 fullstop advantage ff over APS-C. just what doctor fullstop ordered.


----------



## denstore (Jul 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> looking forward to see new Nikkor Z-Mount 24-70/4.0. i expect it to be a really decent lens. Fully FF capable lens and lens mount. no compromised. clean break from 20th century reflex antiquities. bye bye mirrorslap. decent f/4 zooms, decent f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes. everything compact, good and hopefully affordable. 1 fullstop advantage ff over APS-C. just what doctor fullstop ordered.



I’m a bit curious, Fullstop.
If you find the thought of EF mount so appalling, all EF lenses to large and clumsy, EOS cameras too thick and heavy, what is keeping you from getting what you want by buying a Sony, or that Z-mount Nikon? Really? Because it doesn’t seem that there’s much to keep you to the Canon brand?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> retrofocus construction is only needed to bridge long focal flange distance due to mirrorbox in mirrorslappers.



Your understanding of lens design is woefully inadequate. A retrofocus design is needed when the focal length (sensor to rear nodal point) is longer than the flange focal distance (FFD). That's essentially the definition of retrofocus. Practically speaking the rear nodal point must be at least a few mm in front of the rear element for a non-retrofocal design. So, with an 18mm FFD, a non-retrofocal lens with a focal length of 24mm is _theoretically_ barely possible, but practically difficult and would result in severe optical compromises (a >28mm FL is more likely). But...you've repeatedly stated that 18mm is too short an FFD for a 'really right mount'. A 22-24mm FFD means a ~35mm or longer focal with a non-retrofocal design. 

Of course, there's another way to use a non-retrofocal design with, for example, a 24-xx zoom and an FFD in the 18-24mm range. Simply use a hollow tube at the back to the lens to provide some additional distance between the sensor and the rear element. Perhaps you've seen that implementation somewhere, hmmmm? :

Once again, facts and reality demonstrate the fallacy of your opinions and statements.


----------



## slclick (Jul 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > retrofocus construction is only needed to bridge long focal flange distance due to mirrorbox in mirrorslappers.
> ...



I love a good zing.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 29, 2018)

denstore said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > looking forward to see new Nikkor Z-Mount 24-70/4.0. i expect it to be a really decent lens. Fully FF capable lens and lens mount. no compromised. clean break from 20th century reflex antiquities. bye bye mirrorslap. decent f/4 zooms, decent f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes. everything compact, good and hopefully affordable. 1 fullstop advantage ff over APS-C. just what doctor fullstop ordered.
> ...




One wants FF bodies for the image quality, But to achieve that quality, one also needs top quality glass on the camera body. 

One wants the body to be small, yet the small body looses the ergonomics and convenient controls that are necessary to operate the camera (except for landscape photographers, where AF tracking of a mountain range is glacial, and you have time to use menus)

One wants small lenses, as without small lenses there is no real size savings, but to get small lenses one either needs to go for slow lenses (violates quality requirement, particularly in poor light), needs to use reduced diameter lenses (which takes you back to crop sensors and negates the quality requirement), or goes for shorer lenses, which means less elements, more chromatic abberations, and also violates the quality requirement.

In short, you have conflicting requirements, and in the end, if you want top image quality, go FF and large glass. If you want small size, go crop and smaller lenses... You can not have both!


----------



## fullstop (Jul 29, 2018)

my understanding of retrofocus design lenses is different, will look at it again when i have more time. my current feeling is we have some "semantics/definition wording issue" here, not a real one. 

i want very good IQ lenses and am happy with "only" roughly 90% of otus-like performance and "only" moderately fast apertures (f/4 zooms, f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes) in exchange for compact size, low weight and affordable price. basically "just a bit more" than Canon EF-M-like lineup for FF image sensor. this is technically clearly possible and i expect it to become the standard for FF systems in the most frequently used focal length range - 24 to about 105mm fairly soon. most customers are never using long glass and most customers dont really need very fast glass with today's and tomorrow's sensors. as today, there will also be specialist niche products like big, heavy and expensive cameras and lenses - but as today i will not need them or buy them. and most other customers - amateurs as well as many pro's - will do the same. just öike today. overall, not so many people buy 600/4 lenses if f/1.2 glass. 

also, it would be rather "asinine" to buy Sony today, when Nikon will soon come out with their mirrorfree FF system and Canon may follow suit within a year (hopefully, lol). i'll decide on my next camera system - definitely with FF sensor - when all options are on the table. sony is not my favourite, due to compromised FE lens mount and resulting lens lineup and high pricing.


----------



## denstore (Jul 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> my understanding of retrofocus design lenses is different, will look at it again when i have more time. my current feeling is we have some "semantics/definition wording issue" here, not a real one.
> 
> i want very good IQ lenses and am happy with "only" roughly 90% of otus-like performance and "only" moderately fast apertures (f/4 zooms, f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes) in exchange for compact size, low weight and affordable price. basically "just a bit more" than Canon EF-M-like lineup for FF image sensor. this is technically clearly possible and i expect it to become the standard for FF systems in the most frequently used focal length range - 24 to about 105mm fairly soon. most customers are never using long glass and most customers dont really need very fast glass with today's and tomorrow's sensors. as today, there will also be specialist niche products like big, heavy and expensive cameras and lenses - but as today i will not need them or buy them. and most other customers - amateurs as well as many pro's - will do the same. just öike today. overall, not so many people buy 600/4 lenses if f/1.2 glass.
> 
> also, it would be rather "asinine" to buy Sony today, when Nikon will soon come out with their mirrorfree FF system and Canon may follow suit within a year (hopefully, lol). i'll decide on my next camera system - definitely with FF sensor - when all options are on the table. sony is not my favourite, due to compromised FE lens mount and resulting lens lineup and high pricing.



I’m sorry to say, but all options will never be on the table. It’s the curse of development. 

But what you are wishing for, is quite pointless imho. Most modern aps-c sensors have great low light capabilities, are easier to build small cameras around, and have smaller lenses as well. Why do you insist on having a full frame small body option, with small to medium aperture lenses? What’s really the point in that? What you are looking for already exist in the guise of the EOS M5 or M50 or Sony’s A6000? Or is it important to have a FF sensor, only because it’s a FF?


----------



## BillB (Jul 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> my understanding of retrofocus design lenses is different, will look at it again when i have more time. my current feeling is we have some "semantics/definition wording issue" here, not a real one.
> 
> i want very good IQ lenses and am happy with "only" roughly 90% of otus-like performance and "only" moderately fast apertures (f/4 zooms, f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes) in exchange for compact size, low weight and affordable price. basically "just a bit more" than Canon EF-M-like lineup for FF image sensor. this is technically clearly possible and i expect it to become the standard for FF systems in the most frequently used focal length range - 24 to about 105mm fairly soon. most customers are never using long glass and most customers dont really need very fast glass with today's and tomorrow's sensors. as today, there will also be specialist niche products like big, heavy and expensive cameras and lenses - but as today i will not need them or buy them. and most other customers - amateurs as well as many pro's - will do the same. just öike today. overall, not so many people buy 600/4 lenses if f/1.2 glass.
> 
> also, it would be rather "asinine" to buy Sony today, when Nikon will soon come out with their mirrorfree FF system and Canon may follow suit within a year (hopefully, lol). i'll decide on my next camera system - definitely with FF sensor - when all options are on the table. sony is not my favourite, due to compromised FE lens mount and resulting lens lineup and high pricing.



The differences seem to be a little more than semantics and definitions to me. The differences seem to have to do with what performance levels are acceptable and achievable and what price points can be reached, given design requirements and the number of people who would buy these new cameras at various price points. Nikon will provide their answers on these issues shortly, and hopefully Canon will weigh in at some point in the not too distant future. With their cards on the table, our discussion can turn to what might have been and what should have been, along rants about the stupidity and greed of the manufacturers.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 31, 2018)

One only needs to look at the FF lenses Sony has in its E mount range. The 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 or the 85mm f1.4 or the 70-200mm f2.8 are barely different in size or weight to the Canon offerings in the EF mount. The cameras are clearly smaller but the weight ratio makes holding a 70-200mm f2.8 lens on a Sony A7 series camera very front heavy and after shoot for a couple of hours you realise how uncomfortable that this. We rent them so I get to play with many combinations on Sony, Nikon and Canon and whilst you could say I'm old school and biased towards Canon DSLRS & lenses they strike the right balance presently.
Ive owned 4/3rds and micro 4/3rd Olympus cameras since they came out but they are "toys" in comparison, yet they are lighter, yes they have steadily improved but the end result is nowhere near as good as what I get from a Canon DSLR (5DS) & L optics its like night & day. 

Maybe when Canon FF mirrorless arrives it will turn the world on its head, but somehow I think this is Canon response to Sony since Sony added the G master lenses which are optically very good.


----------

