# An EF & RF mount hybrid mirrorless camera in the works [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 2, 2019)

> We have been told a couple of times now that a “pro” EOS R mirrorless camera that is in the works will have some kind of a hybrid EF/RF lens mount. So this basically means that you’d be able to mount both types of lenses without the use of an adapter.
> We were also told that this was being developed for the “EOS-1 style EOS R camera”, which would make a lot of sense. As I don’t believe the reduction of size for an “EOS-1” style mirrorless camera is all that important.
> This is definitely a bit of a strange rumour, but if Canon could pull this off, it would be great for Canon shooters.
> We’ll have some more information on this soon.



Continue reading...


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 2, 2019)

*Something* has to gap the 26mm difference.

Assuming this rumor is true, an adapter is detachable, the only option I can think off is a collapsible mount - a tube that can be pushed in & pulled out as needed. Somehow, I doubt we're going to see this in a pro camera.


----------



## Phil (Dec 2, 2019)

But will it have dual card slots?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 2, 2019)

I predicted the moving sensor more than a year ago to explain the 'sexy' mount solution in pre-R rumours.
Such a system can't be done without a sensor on rails.

On the other hand, why on earth would Canon do that now, *after* the EOS R release?


----------



## Jim Corbett (Dec 2, 2019)

> EOS-1 style EOS R camera


Mirrorless D6/1D...I'm having a hard on right now!


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 2, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> On the other hand, why on earth would Canon do that now, *after* the EOS R release?



Well if this is true, and I do like where this information came from. I wonder if it's simply the feature wasn't ready for primetime, sort of like IBIS. They had to get something out to the masses and get the lenses rolling.


----------



## MartinF. (Dec 2, 2019)

Phil said:


> But will it have dual card slots?


----------



## Joe Subolefsky (Dec 2, 2019)

That would make a lot of sense given the two new Big Whites 400 & 600 III's most pro sports and wildlife shooters use just came out this year.


----------



## Stuart (Dec 2, 2019)

Does this mean the 2nd hand EF market get a step change with people suddenly hanging onto EF lenses.

Does it mean longer lenses are better in EF mount and wider ones in RF mount?


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 2, 2019)

My patent pending alternative is to offer the big white lenses with visually integrated rear mount portions that remove (only when lens is detached) for use on EF. RF mount users might be offered TC adapters as substitute upgrades.

At very least if I’m going to drop $12k on the 400 III for an R mount I’d like an included adapter in matching white.


----------



## IcyBergs (Dec 2, 2019)

If there is any truth to the rumor then I believe that the niche lenses (specifically big whites) won't be coming to the RF mount any time soon.


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 2, 2019)

Phil said:


> But will it have dual card slots?



Yes, separate slots for EF and RF lenses.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 2, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I predicted the moving sensor more than a year ago to explain the 'sexy' mount solution in pre-R rumours.
> Such a system can't be done without a sensor on rails.
> 
> On the other hand, why on earth would Canon do that now, *after* the EOS R release?


This might work well with a video centric camera. The sensor position could be adjusted to any location needed. You could potentially also have a PL mount adapter that was smaller and have the sensor change position to accommodate that.


----------



## KrisK (Dec 2, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> *Something* has to gap the 26mm difference.
> 
> Assuming this rumor is true, an adapter is detachable, the only option I can think off is a collapsible mount - a tube that can be pushed in & pulled out as needed. Somehow, I doubt we're going to see this in a pro camera.




You've never used a collapsible thermos? Heck, you could probably shoot around corners with one of these.


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 2, 2019)

Canon has plenty of experience with swappable mounts in their Cinema camera line, so perhaps that's where they take this?


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 2, 2019)

KrisK said:


> You've never used a collapsible thermos?



Nope. Cool thing. Still don't see it in a pro camera.


----------



## andrei1989 (Dec 2, 2019)

aren't the two mounts phisically incompatible? different diameters and distances (not flange distance)
can one actually mount an EF lens on an R body without an adapter? not use the lens, simply mount it


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 2, 2019)

Interesting. I know that balancing some of the EF lenses on the R, such as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is not so fun when taking shots in portrait/vertical orientation. Part of this is because the adapter throws the lens more off balance. I wonder if a hybrid mount might address this...but the spacing provided by the adapter has to be made up somewhere?


----------



## stefang (Dec 2, 2019)

My bet is on a movable sensor, which in fact could also be used to add some macro to RF lenses, just like an extension tube, and maybe even tilt/shift.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 2, 2019)

It will be interesting to see if this makes it to market. It would certainly simplify things for people using both DSLRs and Mirrorless at the same time.Also indicates that the EF line is far from dead. Perhaps there is still hope for an R to EF adapter down the line. True interchangeability would certainly be a plus.


----------



## mclaren777 (Dec 2, 2019)

But the adapter works so well and it adds functionality.

This seems like a needless innovation.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 2, 2019)

That sounds like a great idea. I'm not at all convinced that 24mm of flange depth is worth obsoleting all of my existing EF lenses. Now that Canon has skimmed-off the early adopters (who were going to buy almost any mirrorless solution Canon offered) it would be nice to see a better solution for EF lenses going forward.

Adaptors get old really quickly and I'm guessing the integrated filter thing sounds better than it really works.

If I have to use an adapter anyway, I might as well just buy an S1R or a A7/A9.

edit: I really appreciate the rumors and such but I think it's time Canon gave us some visibility into where they are going. IMO the entire EF vs RF vs M rollout has been a complete cluster that has done nothing but create a lot of uncertainty about the future of the brand.


----------



## -pekr- (Dec 2, 2019)

stefang said:


> My bet is on a movable sensor, which in fact could also be used to add some macro to RF lenses, just like an extension tube, and maybe even tilt/shift.



Wouldn't it make the camera body much thicker?


----------



## TonyPM (Dec 2, 2019)

Having in mind that the Ef mount and that the RF mount are basically identical from the outside. The future R1 will probably accept both lenses at the same time, and the camera will be mirrorless . The only moving par will be the shutter and the sensor .


----------



## -pekr- (Dec 2, 2019)

Why should we care for the DSLR bodies? We might as well see their (pre)last iterations? If 1DX III is around the corner, I doubt it will sport this new hybrid mount. It will also make the bodies thicker? I would probably prefer an APS-C RF mount based mirrorless, than this one ....


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> It will be interesting to see if this makes it to market. It would certainly simplify things for people using both DSLRs and Mirrorless at the same time.Also indicates that the EF line is far from dead. Perhaps there is still hope for an R to EF adapter down the line. True interchangeability would certainly be a plus.


If the IDXMKIII is a big hit with 30MP or better or substantially better IQ with stills, it will give Canon a lot of credibility if an R Body could utilize EF lenses with no degradation. I'd spend $8,000 on the MKIII if it was 30MP for stills with an OVF. $4,000 to $4500 if it's just 20MP. It seems to be more of a video camera than for stills. I'm a photographer but know videographers who might be interested.


----------



## lglass12189 (Dec 2, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> Why should we care for the DSLR bodies? We might as well see their (pre)last iterations? If 1DX III is around the corner, I doubt it will sport this new hybrid mount. It will also make the bodies thicker? I would probably prefer an APS-C RF mount based mirrorless, than this one ....


Because there are people who could care about mirrorless. I'll take a robust 1dx size mirrorless that will accept EF and RF lens in a heartbeat.I want the best of both worlds, not what the mirrorless fanboys want.


----------



## Pape (Dec 2, 2019)

stefang said:


> My bet is on a movable sensor, which in fact could also be used to add some macro to RF lenses, just like an extension tube, and maybe even tilt/shift.


Maybe they could make macro back module ,extension rails so sensor can go half meter behind camera, 1:1 with 400mm wohoo!


----------



## -pekr- (Dec 2, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Because there are people who could care about mirrorless. I'll take a robust 1dx size mirrorless that will accept EF and RF lens in a heartbeat.I want the best of both worlds, not what the mirrorless fanboys want.



So recent EOS-R can't accept EF lens? That's news to me. Have you ever heard about the adapter? Ooooh, and a "mirrorless fanboy" argument, now you are a big boy


----------



## padam (Dec 2, 2019)

Sometimes a bogus rumour makes it too far, simple as that. Even on their latest cinema cameras it is not possible to swap the mount to RF and the mounts have different interfaces.


----------



## Pape (Dec 2, 2019)

Could make whole half of camera move too.
bellows what makes camera thicker and slimmer.
Prolly more sturdy than telescope mount.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 2, 2019)

stefang said:


> My bet is on a movable sensor, which in fact could also be used to add some macro to RF lenses, just like an extension tube, and maybe even tilt/shift.



Stefang, that's brilliant. Every lens a tilt lens. Probably not shift. A movable sensor that could control tilt - wow. Talk about opportunities for computational aids. I could imagine a focus analysis done in a few milliseconds, and optimal tilt executed automatically. Pick 2 or three focus points, rather than just one.

That actually would be worth waiting the extra 2 years. Here is where we get our hopes up for a proper dashing.


----------



## jeanluc (Dec 2, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> That sounds like a great idea. I'm not at all convinced that 24mm of flange depth is worth obsoleting all of my existing EF lenses. Now that Canon has skimmed-off the early adopters (who were going to buy almost any mirrorless solution Canon offered) it would be nice to see a better solution for EF lenses going forward.
> 
> Adaptors get old really quickly and I'm guessing the integrated filter thing sounds better than it really works.
> 
> ...



I agree. My EF lenses work very well with the adaptor, but it's just one more thing to drag along.

I also agree with the visibility. I got an EOS R to complement my 5D4, mainly for the tilt/flip VF. I love the camera, but am waiting on buying any RF glass until I see exactly what they are doing. I bet a lot of others are sitting on the fence too. 

This will just complicate it even more, I suspect, even if its true. I must say though, I strongly suspect EF will be replaced totally by RF over the next few years. It takes a lot of $$ to implement a new mount, and they will want us all to buy them...


----------



## padam (Dec 2, 2019)

Sometimes a bogus rumour makes it too far, simple as that. Even on their latest cinema cameras it is not possible to swap the mount to RF and the mounts have different interfaces.


----------



## bgoyette (Dec 2, 2019)

This really doesn't make any sense...they already have an adapter, and no matter the flange distance, or the craziness of a movable sensor, there would still be the issue of the mount itself, which would need an adapter, one way or the other....and they already have that. This would imply a mirrorless EF camera with a moveable sensor and an adaptor to a larger flange mount and that's just coo-coo.


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2019)

I just got EOS R kit due to a Black Friday offer and because I plan to get 2 2.8L IS zooms next year (since they have no EF equivalent unfortunately). Of course I claim NO expertise on this camera user interface but even after configuring some buttons to my taste I converted it from something mostly inconvenient to something so so.

The one thing like is the size/weight of this combo though.

If they could add the same functionality and the same button layout of the 5 (or 7) series it would be fantastic. Of course if they make an advanced model they might come close to this.

I do like the way the touch screen is being used for focusing point movement. But I cannot spare a configirable button for instant central positioning so there is that (so many functinality needs so few buttons!)

I saw that there is no way to configure a button to change the shooting mode from single to low or high continuous (only through touchscreen) at least using 1.4 firmware. I coulnd't even find it on the menu.
If I am wrong (3 day user so I may very well be) please feel free to correct me.

BUT, I cannot stress enough the size and weight of the combo especially If you want to squeeze it in a bag that also contains a 500mm f/4 lens with a 5 or 7 series camera!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 2, 2019)

If I bought an RF mount body I'd want to use the EF adapters to use ND and polarizing filters on bulbous front element lenses, personally the EF15mm, the TS-E17 and the EF11-24, they would all get a new lease of life with those simple filter adapters. I wouldn't want the complexity of a moving sensor and lose that very appealing functionality.

Personally I am generally happy with my 1DX MkII's but am interested in a 1DX MKIII and a high resolution RF body if I can use my EF ultrawides with a filter adapter.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 2, 2019)

tron said:


> I just got EOS R kit due to a Black Friday offer and because I plan to get 2 2.8L IS zooms next year (since they have no EF equivalent unfortunately). Of course I claim NO expertise on this camera user interface but even after configuring some buttons to my taste I converted it from something mostly inconvenient to something so so.
> 
> The one thing like is the size/weight of this combo though.
> 
> ...


I use the mfn button to change the shooting mode. You press the mfn first, and then turn a wheel to change the shooting mode... Further, I have one button assigned to change between AI and Single AF, and one button to change focusing mode (point, expanded, etc)


----------



## jeanluc (Dec 2, 2019)

tron said:


> I just got EOS R kit due to a Black Friday offer and because I plan to get 2 2.8L IS zooms next year (since they have no EF equivalent unfortunately). Of course I claim NO expertise on this camera user interface but even after configuring some buttons to my taste I converted it from something mostly inconvenient to something so so.
> 
> The one thing like is the size/weight of this combo though.
> 
> ...


I suspect you will love it.

Once you get used to how to optimally use the touch screen, it is actuall


tron said:


> I just got EOS R kit due to a Black Friday offer and because I plan to get 2 2.8L IS zooms next year (since they have no EF equivalent unfortunately). Of course I claim NO expertise on this camera user interface but even after configuring some buttons to my taste I converted it from something mostly inconvenient to something so so.
> 
> The one thing like is the size/weight of this combo though.
> 
> ...


I bet after using it for a while you will love it.

Once you learn how to optimally use the touchscreen in your shooting style it is actually more functional and can do more than the older bodies. I felt the same way about wishing the 5D layout was preserved, but now not so much. The touchbar is about the only thing I would maybe lose, and add 5D level weather resistance.

Other than needing a new generation Hi-MP sensor, its pretty darn good.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Dec 2, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I predicted the moving sensor more than a year ago to explain the 'sexy' mount solution in pre-R rumours.
> Such a system can't be done without a sensor on rails.
> 
> On the other hand, why on earth would Canon do that now, *after* the EOS R release?


the R was obviously rushed and at the least an experiment. It was released in a beta state using an old sensor. pretty much an attempt to stop people from switching to other brands because of the mirrorless hype.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Dec 2, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Interesting. I know that balancing some of the EF lenses on the R, such as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is not so fun when taking shots in portrait/vertical orientation. Part of this is because the adapter throws the lens more off balance. I wonder if a hybrid mount might address this...but the spacing provided by the adapter has to be made up somewhere?


i keep getting lens connection error with the 70-200. i dont think the adapter is good for long whites when the camera is vertical


----------



## miketcool (Dec 2, 2019)

Hybrid doesn’t mean that it’s a “one-click” solution to make it what you want. Hybrid could mean that you could order this new camera with either EF or RF and that a set of tools could change it. This wouldn’t be anything more exotic than going from EF to PL on Cinema EOS. The advantage for the professional shooter would be to use this camera with big white EF lenses now, and switch the mount when their RF lineup matches.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 2, 2019)

After looking at the EF and RF mount carefully, I have a difficult time envisioning modification to the mount that would retain adequate strength and line up the contacts. It might be possible to modify the mount to accept both, but I don't see it as practical, perhaps some sort of design that rotated mounting slots, but a Rube Goldberg mount is not for a 1 series camera.

As far as diameters, both EF and RF are the same. The best way might be to mount a RF lens upside down so it matched with a 2nd set of contacts. The question is having adequate mounting strength with a dual mounting setup.

If a mount can be designed, then a collapsible mount or moving sensor would work.

There may be such a beast out there as a prototype, but as to actually producing it??

In any event, the physical design of the camera is locked down by now, and production of the pieces and parts well underway.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Dec 2, 2019)

I recall seeing a patent on here recently that essentially was an SLR mirror adapter for a mirrorless ILC. Makes me wonder if something like that with a moveable/repositionable sensor would provide adaptability for both? This is an interesting rumor, because the recent patent activity could support it.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 2, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I predicted the moving sensor more than a year ago to explain the 'sexy' mount solution in pre-R rumours.
> Such a system can't be done without a sensor on rails.
> 
> On the other hand, why on earth would Canon do that now, *after* the EOS R release?


A moving sensor solves the flange distance problem but not the EF-RF mount incompatibility.


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I use the mfn button to change the shooting mode. You press the mfn first, and then turn a wheel to change the shooting mode... Further, I have one button assigned to change between AI and Single AF, and one button to change focusing mode (point, expanded, etc)


Many thanks for the tip. I guess I didn't see that because I changed the m-fn button to select af point type (one, one with assistants, zone, large zone, full) I have also assigned a button to toggle Single and Servo AF. Fortunately I can also set the ... set button (no pun intended) to exp comp so as when I have the camera at manual and auto ISO I can have full control of exposure. This is the way I have set my DSLRs so nice to have, but EOS R is certainly a stills*1 (or very stills  ) camera (at least for me compared to how I have configured my 5 and 7 series cameras for bird shooting).

*1 Stills in the context of not moving subjects not as photos only against video...


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2019)

It would be nice to put EF lenses directly on RF cameras but this would require some sort of moving parts which I am not really excited about.


----------



## TMHKR (Dec 2, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The best way might be to mount a RF lens upside down so it matched with a 2nd set of contacts.


This actually sounds quite viable.


----------



## sanj (Dec 2, 2019)

If this is the new 1dx3, I would jump in joy.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 2, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> If I bought an RF mount body I'd want to use the EF adapters to use ND and polarizing filters on bulbous front element lenses, personally the EF15mm, the TS-E17 and the EF11-24, they would all get a new lease of life with those simple filter adapters. I wouldn't want the complexity of a moving sensor and lose that very appealing functionality.
> 
> Personally I am generally happy with my 1DX MkII's but am interested in a 1DX MKIII and a high resolution RF body if I can use my EF ultrawides with a filter adapter.


Won't you have issues with Polarizer effects using UltraWides's with those filters. I'd rarely use a polarizer that wide and I'm pretty sure Canon's vari-ND is polarizer based and will have similar issues. At least my B+W does. I guess you can try to sooth out the effects in post but it's hard to get a pola/wide blue sky to look right in my experience. 

I have a filter tray in my super-tele which I have never used but for different reasons. Not sure what I'd use it for. 

edit: the big whites allow standard screw in filters. If the EF/RF allowed that it would make more sense. I could see using a big stopper or something like that with an Ultrawide.


----------



## Otara (Dec 2, 2019)

So you essentially have a builtin adapter that can break and render the entire camera useless.

Ill believe it when I see it.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 2, 2019)

jeanluc said:


> I agree. My EF lenses work very well with the adaptor, but it's just one more thing to drag along.
> 
> I also agree with the visibility. I got an EOS R to complement my 5D4, mainly for the tilt/flip VF. I love the camera, but am waiting on buying any RF glass until I see exactly what they are doing. I bet a lot of others are sitting on the fence too.
> 
> This will just complicate it even more, I suspect, even if its true. I must say though, I strongly suspect EF will be replaced totally by RF over the next few years. It takes a lot of $$ to implement a new mount, and they will want us all to buy them...



Buying an RP in my case was the plan with EF-RF and FD-RF adapter to reuse e.g. FD 4.0 17, 1.4 50, 2.5 135 and 4.0 300 which still exist in my household. But they got me with an offer where body + adapter at 1094 EUR which is very cheap anyway. But they added - and that is something I cannot believe antil the tools arrive - the RF lens as some free goodie . And there is 55 Euro cash back available after I reveive these things. Maybe the RF 35 is not selling very well and they want to convince the hesitating individuals (like me) to buy into RF mount and lenses.

I am not too happy to have a third mount around but the intended use is as one body two lens combo e.g. RF 35 + EF macro 100 or RF35 + 70-300 4.0. Or as two body combo e.g. M50 + EF 32mm + RP with 70-200 or RP with RF 35 + M50 70-200 if I need stabilized lenses.
And If I do not like the RF 35 maybe I will sell it and enjoy the lenses I already have but 1:2 macro + IS is still interesting. I will see.

And after using the FDn 4.0 17 for a test video with my M50 it showed very strong quality (as ~28mm equiv) so I cannot wait to see how this little lens performs on the RP for photo and especially video (1080p is enough for my purposes so this lens will be fine).


----------



## Nelu (Dec 2, 2019)

tron said:


> But I cannot spare a configirable button for instant central positioning so there is that (so many functinality needs so few buttons!)



That magic button is already there: the "Delete" button will take your focus point right to the center.


----------



## Pixel (Dec 2, 2019)

I can’t see a moving sensor ever happening unless it employs self correcting micro adjustments. If the sensor is off by a millimeter, nothing is in focus with the EF lenses. 
If this rumor is true can we assume R&D on the EF mount will continue?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 2, 2019)

I use polarizers to minimize reflections on stone counter tops and in swimming pools and the images are part of a composite/blend of images to get the best looking aspect of each element in the frame, I am not looking to polarize large areas of sky or landscape.

Like this.









Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Won't you have issues with Polarizer effects using UltraWides's with those filters. I'd rarely use a polarizer that wide and I'm pretty sure Canon's vari-ND is polarizer based and will have similar issues. At least my B+W does. I guess you can try to sooth out the effects in post but it's hard to get a pola/wide blue sky to look right in my experience.
> 
> I have a filter tray in my super-tele which I have never used but for different reasons. Not sure what I'd use it for.
> 
> edit: the big whites allow standard screw in filters. If the EF/RF allowed that it would make more sense. I could see using a big stopper or something like that with an Ultrawide.


----------



## Canon1966 (Dec 2, 2019)

This would be great and much appreciated so we can still use our EF L lenses. EVF/IBIS/2 card slots, 60+mp now...


----------



## Todd (Dec 2, 2019)

Jim Corbett said:


> Mirrorless D6/1D...I'm having a hard on right now!



Idiot. There's no place for that here.


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2019)

Nelu said:


> That magic button is already there: the "Delete" button will take your focus point right to the center.


Very interesting. I haven't thought of that. I need it when I shoot birds (so many misses and I want to avoid having to load and view at 100% a few hundreds more than I should) but on a single card camera that is being used for general purpose (but not birding) there is no rush to delete (which is prone to mistakes by the way) so yes that is a very good idea. Many thanks!


----------



## Nelu (Dec 2, 2019)

tron said:


> Very interesting. I haven't thought of that. I need it when I shoot birds (so many misses and I want to avoid having to load and view at 100% a few hundreds more than I should) but on a single card camera that is being used for general purpose (but not birding) there is no rush to delete (which is prone to mistakes by the way) so yes that is a very good idea. Many thanks!


You don't seem to believe me
There you go, at page 271 in the user manual:
"To center the AF point or Zone AF frame, press the trash can button"
http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/3/0300032123/01/eosr-ug-en.pdf

Cheers
Nelu


----------



## snappy604 (Dec 2, 2019)

maybe it gives you some space for IBIS for RF but not EF glass? ;-) (I kid!)


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 2, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I use polarizers to minimize reflections on stone counter tops and in swimming pools and the images are part of a composite/blend of images to get the best looking aspect of each element in the frame, I am not looking to polarize large areas of sky or landscape.
> 
> Like this.


Gotcha. I figured there must be something I was missing.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 2, 2019)

This has got to be the most dumb rumor that I have seen in a long time.

Make camera fatter, more expensive and with more moving parts just because some asshats can't be bothered to fit an adaptor? I know a sensor with IBIS needs to be able to move, but this is beyond ridiculous.

Oh, and where the fudge do you put the control ring? 

Any serious pro using EF glass on an RF body will be using EF->RF adaptors fitted semi-permanently onto each of their EF lenses meaning you can switch out an adapted lens with a native RF lens instantly and with the same ease as switching to RF.

While this nonsensical plan would have you wait until the lens has moved and been recalibrated for the new sensor position.


This will never happen.

This should never happen.

Someone, somewhere, is having a huge laugh at CR's expense.


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2019)

Nelu said:


> You don't seem to believe me
> There you go, at page 271 in the user manual:
> "To center the AF point or Zone AF frame, press the trash can button"
> http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/3/0300032123/01/eosr-ug-en.pdf
> ...


I do believe you. I just thought you meant it was a programmable button too and I had missed that when I was playing with the buttos. It is 3 days that I have the camera.


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2019)

And I saw it in action. Nice!


----------



## tron (Dec 2, 2019)

I was answering from work and didn't have access to the camera. As I mentioned, I had the impression you meant it was programmable too. This is better because the button keeps its functionality and does something else at the same time!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 3, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> A moving sensor solves the flange distance problem but not the EF-RF mount incompatibility.



When I 'predicted' it, it was way befor the R release and we didn't know anything about the mount compatibility. Btw I also predicted the moving sensor could also be tilting:






Canon's Full Frame Mirorrless Cameras [CR2]


By the time these hit, everyone will own a Sony. But not to worry because it will be spec'ed well below the Sony and priced well above it. if they don't come under the same price as the a7iii did, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Commercial suicide.




www.canonrumors.com





But tbh I'm not sure if I believe this current rumour. If Canon releases such a camera, they end up with a zoo of strange chimeras. But at the same time I'd probably buy it, providing the camera delivers desired specs.


----------



## Keithf2.8is (Dec 3, 2019)

If this rumor is true, which I hope it isn't, why is Canon wasting their time on a hybrid mount. Get a pro mirrorless body for sports to market already! I've been a Canon user since January 2004, and since then I've owned a 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 7D MII, and 1DX, but I'm about to jump ship to Sony. If my Quantum Trio flashes worked in TTL/Auto on a Sony I'd already would have made the switch. I like my 7D MII, love my 1DX, but it's a tank. The Trio's are exceptional in the field, even when using bare bulb, and I use at least 1 Trio on 90% of my shoots. IMO, Canon has totally missed the field in the mirrorless game.


----------



## slclick (Dec 3, 2019)

As someone who is interested in actual releases of new FF camera models (since none of the current offerings fit the bill) am I the only one who would rather have silence as opposed to CR1's and 2's?


----------



## timmy_650 (Dec 3, 2019)

I wonder if it mean they will make an EF and R mount of the same camera kinda like they did with the M6 mii and the 90D. I could see that being a real possibly with the 5 series. So they will get the 1D out of the Olympics then 3-6 month after they will put out 2 full frame bodies one EF and one R.


----------



## Chris Charles (Dec 3, 2019)

I like the 'sensor on rails' innovation, but there is still the physical mount diameter difference between EF & RF. Maybe a new 'pro' mirrorless would be bundled with a new RF to EF adaptor that includes the EF200-400L f4 style switch in & out 1.4x Extender. This would make a move to mirrorless more attractive to EF 'white ' lens users.


----------



## Rixy (Dec 3, 2019)

That will be the 5D mark V


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 3, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> This has got to be the most dumb rumor that I have seen in a long time.
> 
> Make camera fatter, more expensive and with more moving parts just because some asshats can't be bothered to fit an adaptor? I know a sensor with IBIS needs to be able to move, but this is beyond ridiculous.
> 
> ...





Mt Spokane Photography said:


> After looking at the EF and RF mount carefully, I have a difficult time envisioning modification to the mount that would retain adequate strength and line up the contacts. It might be possible to modify the mount to accept both, but I don't see it as practical, perhaps some sort of design that rotated mounting slots, but a Rube Goldberg mount is not for a 1 series camera.
> 
> As far as diameters, both EF and RF are the same. The best way might be to mount a RF lens upside down so it matched with a 2nd set of contacts. The question is having adequate mounting strength with a dual mounting setup.
> 
> ...



Yeah, the obvious solution from an engineering perspective that everyone seems to be missing so far is this:
Interchangeable digital back: a shallow one for RF and a second, a deeper one, for EF flange distance. 
This coupled with a universal bayonet Mount combining both EF and RF. No moving parts no floating sensor. Weather protection isn’t an issue. 
Solved...,


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> This coupled with a universal bayonet Mount combining both EF and RF. No moving parts no floating sensor. Weather protection isn’t an issue.
> Solved...,



I have an even sexier solution. Here. Solved!


----------



## Jethro (Dec 3, 2019)

slclick said:


> As someone who is interested in actual releases of new FF camera models (since none of the current offerings fit the bill) am I the only one who would rather have silence as opposed to CR1's and 2's?


Tough call for a rumours site
To be fair, the CR Guy said it was from a credible source, and more than one source.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 3, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I have an even sexier solution. Here. Solved!
> 
> 
> View attachment 187702



You are obviously trolling. Where what I have described is a viable, time proven solution - A Digital Back.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 3, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> *Something* has to gap the 26mm difference.
> 
> Assuming this rumor is true, an adapter is detachable, the only option I can think off is a collapsible mount - a tube that can be pushed in & pulled out as needed. Somehow, I doubt we're going to see this in a pro camera.


Yep, they wont even put flip out screens on those cameras, cant imagine them throwing a collapsible mount.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 3, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> While this nonsensical plan would have you wait until the lens has moved and been recalibrated for the new sensor position.



what do you think is happening with ibis every time its used on systems that have it? It has to recalibrate itself back to center every movement. each adapter joint can introduce micro adjustment issues. However mirrorless corrects for most of these issues automatically using focus. The same techniques for focus should be applicable to a rail movement. It only needs to get within 1/4 of a millimeter and the ibis can compensate for the rest. Getting it perfect without ibis would be hard, but for ibis to work well it needs to self adjust, which can correct for small differences in linear stepping motors that would most likely be used to move a sensor along rails. to be honest moving a sensor in this way is not much different than moving a lens element, with the difference of a ribbon cable thats attached to it.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 3, 2019)

Ah, I remember the good old days (pre-EOS R announcement) when we dreamed big and came up with crazypants ideas:




But RF being what RF is won't support this. A moving sensor, perhaps? Zero space savings for the RF users, but at least EF mount diehards would get access to a Canon 50 prime worth using.

- A


----------



## Pape (Dec 3, 2019)

Having hybrid mount makes sense if hybrid viewfinder too .
Can have best things from both systems.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 3, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I predicted the moving sensor more than a year ago to explain the 'sexy' mount solution in pre-R rumours.
> Such a system can't be done without a sensor on rails.
> 
> On the other hand, why on earth would Canon do that now, *after* the EOS R release?



Because it would be a pro feature that they could charge extra for. Especially if they do something really cool like allow macro with EF lenses by shifting the sensor position.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 3, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> We have been told a couple of times now that a “pro” EOS R mirrorless camera that is in the works will have some kind of a hybrid EF/RF lens mount.



Arrested Development narrator:

_"It won't"_


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 3, 2019)

andrei1989 said:


> aren't the two mounts phisically incompatible? different diameters and distances (not flange distance)
> can one actually mount an EF lens on an R body without an adapter? not use the lens, simply mount it



AFAIK, the mount diameters are identical, and the differences are in flange distance and additional contacts. The adapter is just a 26mm extension tube with contacts, and the camera realizes an EF lens in mounted via an adapter via protocol and/or the additional contacts left disconnected.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 3, 2019)

Pape said:


> Having hybrid mount makes sense if hybrid viewfinder too .
> Can have best things from both systems.



Because you can't have both RF mount and a mirror, so optical or hybrid viewfinders are impossible. Best you could do is a hybrid EVF/rangefinder.


----------



## yeahright (Dec 3, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Because you can't have both RF mount and a mirror, so optical or hybrid viewfinders are impossible. Best you could do is a hybrid EVF/rangefinder.


With a hybrid mount that is geometrically essentially an EF mount, with the sensor moving towards the lens for RF lenses, you could well fit a mirror that is working as in a DSLR in EF mode, and locked up in RF mode.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Dec 3, 2019)

mmm , I thought maybe the adapter could have a build in mirror, but it looks kinda short to accommodate a mirror, unless its build into the body and only releases with the special adapter. The body would then be a mirrorless body with a hybrid viewfinder? Personally I think a R type body with all the bells and whistles of the 1Dx makes more sense as one could use EF and RF lenses anyway, like one can now with the R/RF. 
My R works superbly well with the EF lenses, the adapter only increases the total length minimally, and because it can accommodate pol /ND filters etc actually makes the EF lenses via an adapter more versatile than the RF lenses, IMO...I never pick up my R and think mmm there is an adapter attached to this body, it just feels part of the camera. I think sceptics of the EF via Sdapter R/RF solution are theorizing only with no practical experience.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 3, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> That sounds like a great idea. I'm not at all convinced that 24mm of flange depth is worth obsoleting all of my existing EF lenses. Now that Canon has skimmed-off the early adopters (who were going to buy almost any mirrorless solution Canon offered) it would be nice to see a better solution for EF lenses going forward.
> 
> Adaptors get old really quickly and I'm guessing the integrated filter thing sounds better than it really works.
> 
> ...


Adapters may get old really quickly but early adopters certainly do.


----------



## geffy (Dec 3, 2019)

sounds daft, perfect for an April 1st release


----------



## Joules (Dec 3, 2019)

slclick said:


> As someone who is interested in actual releases of new FF camera models (since none of the current offerings fit the bill) am I the only one who would rather have silence as opposed to CR1's and 2's?


What would that leave? Actual Canon Anouncements. You can get these from the official site as well. But as this is a rumors site, I think you are almost the only one who doesn't want to hear rumors.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 3, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> what do you think is happening with ibis every time its used on systems that have it? It has to recalibrate itself back to center every movement. each adapter joint can introduce micro adjustment issues. However mirrorless corrects for most of these issues automatically using focus. The same techniques for focus should be applicable to a rail movement. It only needs to get within 1/4 of a millimeter and the ibis can compensate for the rest. Getting it perfect without ibis would be hard, but for ibis to work well it needs to self adjust, which can correct for small differences in linear stepping motors that would most likely be used to move a sensor along rails. to be honest moving a sensor in this way is not much different than moving a lens element, with the difference of a ribbon cable thats attached to it.



But it's still going to be slow. The camera would have to detect a different type of lens has been connected, and then it would have to move the sensor 26mm forwards. That's going to take time that no professional is going to want to waste. 

Tell me again, what is the benefit of doing this vs having an inexpensive adaptor on the EF lens where you can swap lenses and shoot immediately?

Sure it's possible. But it's so utterly stupid that whoever thought this fantasy up should hang their head in shame.


----------



## yeahright (Dec 3, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> But it's still going to be slow. The camera would have to detect a different type of lens has been connected, and then it would have to move the sensor 26mm forwards. That's going to take time that no professional is going to want to waste.


How long do you think moving a sensor by 26 mm would take? Certainly only a fraction of the time it takes to change lenses. How fast can you change lenses? In 10 seconds maybe? I would guess the sensor could be moved in less than a second, so that would be a non-issue.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 3, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> But it's still going to be slow. The camera would have to detect a different type of lens has been connected, and then it would have to move the sensor 26mm forwards. That's going to take time that no professional is going to want to waste.



Well the detection will probably be electronic, I don't know, 2-3 milliseconds? Sensor movement is another 1/10 of a second or so. Extremely fast trained lens re-mount will take maybe 5-10 seconds. That is, 50-100 times longer than internal camera adjustments. I doubt any professional would ever notice.


----------



## BillB (Dec 3, 2019)

slclick said:


> As someone who is interested in actual releases of new FF camera models (since none of the current offerings fit the bill) am I the only one who would rather have silence as opposed to CR1's and 2's?


Actually, the rumors are ok as far as I am concerned. It's all the speculation that follows that can be a bit much if I take it seriously. Sometimes, it is better for me if read CR for the humor.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 3, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> But it's still going to be slow. The camera would have to detect a different type of lens has been connected, and then it would have to move the sensor 26mm forwards. That's going to take time that no professional is going to want to waste.
> 
> Tell me again, what is the benefit of doing this vs having an inexpensive adaptor on the EF lens where you can swap lenses and shoot immediately?
> 
> Sure it's possible. But it's so utterly stupid that whoever thought this fantasy up should hang their head in shame.



it depends.. let me share a use case, where universal EF/RF mount may be useful.
now, a moving sensor idea is a bit crazy. let's not even consider this possibility. it is crazy .. full stop..
let's assume that (a) a camera with interchangeable digital back and hybrid EF/RF mount has been release by company XXXXX.
(b) each digital back is equipped with a sensor.
(c) there are the following types of digital backs are available:
1. EF flange distance type, FULL FRAME, around 40Mp resolution
2. RF flange distance type, FULL FRAME, around 40Mp resolution
3. EF flange distance type, HIGH RESOLUTION FULL FRAME, 80Mp
4. RF flange distance type, HIGH RESOLUTION FULL FRAME, 80Mp
5. EF flange distance type, HIGH RESOLUTION APS-C, 30Mp-ish.
6. EF flange distance type, FULL FRAME, around 30Mp resolution - optimised for high frame rate shooting??? perhaps...
7. RF flange distance type, FULL FRAME, around 30Mp resolution - optimised for high frame rate shooting??? perhaps...
8. EF sensor optimised for video 4K or 8K application, pixel sized 1:1 to match 4K or *k video resolution - global Shutter. 
9. RF sensor optimised for video 4K or 8K application, pixel sized 1:1 to match 4K or *k video resolution - global Shutter. 

now.. shooting with two such cameras you can universally interchange between RF and EF mounts and also sensor size and resolution, still and video optimised
don't you see the benefits of such a design and possibilities???

and one more possibility to consider:

in 2-3 years time - upgrade you digital back to a shiny new digital back with a latest sensor - improved in what ever way... you name it..

does this address your question, as follows? 
"Tell me again, what is the benefit of doing this vs having an inexpensive adaptor on the EF lens where you can swap lenses and shoot immediately?"

personally i would love to have a pair of cameras with interchangeable sensor size and mount. I think it is a great idea.. right?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> personally i would love to have a pair of cameras with interchangeable sensor size and mount. I think it is a great idea.. right?



Interchangeable back is an interesting idea but it wouldn't be a 1D-line system, it'd be a totally different system. Not a system that's meant in this rumour.
Most importantly, it wouldn't address the main issue with the EF-RF adapter - the hassle of having the adapter itself. Instead of having a $100 adapter one would have to carry two digital backs for a (prospective) combination of EF and RF lenses. In order to change from EF to RF lens, not only one would have to change the lenses, but also the digital backs. With the adapter, at least it's possible to keep it mounted on a lens. Not an option with the digital back.
Also such a modular design comes at a cost, not only the whole system with a single digital back would be more expensive than a monolithic 1D-like camera , but one would have to buy two expensive digital backs (around $2-4k I guess) just in order to to be able to change the lenses.

Of course 'sensor on rails' looks like a much more plausible solution, but don't worry, it's only relatively more plausible compared to the digital back idea. Both solutions are unlikely to be implemented. The very rumour in question is implausible in my opinion.


----------



## tron (Dec 3, 2019)

It is a rumors site alright but I guess there is a distinction between plausible rumor, improbable rumor. or complete BS. If something is a complete BS - like CR0 or not plausible CR1 - and still it is mentioned then it's pure clickbait and the site becomes from an excellent one to a BS one. Now this is a thought that I have independent of this specific thread. But the one mentioning a 20Mpixel 1DxIII is a BS clickbait one.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 3, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Interchangeable back is an interesting idea but it wouldn't be a 1D-line system, it'd be a totally different system. Not a system that's meant in this rumour.
> Most importantly, it wouldn't address the main issue with the EF-RF adapter - the hassle of having the adapter itself. Instead of having a $100 adapter one would have to carry two digital backs for a (prospective) combination of EF and RF lenses. In order to change from EF to RF lens, not only one would have to change the lenses, but also the digital backs. With the adapter, at least it's possible to keep it mounted on a lens. Not an option with the digital back.
> Also such a modular design comes at a cost, not only the whole system with a single digital back would be more expensive than a monolithic 1D-like camera , but one would have to buy two expensive digital backs (around $2-4k I guess) just in order to to be able to change the lenses.
> 
> Of course 'sensor on rails' looks like a much more plausible solution, but don't worry, it's only relatively more plausible compared to the digital back idea. Both solutions are unlikely to be implemented. The very rumour in question is implausible in my opinion.



++ but one would have to buy two expensive digital backs (around $2-4k I guess) just in order to to be able to change the lenses.

lets see, ideally I need 4 pro grade cameras - ideally..:

2 x jack of all trade Full frame - 5D level - for run and gun scenario - mid res - around 40Mp ??
1 x high res - studio, landscape, reproduction work, what ever requires high res work - 80Mp ??
1 x sport fast action type.. say. 30Mp - 15+ FPS Full frame.
I do not shoot video - so this leaves me wanting 4 cameras (only  ) - say around $3500 + $3500 $4000 + $6,000 = $17K so far.

in the interchangeable digital back scenario, lets assume, each camera /wo digital back cost: $4,000 and digital back $2000 each?
I need 2 camera bodies and 4 digital backs. that's $8,000 + $8000 = $16,000.00
so the total cost of ownership is just about the same but flexibility though.

we understand benefits of interchangeable lenses very well. having a flexibility of multi resolution digital back at our disposal would be nice to have


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 3, 2019)

Having a Canon modular system with digital backs would be nice. I doubt they'd do it, but it'd be nice.
My point is, such a modular system is not what was meant in this particular rumour. Because

_“EOS-1 style EOS R camera” _ and _"hybrid EF/RF lens mount. So this basically means that you’d be able to mount both types of lenses without the use of an adapter."_



SecureGSM said:


> ++ but one would have to buy two expensive digital backs (around $2-4k I guess) just in order to to be able to change the lenses.
> 
> lets see, ideally I need 4 pro grade cameras - ideally..:
> 
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 3, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Having a Canon modular system with digital backs would be nice. I doubt they'd do it, but it'd be nice.
> My point is, such a modular system is not what was meant in this particular rumour. Because
> 
> _“EOS-1 style EOS R camera” _ and _"hybrid EF/RF lens mount. So this basically means that you’d be able to mount both types of lenses without the use of an adapter."_



hybrid EF/RF mount - yes possible, technically. having a deeper back for EF flange distance and second one, a shallow one, for RF. y_ou’d be able to mount both types of lenses without the use of an adapter."_
it could well be a 1D style camera. or 5d style camera. or hybrid. with multitude of new possibilities including : EF/RF native compatibility and multi sensor options. I can create a loooong bullet point list of how such a camera may add value in a professional setting


----------



## Joe Subolefsky (Dec 3, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> i keep getting lens connection error with the 70-200. i dont think the adapter is good for long whites when the camera is vertical



That's simply not true.

I have been shooting a 600III with and without extenders on an R almost daily since March and have had zero issues vertical or horizontal.

Personally I would much rather just see a simple EF to RF extenders with a builtin flip switch like the 200-400.


----------



## slclick (Dec 3, 2019)

Hybrid is nothing new, my 5D3 has hybrid card slots


----------



## Focus Pocus (Dec 3, 2019)

What is all this talk about different "backs"? What exactly moves the sensor back and forth? And how is it more convenient to replace both that "back" and a lens, as opposed just have the adapter on a lens?


----------



## slclick (Dec 3, 2019)

Focus Pocus said:


> What is all this talk about different "backs"? What exactly moves the sensor back and forth? And how is it more convenient to replace both that "back" and a lens, as opposed just have the adapter on a lens?


Although currently used in certain digital cameras, backs were first a film body component. You swapped backs out for various film size needs or for certain cameras to switch from film to digital. Hasselblad is the main user of the design.








Digital camera back - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 3, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> hybrid EF/RF mount - yes possible, technically. having a deeper back for EF flange distance and second one, a shallow one, for RF. y_ou’d be able to mount both types of lenses without the use of an adapter."_
> it could well be a 1D style camera. or 5d style camera. or hybrid. with multitude of new possibilities including : EF/RF native compatibility and multi sensor options. I can create a loooong bullet point list of how such a camera may add value in a professional setting


Except the mount in the front and the controls on top are the cheap things. A removable back would include all of the expensive parts, and would introduce a whole bevy of potential problems for sealing, just to save Canon (and the consumer) less than 100 dollars in manufacturing costs for the front of a camera.

Moving things on rails is not rocket science for a lens manufacturer. They already do it with a high degree of precision in their lenses. It's really no different, with the exception of having a ribbon cable attached to it. Many old Large format film cameras use rails to move the film plane closer or further away to focus and because of that the lenses were much simpler as they didn't need as much glass to focus. CCD cameras attached to telescopes still do this as well, so the idea of moving the sensor plane is an old one. That's one reason I thought this process was more likely in a C series camera, as it could natively support both EF and RF lenses (especially if they do the pins on top for RF/pins on bottom for ef) and then be able to move the focal plane to a different location for PL once an adapter was put on. With such a system it might also work with Panavision lenses even.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 3, 2019)

This. There is much more to It, of course. 






Mamiya Leaf Medium Format Digital Backs and Cameras


Mamiya Leaf makes medium format digital cameras.




www.mamiyaleaf.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 3, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> AFAIK, the mount diameters are identical, and the differences are in flange distance and additional contacts. The adapter is just a 26mm extension tube with contacts, and the camera realizes an EF lens in mounted via an adapter via protocol and/or the additional contacts left disconnected.



Are the mounting lugs the same configuration?
In other words will an EF lens currently mount directly to a RF camera?
Not operate or anything but just physically mount?


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 3, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Are the mounting lugs the same configuration?
> In other words will an EF lens currently mount directly to a RF camera?
> Not operate or anything but just physically mount?



They aren't. The RF lugs are even less rotational symmetric than the EF ones, the caps will only fits one way, so you have to pay attention when changing lenses.


----------



## Architect1776 (Dec 3, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> They aren't. The RF lugs are even less rotational symmetric than the EF ones, the caps will only fits one way, so you have to pay attention when changing lenses.



Just something to think about if EF and RF are to live on the same camera without an adapter. Just moving a sensor around will not work. It would require a whole new mount beyond the RF and EF.
Not a good idea unless they have some trick up their sleeve.
Who knows?


----------



## armd (Dec 3, 2019)

I can't believe that folks are falling for this marketing ploy? It's up there with Musk's hyperbole and the truth is Canon is getting their socks knocked off for being way behind both in terms of AF for DSLRs and in the mirrorless arena. FWIW, before all of the fanboys attack, I have Canon cred, having been using their gear since the mid 80's.


----------



## Pape (Dec 3, 2019)

R and EF bodyplug fits both to EF so maybe ef mount could be modified to house R lenses too?
I think hybrid mount and viewfinder camera can be done but is it sensible?
May be too expensive and heavy.


----------



## mpeeps (Dec 3, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> the R was obviously rushed and at the least an experiment. It was released in a beta state using an old sensor. pretty much an attempt to stop people from switching to other brands because of the mirrorless hype.


I'm pretty sure Canon doesn't roll like that. I'm using both EF 5dsr and R now and the R is producing excellent results with mount and even better with RF lenses, especially UWA's.


----------



## sanj (Dec 3, 2019)

"Removeable back" will not happen. Nope.


----------



## sanj (Dec 3, 2019)

Lens mount change is a possibility. I doubt even that.


----------



## mpeeps (Dec 3, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Buying an RP in my case was the plan with EF-RF and FD-RF adapter to reuse e.g. FD 4.0 17, 1.4 50, 2.5 135 and 4.0 300 which still exist in my household. But they got me with an offer where body + adapter at 1094 EUR which is very cheap anyway. But they added - and that is something I cannot believe antil the tools arrive - the RF lens as some free goodie . And there is 55 Euro cash back available after I reveive these things. Maybe the RF 35 is not selling very well and they want to convince the hesitating individuals (like me) to buy into RF mount and lenses.
> 
> I am not too happy to have a third mount around but the intended use is as one body two lens combo e.g. RF 35 + EF macro 100 or RF35 + 70-300 4.0. Or as two body combo e.g. M50 + EF 32mm + RP with 70-200 or RP with RF 35 + M50 70-200 if I need stabilized lenses.
> And If I do not like the RF 35 maybe I will sell it and enjoy the lenses I already have but 1:2 macro + IS is still interesting. I will see.
> ...


----------



## mpeeps (Dec 3, 2019)

You'll love the RF 35....until you spring for 50 or 15-35!!


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 3, 2019)

I’m sure it’s technically possible to have a mount compatible to both but it would seem daft to do it now. They must surely considered this in designing a mirror less and ruled it out. Part of the objective of a new system is to encourage users to buy new lens too. The adapter caters for old lens but is an additional thing to add to the camera. If Canon are seriously thinking of doing this there must be some severe engineering arguments going on between those loyal to EF and those engineering RF lens. I doubt this is the case and this is not a real product that’s coming.


----------



## koch1948 (Dec 3, 2019)

I assume Canon’s objective is to switch customers from the EF to the RF mount. Then why would it be in the corporate interest to go beyond adapters onto a hybrid approach which would make it easier for customers to stay with their EF lenses?


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 3, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Are the mounting lugs the same configuration?
> In other words will an EF lens currently mount directly to a RF camera?
> Not operate or anything but just physically mount?


The lugs are different as people have pointed out but that's mainly to make sure the wrong lens is not mounted on the wrong system. If the pins are in two different places, there might be a rotational feature on the body to spin and lock it into EF or RF which could change the lug pattern? I think mechanically there are multiple ways to do it. I think this is an interesting approach, but it definitely only works on a mirrored sized body, so I think we'd only see it on the 1 series. But as Canon has said multiple times, the 6d, 5d, 5ds/r, and 1d bodies will not line up directly with the RF mount models. So this functionality might only be on their highest tiers. 

Or their Cinema line. I still think this matches well with the philosophy behind those cameras, but I guess that would also apply to news agencies and the like as well.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 3, 2019)

koch1948 said:


> I assume Canon’s objective is to switch customers from the EF to the RF mount.


I wouldn't assume that. Canon will sell what sells, and there is little incentive for Canon to make big whites that work on RF mount cameras only.

There is some incentive to make telephoto lenses that benefit from the faster RF protocol, but are still EF mount compatible.


----------



## Dantana (Dec 3, 2019)

I don't think this will be a thing.

But I do think there is a possibility of a 1 series R camera that has a beefier more integrated EF adapter that people with the really big whites would be more comfortable trusting. Maybe something that screws onto the body like the current adapter but then also has a secondary secure mechanical connection to really bolt it to the body. 

I just got the R for my birthday yesterday and I don't understand why there would be an issue with the current adapters. I have the one with the control ring and I didn't have any issues with it in my first tests.


----------



## magarity (Dec 3, 2019)

I've been giving this idea of taking both mounts in the same camera some serious thought and I've come up with the answer. Put the RF mount directly in front of the sensor in the normal way. Then.... put the EF mount off to the right with a series of mirrors going over to the sensor!! If an EF lens is detected, the final mirror swings in front of the sensor, routing incoming light from that mount. This avoids all that troublesome problems with the moving sensor that others have speculated about. Genius!


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 3, 2019)

A mirrorless '1 Series' that takes EF and RF without an adapter? - it makes me think of the time Homer Simpson was allowed to design a car.
This is one of those things I have difficulty in seeing why Canon would bother doing. I suppose it's a bit like wishing there was a hybrid FD/EF camera back when EF came in...

I can see why it would appeal to some, but Canon is going all in for the EF-> RF change. The 'hybrid pro' just seems firmly looking in the wrong direction from a business POV (of course, the dead hand of marketing could still step in).

Can't afford the new lenses? You're probably not in the true 'pro' market (horrible and essentially meaningless term that it is) ;-)

The RF mount is so much more than a slightly different bayonet and shorter flange distance. A look at Canon patents over the last year or two shows a lot of adapter related ones. I have a feeling that it is the actual adapters we'll see some novelty in.

Personally, I've been impressed by using an adapter with an EOS RP (and now looking forward to a mirrorless 5Ds replacement), but then again I'm not using the RP for much of my paying work. I'm interested in what the RF mount brings to lens design and the cameras that go with it. I'll carry on using some of my EF lenses for years I'm sure, much as I'm just testing a new M645->RF tilt/shift adapter for using my old M645 lenses on the RP.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 3, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> A mirrorless '1 Series' that takes EF and RF without an adapter? - it makes me think of the time Homer Simpson was allowed to design a car.
> This is one of those things I have difficulty in seeing why Canon would bother doing. I suppose it's a bit like wishing there was a hybrid FD/EF camera back when EF came in...
> 
> I can see why it would appeal to some, but Canon is going all in for the EF-> RF change. The 'hybrid pro' just seems firmly looking in the wrong direction from a business POV (of course, the dead hand of marketing could still step in).
> ...


Keith, all good thoughts. However, from a business POV, allow me share some points:
1. In present market conditions Canon may consider utilising a hybrid EF/RF mount system as a bridging solution until such a time when RF lens lineup is complete.
2. the purpose is to keep EF owners within the system and prevent cross brand DSLR to MILC migration while we are in a transition stage.
3. There is a chance that Canon is behind the curve with regards to uptake rate of the new R system by Canon system photographers and feel that an intervention is required.
All the above is a pure speculation and without looking into market dynamics and Canon sales figures is just that. Pure speculation.


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 3, 2019)

Yes, but it still sounds a horrible kludge and the two mounts are different enough to make any solution require what is essentially another new mount if adapters are out.

I'm also looking for a 'mirrorless 1 series' to be a clear evolution in ergonomics, partly afforded by the removal of the mirror box and pentaprism.

In some ways I'd see the real arrival of this posited 'hybrid' as an admission of failure ;-)


----------



## Kit. (Dec 3, 2019)

Dantana said:


> I just got the R for my birthday yesterday and I don't understand why there would be an issue with the current adapters. I have the one with the control ring and I didn't have any issues with it in my first tests.


Does everything work correctly if you change lenses without disconnecting the adapter from the body?


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 3, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Does everything work correctly if you change lenses without disconnecting the adapter from the body?


certainly does on the RP - works fine with manual lenses too (if you remember to set the option for shutter release without a lens).


----------



## justaCanonuser (Dec 3, 2019)

If people ask me why I still stick with Canon (digital) I always say: Canon is the Toyota of camera industries, not fancy but you know you will always get from A to B. Now, if Canon comes up with a sort of Prius like hybrid model, they will be even more toyota-esque...


----------



## Dantana (Dec 3, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Does everything work correctly if you change lenses without disconnecting the adapter from the body?


I haven't done that yet, but I haven't heard of any issues.


----------



## navastronia (Dec 3, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> certainly does on the RP - works fine with manual lenses too (if you remember to set the option for shutter release without a lens).



True, though one major and unfortunate problem is that there is still no way to use manual lenses in silent mode on the RP, since the menu where you enable shutter release “without lens” is not available.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Dec 3, 2019)

mpeeps said:


> I'm pretty sure Canon doesn't roll like that. I'm using both EF 5dsr and R now and the R is producing excellent results with mount and even better with RF lenses, especially UWA's.


New times, new measures. When it came out it already was said to have features missing and bugs. also some of the concepts seem experimental like the touch bar no one sane likes.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 4, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Does everything work correctly if you change lenses without disconnecting the adapter from the body?



Yes, works fine. And even works fine switching when the camera is left on. I know you're advised to turn it off before switching lenses, but I frequently forget, and never have any problems.


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 4, 2019)

navastronia said:


> True, though one major and unfortunate problem is that there is still no way to use manual lenses in silent mode on the RP, since the menu where you enable shutter release “without lens” is not available.


I thought it was hidden in one of the less than useful auto modes somewhere?


----------



## navastronia (Dec 4, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> I thought it was hidden in one of the less than useful auto modes somewhere?



Silent Shooting is one of the scene modes, but there is no option within it for releasing the shutter w/o a lens attached, which means no manual focus glass can be used in Silent Shooting mode.


----------



## vjlex (Dec 4, 2019)

I imagine it's just going to be an RF lens mode that automatically engages by raising the mirror and extending the sensor for use with those premium RF lenses. This is simply to appease the 1DX flagship, pro-body shooters who are being excluded from using the flagship, pro-RF lenses. Still nothing for those looking for a mirrorless 5D successor.

I honestly don't think Canon's mirrorless strategy is very well-thought out. They rushed a mirrorless FF to market because they didn't want to become the Windows Phone of mirrorless FF. As far as I'm concerned, they never came out with that 'elegant solution' they promised. They still seem like they're not sure what to do. I'm still miffed that there are 3 mirrorless full frames released: none a genuine 5D successor or better... yet one for astrophotography.


----------



## chik0240 (Dec 4, 2019)

Somehow I wonders why everyone reading is assuming some movable mount or sensor.. for the mounting possibility in the same physical mount, they just need to make the locking pins in the mount compatible for both, as how the EF-S can take both EF and EF-S lenses but EF-S would get obstruction in the EF mount itself to avoid mis-mounting. 

Electronic contact can be via some parallel line configuration, depending on how many pins is connected they can switch between EF or RF protocol.

while the flange distance problem it can be just a set of lens elements built in, if an RF lens was detected they can just flip those in and act as an adapter with correction elements, just like those FD to EF adapters with elements built in. Surely this would make the RF lens performance less than in native RF mount, but it could get those tempting ultra large aperture lenses selling no?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 4, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Yes, but it still sounds a horrible kludge and the two mounts are different enough to make any solution require what is essentially another new mount if adapters are out.
> 
> I'm also looking for a 'mirrorless 1 series' to be a clear evolution in ergonomics, partly afforded by the removal of the mirror box and pentaprism.
> 
> In some ways I'd see the real arrival of this posited 'hybrid' as an admission of failure ;-)


When canon went from FD to EF, pro camera and lens owners were very upset. I expect that they have had a lot of feedback from pro users who buy a huge number of 1 series cameras like the big news agencies asking for a better solution than the current adapter (Its fine for my use). A Hybrid mount body may very well be a attempt to make them happy. With the 2020 Olympics quickly coming up, that could be a way to allow RF lenses to be used on the new EF /RF bodies such that having a mixed inventory of lenses would not be a issue.


----------



## Pape (Dec 4, 2019)

There wont be problems on EOS-1 combatibiliness with different ef and R pins cause there isnt pins on that body.
In body aperture leafs.
Autofocusing works only with moving sensor more close and far from lenses. No lens focus. Hybrid mount is just side effect.
Ibis is good enough to replace lens IS.
That is true mirrorless revolution .freely moving sensor.
No image quality weakening extra lenses for focus and IS.
This hybrid camera rumour may be just on drawing board still.
One extra benefit not having electronic connection between lens and mount ,mount can do auto shift operations with medium format lens


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 4, 2019)

chik0240 said:


> while the flange distance problem it can be just a set of lens elements built in, if an RF lens was detected they can just flip those in and act as an adapter with correction elements, just like those FD to EF adapters with elements built in. Surely this would make the RF lens performance less than in native RF mount, but it could get those tempting ultra large aperture lenses selling no?



No. A camera with flipping lens elements to adapt RF lenses to the longer flange distance? Dead on arrival. Moreover, it's dead at the design stage, and the designer is fired and blacklisted. Canon will never do that.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 4, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Yes, but it still sounds a horrible kludge and the two mounts are different enough to make any solution require what is essentially another new mount if adapters are out.
> 
> I'm also looking for a 'mirrorless 1 series' to be a clear evolution in ergonomics, partly afforded by the removal of the mirror box and pentaprism.
> 
> In some ways I'd see the real arrival of this posited 'hybrid' as an admission of failure ;-)


You are absolutely correct! It sure sounds like a business risk mitigation exercise or hedging against a risk of loosing market share due to immaturity of new product line.
Who knows.

canon may just consider offering a camera body with interchangeable mount with some additional thumb screws for fastening mount directly to the camera body. Just like Ef to RF mount adapter but with additional thumb screws. This would make sense to long glass shooters. I can perfectly see this.


----------



## sanj (Dec 4, 2019)

Whatever. However. Canon please make this happen to a 'pro body'. Pretty please.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 4, 2019)

Couldn't it be 2 different mirrorless bodies, one with dedicated RF, and one with direct EF mount ?
Sorry, but a camera with interchangeable lens mounts would become as complex as a nuclear power-plant, and, in my opinion, unnecessary.
Not to mention the extreme difficulty (precision, dust issues) in offering a removable sensor-back. What was easy to achieve with Hasselblads & co., cannot be done with digital, should the camera cost less than a Challenger SR/T...
Think of all the electrical contacts to be made working...a nightmare . A pro body MUST be absolutely reliable !


----------



## keithcooper (Dec 4, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Silent Shooting is one of the scene modes, but there is no option within it for releasing the shutter w/o a lens attached, which means no manual focus glass can be used in Silent Shooting mode.


That renders it a non-function from my POV - the scene modes are just of no practical use from my POV for a camera I'd use (YMMV) ;-)


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 4, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Silent Shooting is one of the scene modes, but there is no option within it for releasing the shutter w/o a lens attached, which means no manual focus glass can be used in Silent Shooting mode.



Have you tried using the focus stacking workaround? With regular lenses it allows you to take a silent picture with the settings you want if you set the number of pictures to '2'. But I bet focus stacking will be disabled on manual focus lenses


----------



## scyrene (Dec 4, 2019)

There's nothing wrong with outlandish speculation on a rumour site, I suppose, but there's a lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread. Fwiw I think this is unlikely full stop; the moving sensor is unlikely but not impossible (I'd never have believed an auto-moving flash head was realistic before they released one); the interchangeable backs is the most remote possibility.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 4, 2019)

scyrene said:


> There's nothing wrong with outlandish speculation on a rumour site, I suppose, but there's a lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread. Fwiw I think this is unlikely full stop; the moving sensor is unlikely but not impossible (I'd never have believed an auto-moving flash head was realistic before they released one); the interchangeable backs is the most remote possibility.



I'm still betting on a relabeled adapter, it will look different, but in essence still be same thing as the current EF-RF adapter. But it won't be called that to appease all the people with knee-jerk reactions to the word 'adapter'.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 4, 2019)

My craziest prediction for this camera. (Basically, what maybe _could_ be, but knowing Canon, definitely won't actually happen.)

The camera would have a movable sensor as some have suggested, and also a mirror like a DSLR. The viewfinder is, at its heart, an OVF, but it's a hybrid design similar to Fuji's X Pro rangefinder cameras. So it's an OVF, but there is an EVF inside the viewfinder that can turn on or off. When the camera is acting as a DSLR, the EVF is mostly off, but maybe overlaying some info on top of the view through the OVF. When the camera is acting as a mirrorless, the EVF is on all the time and the mirror is locked in the up position.

When you mount an RF lens, the mirror locks up and the sensor moves forward to the proper position for an RF lens. The camera acts as a mirrorless. When you mount an EF lens, the sensor moves back to the proper position, and you get the option of locking the mirror up and using it as a mirrorless, or using it as a DSLR with an OVF.

Won't ever happen, but it's nice to dream.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 4, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> My craziest prediction for this camera. (Basically, what maybe _could_ be, but knowing Canon, definitely won't actually happen.)
> 
> The camera would have a movable sensor as some have suggested, and also a mirror like a DSLR. The viewfinder is, at its heart, an OVF, but it's a hybrid design similar to Fuji's X Pro rangefinder cameras. So it's an OVF, but there is an EVF inside the viewfinder that can turn on or off. When the camera is acting as a DSLR, the EVF is mostly off, but maybe overlaying some info on top of the view through the OVF. When the camera is acting as a mirrorless, the EVF is on all the time and the mirror is locked in the up position.
> 
> ...


You say that won't happen, but there's a patent for exactly that from last year. If this setup happens, this is my guess on the setup for at least one of the bodies.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Dec 4, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> You say that won't happen, but there's a patent for exactly that from last year. If this setup happens, this is my guess on the setup for at least one of the bodies.


I think it's just too much radical tech for Canon, which is very conservative. And I wouldn't be surprised if Fuji holds some kind of patent that makes that hybrid OVF/EVF technology exclusive to them. Has any other manufacturer ever done anything like that? Granted with Fuji it's on a rangefinder style camera, which is really the only type of camera you could do something like this on, except for the exotic setup I described. And granted digital rangefinders are definitely not the world's most popular camera style.


----------



## Cesar (Dec 4, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Nope. Cool thing. Still don't see it in a pro camera.


Certainly not. I don't think photographers would buy a camera with a collapsible thermos.


----------



## Pape (Dec 4, 2019)

Cesar said:


> Certainly not. I don't think phographers would buy a camera with a collapsible thermos.


if it keeps coffee hot too ,they would


----------



## Dragon (Dec 4, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I predicted the moving sensor more than a year ago to explain the 'sexy' mount solution in pre-R rumours.
> Such a system can't be done without a sensor on rails.
> 
> On the other hand, why on earth would Canon do that now, *after* the EOS R release?


It makes sense. If you are going to move the sensor for IBIS anyway, why not add one more axis. that would leave the flange at EF spacing with a sensor that could snuggle up to it for RF lenses. The extra camera depth would not be an issue with a 1 series body. You NEED the heft to manage long lenses. It would be quite the nice bit of precision machine work, though. Time will tell if the rumor has any substance.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 4, 2019)

Dragon said:


> It makes sense. If you are going to move the sensor for IBIS anyway, why not add one more axis.


If you think you would really need 2 centimeters of IBIS actuators movement, maybe you should use a tripod or a gimbal instead.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 4, 2019)

Kit. said:


> If you think you would really need 2 centimeters of IBIS actuators movement, maybe you should use a tripod or a gimbal instead.


No, you don't need 2 cm for IBIS. In fact you can't begin to use that much because of the limits of the lens image circle. OTOH, once the imager is moving at all, the connections need to be flexible, etc., so you are half way at least to being ready to do the focus position adjustment and although it would have more travel than IBIS, it is conceptually much simpler, because it just has to move from stop to stop and doesn't require all the sophisticated servo control that is needed for IBIS. At this point, it is just a rumor, but it is a technically feasible rumor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 5, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> If the IDXMKIII is a big hit with 30MP or better or substantially better IQ with stills, it will give Canon a lot of credibility if an R Body could utilize EF lenses with no degradation. I'd spend $8,000 on the MKIII if it was 30MP for stills with an OVF. $4,000 to $4500 if it's just 20MP. It seems to be more of a video camera than for stills. I'm a photographer but know videographers who might be interested.



How does the EF to R adapter degrade anything? There are no optics in the tube. The RF protocol is an enhanced version of the EF protocol. They're all EOS components.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 5, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> How does the EF to R adapter degrade anything? There are no optics in the tube. The RF protocol is an enhanced version of the EF protocol. They're all EOS components.


 With OVF?


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 5, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> That sounds like a great idea. I'm not at all convinced that 24mm of flange depth is worth obsoleting all of my existing EF lenses. Now that Canon has skimmed-off the early adopters (who were going to buy almost any mirrorless solution Canon offered) it would be nice to see a better solution for EF lenses going forward.
> 
> Adaptors get old really quickly and I'm guessing the integrated filter thing sounds better than it really works.
> 
> ...



All adaptors are not the same. Adapting an EOS EF lens to an EOS RF camera is merely about the spacing and nothing else. The EF lens loses zero functionality on an RF camera. The same cannot be said when EF lenses are adapted to other manufacturers camera systems.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 5, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> With OVF?



How does an EF lens perform worse on an RF body than on an EF body? What aspect of the lens' performance is degraded?


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 5, 2019)

koch1948 said:


> I assume Canon’s objective is to switch customers from the EF to the RF mount. Then why would it be in the corporate interest to go beyond adapters onto a hybrid approach which would make it easier for customers to stay with their EF lenses?



In the context of a pro camera (read: owned by photographers who also own white super teles which cost thousands of dollars, and object to using an adapter) it could make sense to give them a transition camera. If they have to spend $20,000 on a new MILC all at once, they might switch to a different manufacturer altogether.


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 5, 2019)

Cesar said:


> Certainly not. I don't think photographers would buy a camera with a collapsible thermos.



Actually, I would love a camera with a collapsible thermos to keep my tea warm when I'm shooting star trails.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 5, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> With OVF?



I can't for the life of me figure out why you're dinging the _adapter_ for the (perceived) shortcomings of the EVF, which will exist whether you use a native lens or an adapted one.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Dec 5, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Actually, I would love a camera with a collapsible thermos to keep my tea warm when I'm shooting star trails.


Whaaaat? Surely, if you're shooting star trails, you need coffee rather than tea? I can't do it without a thermos of espresso!


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 5, 2019)

Not perceived, but a reality for us. An OVF at this time is essential. It's our preference for quality and allows for hand-holding of our f/2.8 300's and 400 primes at games where we are following very fast-moving athletes and switching from athlete to athlete. Not possible with an LCD or EVF. The 600's 800's and 200-400's Can't do it as stuck to a gimbal or mon/tri-pod the ability to follow the action is hampered. The EVF does not at "this time" offer the same response at the OVF. Perhaps in the future technology will make it so. I do like that the EVF is more reflective of exposure for those who are not as skilled as our senior people but anyone who can't function on manual would not be a "primary" photographer for our firm. Right now in skilled hands the OVF is still the most effective modality for high-speed professional sports with NFL, NBA, NHL and Extreme sports offering particular challenges. Some extreme sports are more difficult than perceived based on outdoor venues, bright sun and sea/ocean venues. Not seen a EVF up to it yet and I'm open minded. I think this will be a good 2 years away well after the Tokyo Games. It would be nice if by 2024 EVF's are perfected so the Olympic Games set a standard after 8K monitors make it into more homes and consumers can enjoy the types of resolutions we'll be shooting at. Perhaps people in their homes will finally see what we see when we shoot and edit! Best to you.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 5, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> Not perceived, but a reality for us. An OVF at this time is essential. It's our preference for quality and allows for hand-holding of our f/2.8 300's and 400 primes at games where we are following very fast-moving athletes and switching from athlete to athlete. Not possible with an LCD or EVF. The 600's 800's and 200-400's Can't do it as stuck to a gimbal or mon/tri-pod the ability to follow the action is hampered.


How about those guys with $250,000 lenses near you? Isn't it possible for them?


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 5, 2019)

Kit. said:


> How about those guys with $250,000 lenses near you? Isn't it possible for them?


Great question.

I'd like to see someone running on the sidelines with that lens, camera and pedestal that weighs more than Aaron Gibson. I want to hire that guy!

Now add the 8 guys in the truck or broadcast center and the BO&E engineer, producer and production assistants. 

One day they might miniaturize the technology but for now that 250K lens and camera are stuck to that pedestal.

Amazing what one talented photographer can do handholding a 1DXMKII with a 2.8 400MM II.

Now increase the IQ and bring the MP's up to 30 and you've got people that can move and move fast with the ability to keep open at 400mm and then crop and keep amazing quality. It's the mobility! The 400 is realistic for a trained person to *hold* the entire game. The 600 is just over the edge.

But to your point.... one day that same technology in that broadcast lens will be in our hands. But I'll I'll be long gone in heaven where you can shoot all day and edit all night.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 5, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> Not perceived, but a reality for us. An OVF at this time is essential. It's our preference for quality and allows for hand-holding of our f/2.8 300's and 400 primes at games where we are following very fast-moving athletes and switching from athlete to athlete. Not possible with an LCD or EVF. The 600's 800's and 200-400's Can't do it as stuck to a gimbal or mon/tri-pod the ability to follow the action is hampered. The EVF does not at "this time" offer the same response at the OVF. Perhaps in the future technology will make it so. I do like that the EVF is more reflective of exposure for those who are not as skilled as our senior people but anyone who can't function on manual would not be a "primary" photographer for our firm. Right now in skilled hands the OVF is still the most effective modality for high-speed professional sports with NFL, NBA, NHL and Extreme sports offering particular challenges. Some extreme sports are more difficult than perceived based on outdoor venues, bright sun and sea/ocean venues. Not seen a EVF up to it yet and I'm open minded. I think this will be a good 2 years away well after the Tokyo Games. It would be nice if by 2024 EVF's are perfected so the Olympic Games set a standard after 8K monitors make it into more homes and consumers can enjoy the types of resolutions we'll be shooting at. Perhaps people in their homes will finally see what we see when we shoot and edit! Best to you.




You missed my point. I shouldn't have given you an irrelevancy to fixate on.

You slammed the adapter, then when someone asked you why, you bitched about the EVF. What does the adapter have to do with the EVF? It's like complaining about the color of my car when it skids because the tires are bald.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 6, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> Great question.
> 
> I'd like to see someone running on the sidelines with that lens, camera and pedestal that weighs more than Aaron Gibson. I want to hire that guy!
> 
> ...



+++ The 400 is realistic for a trained person to *hold* the entire game

Hold as in handhold? Or monopod? We are talking 4.5 kg heavy contraption which has to be up and ready to shoot with your eye glued to OVF for how long again? Hours?

I have done number of sport gigs with Sigma 120-300/2.8 Sports indoors and Canon 400/2.8 II outdoors. Can I just say this: what you suggested is highly unlikely unless we are talking a very strong person and yet still this is only an exception. Not your typical use case. A gimmick.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 6, 2019)

I'm over 60 and do it. And I hire people who are fit. Grip, Lighting all heavy. Running with equipment and dodging athletes. If you can't handle it work for someone else. Cant lift 50 lbs as an employment requirement work for someone else. Me and my employees are in shape.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 7, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> I'm over 60 and do it. And I hire people who are fit. Grip, Lighting all heavy. Running with equipment and dodging athletes. If you can't handle it work for someone else. Cant lift 50 lbs as an employment requirement work for someone else. Me and my employees are in shape.


I work for some one else  50lbs exceeds recommended maximum weight from a Safety and Health Perspective. 
The safe limit today according to a Sydney university OHS guidance website is 16 kg. It advises that the upper limit is 55 kg but lifting any weight between 16 and 55 kg is potentially hazardous. No-one should lift anything heavier than 55 kg without a mechanical aid, it advises....

Handholding 5kg heavy Camera for a prolonged period of time is dangerous for one’s health. 

In Australia, an employee cannot lift anything heavier than 24kg. I mean lift. Handholding for a prolonged period of time is out of question.


----------



## Pape (Dec 7, 2019)

Couple year and we get donkey drones, what hoovers half meter before us ,when we go around and carry ours camera 
Just catch handles and you can shoot


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Dec 7, 2019)

Pape said:


> Couple year and we get donkey drones, what hoovers half meter before us ,when we go around and carry ours camera
> Just catch handles and you can shoot


It's almost here already - do you mean to say you don't already have one of these for your field trips?


watch


----------



## Pape (Dec 7, 2019)

StoicalEtcher said:


> It's almost here already - do you mean to say you don't already have one of these for your field trips?
> View attachment 187749
> 
> watch


looks good! now viefinder like pirate eye patch , when you turn head ,camera turns and eye focus locking


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 7, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I work for some one else  50lbs exceeds recommended maximum weight from a Safety and Health Perspective.
> The safe limit today according to a Sydney university OHS guidance website is 16 kg. It advises that the upper limit is 55 kg but lifting any weight between 16 and 55 kg is potentially hazardous. No-one should lift anything heavier than 55 kg without a mechanical aid, it advises....
> 
> Handholding 5kg heavy Camera for a prolonged period of time is dangerous for one’s health.
> ...


The "condition for employment is that you're able to lift 50lbs" You can keep your camera down when you're not shooting. No one who works for me has a problem shooting a 1DXMKII with f/2.8 300 or 400 II. No snowflakes here.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 8, 2019)

Lifting 50lbs (24kg) is very different to be able to handhold a 5kg long and heavy Camera / glass contraption for 30 min plus up your face and avoid camera shake at the same time. The challenge is being able to stabilise camera under these conditions. 
Hence majority of sport photogs would use a strong monopod in order to support camera while shooting.


----------



## Cyborx (Dec 8, 2019)

Canon is rumouring a lot and NOT bringing pro camera’s to the market a lot. 

I am going to wait until Canon has brought every cam in its pipeline to the market in 2020. So the 1Dx III, the 5D V, the R follow-up, the mirrorles pro, or some hybrid cam. 

We simply don’t know what to choose now.. so we wait. And I’m sure I’m not the only one. 

And sure, you Canon trolls, hit me.. 
Have a nice day!


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 9, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> Canon is rumouring a lot and NOT bringing pro camera’s to the market a lot.
> 
> I am going to wait until Canon has brought every cam in its pipeline to the market in 2020. So the 1Dx III, the 5D V, the R follow-up, the mirrorles pro, or some hybrid cam.
> 
> ...


what are you shootings with while you are waiting? Do you wait and shoot or you don’t ?
I am keen to understand where is you confusion originated from.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 9, 2019)

Cyborx said:


> Canon is rumouring a lot and NOT bringing pro camera’s to the market a lot...



"Canon" isn't rumoring anything. This site is not affiliated with Canon and the rumors are not coming from Canon, but from anonymous sources who claim to have access to information about future Canon products. The sources are not Canon.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

unfocused said:


> "Canon" isn't rumoring anything. This site is not affiliated with Canon and the rumors are not coming from Canon, but from anonymous sources who claim to have access to information about future Canon products. The sources are not Canon.



Surely you're not naive enough to think that absolutely no rumors about upcoming Canon products are "leaks" that are internally approved and sanctioned by senior management at Canon?


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> ++ but one would have to buy two expensive digital backs (around $2-4k I guess) just in order to to be able to change the lenses.
> 
> lets see, ideally I need 4 pro grade cameras - ideally..:
> 
> ...



Except when you have four complete bodies you can mount several completely different lenses on them and shoot them all at the same time. "Changing lenses" then only takes as long as it takes to let go of one camera hanging on your right side and picking up the other one hanging on your left side.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

Joe Subolefsky said:


> That's simply not true.
> 
> I have been shooting a 600III with and without extenders on an R almost daily since March and have had zero issues vertical or horizontal.
> 
> Personally I would much rather just see a simple EF to RF extenders with a builtin flip switch like the 200-400.



How does a built in switch change the length of the back of the lens (or the front of the camera)?

The EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS 1.4X has a switch that moves optical elements sideways in or out of the optical path of the light going through the lens. It does not change the physical length of the lens at all.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 9, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Except when you have four complete bodies you can mount several completely different lenses on them and shoot them all at the same time. "Changing lenses" then only takes as long as it takes to let go of one camera hanging on your right side and picking up the other one hanging on your left side.


Ah, that’s cheating  event shooters are usually maxed out at Having two camera bodies per person. However @GoldWing may disagree as at his firm condition of employment is being able to lift at least 50 Lbs. . Oh, dear. Where is the mega LOL icon here. Let’s just have a laugh, shall we


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 9, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Ah, that’s cheating  event shooters are usually maxed out at Having two camera bodies per person. However @GoldWing may disagree as at his firm condition of employment is being able to lift at least 50 Lbs. . Oh, dear. Where is the mega LOL icon here. Let’s just have a laugh, shall we


That happens to be a very common provision for employment for many firms. If you can lift 50lbs how can you lift and unpack stage cases, pelicans and grip cases? A messenger working for a law firm has the same requirement. Why don't you tell me what you don't understand? The camera and lens used to shoot don't weigh 50lbs. You just need to show you can lift 59lbs if needed to do every part of you job. Ignorance may have you laughing.... but it really shows how little you know.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 9, 2019)




----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 9, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> That happens to be a very common provision for employment for many firms. If you can lift 50lbs how can you lift and unpack stage cases, pelicans and grip cases? A messenger working for a law firm has the same requirement. Why don't you tell me what you don't understand? The camera and lens used to shoot don't weigh 50lbs. You just need to show you can lift 59lbs if needed to do every part of you job. Ignorance may have you laughing.... but it really shows how little you know.



Is this one of your guys by any chance? It seems he would have passed your requirements with flying colours. oh, schweppes.. this lens Weight ONLY: *34.6 pounds* (*15.7 kg*). Oh, come on, Sigma... Should have built 200-600 F2.8 lens instead and still satisfy your 50 pound requirement. 

but seriously: to make someone to lift over 24kg in Australia at work is illegal.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 9, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> but seriously: to make someone to lift over 24kg in Australia at work is illegal.


However, if the work requires lifting heavy objects, it shouldn't to be illegal to refuse to hire someone who cannot lift 23.9 kg.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 9, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Is this one of your guys by any chance? It seems he would have passed your requirements with flying colours. oh, schweppes.. this lens Weight ONLY: *34.6 pounds* (*15.7 kg*). Oh, come on, Sigma... Should have built 200-600 F2.8 lens instead and still satisfy your 50 pound requirement.
> 
> but seriously: to make someone to lift over 24kg in Australia at work is illegal.


To think that we Poms used to admire you Aussies for being tough all round sportsmen (and women).


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 9, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Surely you're not naive enough to think that absolutely no rumors about upcoming Canon products are "leaks" that are internally approved and sanctioned by senior management at Canon?



Sounds like a conspiracy theory. What does Canon stand to benefit from such leaks?


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

Dantana said:


> I don't think this will be a thing.
> 
> But I do think there is a possibility of a 1 series R camera that has a beefier more integrated EF adapter that people with the really big whites would be more comfortable trusting. Maybe something that screws onto the body like the current adapter but then also has a secondary secure mechanical connection to really bolt it to the body.
> 
> I just got the R for my birthday yesterday and I don't understand why there would be an issue with the current adapters. I have the one with the control ring and I didn't have any issues with it in my first tests.



Most users of the really big whites have no problem using an EF 1.4X III or even EF 2X III. The adapter is simpler and carries no optical elements like the extenders do.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Sounds like a conspiracy theory. What does Canon stand to benefit from such leaks?



Have you ever studied marketing, even at the high school level? It's called "buzz".


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Does everything work correctly if you change lenses without disconnecting the adapter from the body?




In the EF system, Canon also recommends connecting lenses and extenders before mounting the extender on the the body, but not everyone does it that way. Turning off the camera and then leaving the extender attached to the body and changing lenses causes no problems, either. Leaving the body turned on and swapping lenses without moving the extender can sometimes confuse the camera regarding what lens/extender combination is attached.


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 9, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Have you ever studied marketing, even at the high school level?



In the country in which I live, marketing is taught in the relevant academic degrees, but not in high school.



Michael Clark said:


> It's called "buzz".



Like Canon suffers from a lack of buzz.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> New times, new measures. When it came out it already was said to have features missing and bugs. also some of the concepts seem experimental like the touch bar no one sane likes.



Lots of R user must be insane, then, because many have learned to use it in a way that offers something they did not have with Canon DSLRs. Is it a smashing success? No. But there are those who have figured out how to get the most from the tool in their hand instead of loudly yelling,"Who moved my cheese."


----------



## Dantana (Dec 9, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Most users of the really big whites have no problem using an EF 1.4X III or even EF 2X III. The adapter is simpler and carries no optical elements like the extenders do.


Yeah, I know, and I'm sure you're right. Everything seems super secure with my adapter too, though I haven't mounted anything longer than the 70-300L on it.

It was the only thing that made sense to me as the headline to this post. I can't imagine a moving mount or moving sensor would be something that would live in a bash proof 1 series body (at least on its first iteration). A super integrated heavy duty adapter that felt more like part of the camera was the only other thing I could think of. But like I said in the original post, I doubt this is really going to be a thing, at least for a non-cinema body. Cinema bodies with replaceable mounts are a different beast.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

Pape said:


> There wont be problems on EOS-1 combatibiliness with different ef and R pins cause there isnt pins on that body.
> In body aperture leafs.
> Autofocusing works only with moving sensor more close and far from lenses. No lens focus. Hybrid mount is just side effect.
> Ibis is good enough to replace lens IS.
> ...



Yeah, because when one needs to focus really close, the sensor is going to be able to back up 40-50-100mm from the position needed for infinity focus?


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I'm still betting on a relabeled adapter, it will look different, but in essence still be same thing as the current EF-RF adapter. But it won't be called that to appease all the people with knee-jerk reactions to the word 'adapter'.



BINGO!

Just call it a "Non-optical non-extending extender" and they'll have no issue using it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Ah, that’s cheating  event shooters are usually maxed out at Having two camera bodies per person. However @GoldWing may disagree as at his firm condition of employment is being able to lift at least 50 Lbs. . Oh, dear. Where is the mega LOL icon here. Let’s just have a laugh, shall we



I still do see a few PJs with three bodies hanging and occasionally even four when "walking in" or out of a scene. Back in the film days even more was not uncommon when a lot of PJs had a different body or two (one each for a "short" and "long" lens) for each type of film they shot.

Here's one of Michael Wolgensinger, one of Robert Frank's mentors, way back in the day with three, two of which are medium format.




I haven't yet ran into this lady.





Nor this one.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 9, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Like Canon suffers from a lack of buzz.



Precisely. Because they make sure there's always a story circulating, even when there isn't a story at the moment.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 9, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I still do see a few PJs with three bodies hanging and occasionally even four when "walking in" or out of a scene. Back in the film days even more was not uncommon when a lot of PJs had a different body or two (one each for a "short" and "long" lens) for each type of film they shot.
> 
> Here's one of Robert Frank way back in the day with three, two of which are medium format.
> 
> ...


Michael,Thank you for this post. What a wonderful story!


----------



## Pape (Dec 10, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Yeah, because when one needs to focus really close, the sensor is going to be able to back up 40-50-100mm from the position needed for infinity focus?


100mm sounds lot ,maybe old extension tubes would be more clever still 
yeah maybe it would be too big camera ,but on future when cameras hover on air


----------



## uri.raz (Dec 10, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Precisely. Because they make sure there's always a story circulating, even when there isn't a story at the moment.



There have been quiet periods here, explained by longer update cycles. Now there's a lot of buzz, I doubt most of the rumored cameras (and possibly lenses) would actually appear, at least in the rumored schedule.


----------



## Joe Subolefsky (Dec 10, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> How does a built in switch change the length of the back of the lens (or the front of the camera)?
> 
> The EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS 1.4X has a switch that moves optical elements sideways in or out of the optical path of the light going through the lens. It does not change the physical length of the lens at all.



That's not what I'm talking about at all - What I mean is simply a single unit as if you combined the RF adapter and converter together but having the switch move the optical elements just like it does on the 200-400. Having the extra 1.4 at the flick of a switch is much nicer then putting off and on extenders especially in crappy conditions.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 11, 2019)

Pape said:


> 100mm sounds lot ,maybe old extension tubes would be more clever still
> yeah maybe it would be too big camera ,but on future when cameras hover on air



For a 100mm Macro lens, the difference between infinity focus (100mm in front of the image plane) and 1:1 unity focus (200mm in front of the image plane) is exactly 100mm.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 11, 2019)

Joe Subolefsky said:


> That's not what I'm talking about at all - What I mean is simply a single unit as if you combined the RF adapter and converter together but having the switch move the optical elements just like it does on the 200-400. Having the extra 1.4 at the flick of a switch is much nicer then putting off and on extenders especially in crappy conditions.



But a switch to place optical elements in the path of the lens' optical formula from the side is fundamentally different from a switch that would lengthen or shorten the lens barrel by 24mm.


----------



## Joe Subolefsky (Dec 12, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> But a switch to place optical elements in the path of the lens' optical formula from the side is fundamentally different from a switch that would lengthen or shorten the lens barrel by 24mm.


You’re missing the point. All I’m talking about is new extenders that they are going to make anyway for the new big whites. Just like this but one unit with a switch to engage the optics.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Here's one of Robert Frank way back in the day with three, two of which are medium format.
> 
> View attachment 187763



Are you sure that's Robert Frank?


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 12, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Are you sure that's Robert Frank?



Pretty sure. It was probably taken around the same time as this one in 1953 before he was older than dirt. His hair was shorter on the side, if not on the top, which would have been inside the hat.




If not Frank, this one is definitely Larry Burrows in Vietnam sometime between 1962 and when the helicopter he was riding in was shot down over Laos in 1971.







Or W. Eugene Smith in Hitachi, Japan in 1962.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 12, 2019)

Joe Subolefsky said:


> You’re missing the point. All I’m talking about is new extenders that they are going to make anyway for the new big whites. Just like this but one unit with a switch to engage the optics.



I'm evidently totally missing what you are suggesting. The EF to RF part of that construction has no optics. It's a tube used to extend the lens flange by 24mm. To switch between being usable with an EF lens on an RF camera and an RF lens on an RF camera, the black part of what you are holding would need to retract from 24mm thick to 0mm thick. Ditto it you wanted to US an EF lens on an EF body - the construction would need to shorten itself by 24mm compared to what you would need to use it with an EF lens on an RF body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 12, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Are you sure that's Robert Frank?



After a little digging, it turns out that is Michael Wolgensinger, one of Frank's mentors in Switzerland. But there are a near countless number of places on the internet that display this photo and label it as Robert Frank.


----------



## Pape (Dec 12, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> For a 100mm Macro lens, the difference between infinity focus (100mm in front of the image plane) and 1:1 unity focus (200mm in front of the image plane) is exactly 100mm.


Peoples too used to lenses what focus close without extension rings ,i guess my camera revolution may be just dream .
Even would be easy make long extension rings from lens caps when no camera connection


----------



## Joe Subolefsky (Dec 12, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm evidently totally missing what you are suggesting. The EF to RF part of that construction has no optics. It's a tube used to extend the lens flange by 24mm. To switch between being usable with an EF lens on an RF camera and an RF lens on an RF camera, the black part of what you are holding would need to retract from 24mm thick to 0mm thick. Ditto it you wanted to US an EF lens on an EF body - the construction would need to shorten itself by 24mm compared to what you would need to use it with an EF lens on an RF body.



Correct. This is for shooting the big whites on RF bodies and making the optical portion switchable like on the 200-400. The new big whites already have the additional electrical connections to work with the RF bodies.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 12, 2019)

Joe Subolefsky said:


> Correct. This is for shooting the big whites on RF bodies and making the optical portion switchable like on the 200-400. The new big whites already have the additional electrical connections to work with the RF bodies.



You're still going to need a 24mm difference in length to use the big whites with an RF camera versus with an EF camera. Whether the extender's optics are in the optical path or not.

As to the additional electrical connections; maybe, maybe not. EF lenses compatible with Canon extenders have always had more contacts than those that are not. These extra connections are for communication with the extender itself, which has the extra contacts on the front connection to the lens but does not have extra contacts on the back connection to the camera. It may well be that even more additional contacts will be needed to communicate with an RF extender *and* the RF camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 12, 2019)

Joe Subolefsky said:


> Correct. This is for shooting the big whites on RF bodies and making the optical portion switchable like on the 200-400. The new big whites already have the additional electrical connections to work with the RF bodies.



Look at it this way: If you took an EF extender and placed it between an EF camera and an EF lens, and moved the optics in the extender out of the optical path, the lens would be the thickness of the extender too far in front of the camera's flange.


----------



## TAF (Dec 13, 2019)

Youngsters today have no idea...clearly photographers in those days were made of hardier stuff.





Michael Clark said:


> Pretty sure. It was probably taken around the same time as this one in 1953 before he was older than dirt. His hair was shorter on the side, if not on the top, which would have been inside the hat.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 13, 2019)

I know some amazing photogs of Today but none of them are loosing their sleep over or even concerned about the technology dramas we discuss here. Seriously, some of The images they produce with an “outdated” Canon 5D level Mirror flapping Camera bodies and canon glass is absolutely a.m.a.z.i.n.g

I highly suggest joining the following Facebook group if you haven’t done so. I registered my FB account purely to have an opportunity to stay in touch with the group:









Art of Portrait Photography | Facebook


Welcome to The OFFICIAL - Art of Portrait Photography group to all the new members to the group. This group was established in 2016. Follow us on Instagram...




www.facebook.com





Some of the images posted to the group:


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 15, 2019)

andrei1989 said:


> aren't the two mounts phisically incompatible? different diameters and distances (not flange distance)
> can one actually mount an EF lens on an R body without an adapter? not use the lens, simply mount it



The are incompatible as it stands, but they are the same diameter. It might be possible to modify the mount so that either type of lens would mount, and the electrical contacts line up, I spent a while comparing them and I think its possible. But, since it would weaken the mount to do that, it doesn't seem practical. That ignores the issue of flange distance which would need a moving sensor or extending/ retracting mount.


----------



## canonmike (Dec 15, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I use polarizers to minimize reflections on stone counter tops and in swimming pools and the images are part of a composite/blend of images to get the best looking aspect of each element in the frame, I am not looking to polarize large areas of sky or landscape.
> 
> Like this.
> 
> ...


Nicely done and explained. Thx for sharing photo(s) validation. Ah, the voice of experience showing how to solve a problem I didn't even know I had, until seeing your examples. Kudos.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 15, 2019)

canonmike said:


> Nicely done and explained. Thx for sharing photo(s) validation. Ah, the voice of experience showing how to solve a problem I didn't even know I had, until seeing your examples. Kudos.


Thanks for the kind words canonmike and I'm glad you found it useful, always happy to post examples when I have relevant ones.


----------



## Optics Patent (Dec 19, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> Stefang, that's brilliant. Every lens a tilt lens. Probably not shift. A movable sensor that could control tilt - wow. Talk about opportunities for computational aids. I could imagine a focus analysis done in a few milliseconds, and optimal tilt executed automatically. Pick 2 or three focus points, rather than just one.
> 
> That actually would be worth waiting the extra 2 years. Here is where we get our hopes up for a proper dashing.


I file patent applications for ideas like this. Seriously.


----------

