# A hypothesis concerning the RF mount



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

> We have received some information from one of our sources that has seen the camera, and described it to us.  He mentioned that EF lenses mounted directly onto the camera body.
> We have been told in the past, that this will have a mount with a sexy solution for EF lenses, so we’re going to hypothesize a bit about what we think it just may be based upon some patent applications we have seen recently.
> In this patent application, Canon describes a mount that supports two different lens protocols. This is further described in these two patent applications where they discuss switching the lens mount to support two different protocols.
> From this information, it’s a working theory that the RF and EF mount will differ slightly and EF lenses will mount on the RF mount and cause it to “switch” to...



Continue reading...


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 30, 2018)

Messing up 3rd party lens compatibility would be a bummer, but will guarantee more Canon lens sales.


----------



## Refurb7 (Aug 30, 2018)

I don't understand the point of mounting an EF lens directly onto the mirrorless camera body. It will be much too close to the sensor. How could it possibly work?


----------



## eosuser1234 (Aug 30, 2018)

Brilliant. Locks out 3rd party lens makers for 17 years for the RF mount. However, the remaining EF mount 3rd party lense should be accessible for the mean time. I certainly hope there is a EF-M full frame option as well. Auto crops to APS-C with EF-M, and with EF adaptor takes EF-S and EF lenses. I want compact options.


----------



## edoorn (Aug 30, 2018)

if they could pull this off, it would be quite a brilliant solution


----------



## .jan (Aug 30, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> Brilliant. Locks out 3rd party lens makers for 17 years for the RF mount. However, the remaining EF mount 3rd party lense should be accessible for the mean time. I certainly hope there is a EF-M full frame option as well. Auto crops to APS-C with EF-M, and with EF adaptor takes EF-S and EF lenses. I want compact options.


How's that supposed to work, EF-M without an adaptor? Any FF mirrorless mount would be as wide as the EF mount or even wider.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> Brilliant. Locks out 3rd party lens makers for 17 years for the RF mount. However, the remaining EF mount 3rd party lense should be accessible for the mean time. I certainly hope there is a EF-M full frame option as well. Auto crops to APS-C with EF-M, and with EF adaptor takes EF-S and EF lenses. I want compact options.


the source suggested that they have seen EF lenses mount directly onto the camera, if that's the case EF-M lenses would not be able to be used. Simply EF/RF lenses on the mount. It may not lock out lens makers but it MAY lock out Sony FE adapters to support RF lenses


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

Maybe I'm not understanding the hypothesis (I'm slow, give me a break)... How would the flange difference be rectified? If there is no flange difference, than what benefit could there be in switching mounts? Or is the hypothesis that the mount would be switched and the camera can support two protocols?


----------



## jeffpoker (Aug 30, 2018)

I would consider it a mistake if Canon doesn't shorten the flange distance in its new mount. 
As a sexy fix for EF lenses, someone wrote about a moveable sensor which would be really interesting but I don't understand why an adapter wouldn't work.
Why wouldn't it work? A Canon adapter, made by Canon for Canon, would work flawlessly and be extremely fast. 
Canon would then have a new future-proof mount and the adapter would make all or their EF lenses work.

Is there really a reason to have a native EF mount (or an EF-R with an EF flange distance) on a Canon mirrorless? If so, what is it?


----------



## colorblinded (Aug 30, 2018)

I'd been wondering a while back if they'd use the same mount but create mirrorless lenses which can extend further back internally, behind the mount. With no mirror in the way perhaps they can support EF lenses and potentially more compact overall mirrorless oriented lenses that way.

You'd need some really bizarre rear lens caps for RF lenses if that's how they're designed, but so be it.


----------



## .jan (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding the hypothesis (I'm slow, give me a break)... How would the flange difference be rectified? If there is no flange difference, than what benefit could there be in switching mounts? Or is the hypothesis that the mount would be switched and the camera can support two protocols?


Sensor movement, mount extension, lens design (so technically no change in flange distance but a lens that extends into the body). There's tons of possibilities so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

jeffpoker said:


> I would consider it a mistake if Canon doesn't shorten the flange distance in its new mount.
> As a sexy fix for EF lenses, someone wrote about a moveable sensor which would be really interesting but I don't understand why an adapter wouldn't work.
> Why wouldn't it work? A Canon adapter, made by Canon for Canon, would work flawlessly and be extremely fast.
> Canon would then have a new future-proof mount and the adapter would make all or their EF lenses work.
> ...


it sounds like they are using the 44mm registration distance if they saw EF lenses mount natively.

Let's face it. Canon has over 100 million reasons to use the EF mount and continue using it. Shortening the registration distance only improves a couple of handful of lenses. Canon RF lenses sound like they have a different (faster) lens protocol and ALSO could sit back into the mirrorbox similar to EF-S lenses.

Again, this was a hypothesis based upon the limited information we have and patent applications that were released.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 30, 2018)

For the Sensor to more back and forth waht 12mm? would there be an extra 12mm of space lost to accommodate old lenses?
How could you get the mechanical sensor moving reliably for say 10,000 movements?


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> How would the flange difference be rectified? If there is no flange difference, than what benefit could there be in switching mounts?



Someone came up with an idea, and someone else a graphic to illustrate it, of EF fitting normally and RF lenses having the rear element/s protruding into the camera body.

This way you retain 100% adaptor-less compatibility with EF lenses and RF lenses can still benefit from getting closer to the sensor & have a small(er) camera+lens size.

I don't know enough to have any idea whether this will restrict potential designs for RF lenses.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 30, 2018)

Stuart said:


> For the Sensor to more back and forth waht 12mm? would there be an extra 12mm of space lost to accommodate old lenses?
> How could you get the mechanical sensor moving reliably for say 10,000 movements?


For this reason (reliability), I believe the sensor will be fixed at the standard EF flange distance and new EF-R lenses will simply extend into the body and sit much closer to the sensor. Very simple, reliable and the best of both worlds in terms of short flange distance and full native EF support.

The only drawback I can see is the camera body won't be able to be as slim as sony/nikon. But that's only a drawback for those who care about a thin camera body.


----------



## Bekippe (Aug 30, 2018)

Stuart said:


> For the Sensor to more back and forth waht 12mm? would there be an extra 12mm of space lost to accommodate old lenses?
> How could you get the mechanical sensor moving reliably for say 10,000 movements?



IBIS systems imply that it is already possible, it's more a question of logistics. Realistically, the same mechanisms that drive the focus group in the lens could drive the sensor plane as well, as long as there are flex cables attached to everything. And those systems actuate far more frequently. Part of the new lens protocol could be a key value to position the sensor. That would open up the lens design for any flange distance that is optimal for the lens, not forcing them to use one constant one for everything.


----------



## Tangent (Aug 30, 2018)

Guess 1: Body approach -- An EF lens mounts directly. When an RF lens mounts on the camera, a sliding shaft is engaged which pulls the mounting assembly with the lens further in towards the camera. A mount within a mount, in effect. Hopefully they found a way to do this that does not impact unit cost too much.

Guess 2: Lens Approach -- All RF lenses will have a rear element that extends back towards the sensor once mounted. The basic EF mount stays the same. If a future new lens doesn't need the inward-extending element it will simply be designed as an EF lens. (I don't think telephotos, long zooms, or Big Whites will need the inward extending element, so they will be EF lenses now and in the future). (If an RF lens is mountable at all on a regular EF mount camera it wouldn't hurt anything; the inward-extending element would not deploy, and would not be harmed.)

Guess 1 adds the cost of handling RF lenses to the mount on every camera sold, and I'm thinking the unit cost might be a problematic, but may be workable. Guess 2 shifts the cost of accommodating close approach to the sensor to each lens that needs it, but the cost may be even higher, and flexibility of lens design may be hindered somewhat.

My guess now is Guess 2, the in-lens approach.

Final note: Forget mounting APS-c EF-M lenses on the new full frame RF camera. Not workable. Not gonna happen (without an adapter, which won't be coming from Canon).

I guess we'll know next Wednesday!


----------



## Respinder (Aug 30, 2018)

Oooooooooh - I am excited again!!!!!!


----------



## .jan (Aug 30, 2018)

ecpu said:


> The only drawback I can see is the camera body won't be able to be as slim as sony/nikon. But that's only a drawback for those who care about a thin camera body.


Exactly. However, I feel like both Sony and now Nikon are still living off the fascination about the size of the first generation A7 cameras. The third generation A7 cameras as well as the Z6/7 are significantly beefier than the first gen A7 cameras (which had abysmal battery life and - at best - mediocre ergonomics). So while a thin camera body is nice in theory, recent camera models show that too thin isn't ideal either. Especially if you want to have a nicely sized grip, you're not gonna get a tiny camera.


----------



## Skywise (Aug 30, 2018)

ecpu said:


> For this reason (reliability), I believe the sensor will be fixed at the standard EF flange distance and new EF-R lenses will simply extend into the body and sit much closer to the sensor. Very simple, reliable and the best of both worlds in terms of short flange distance and full native EF support.
> 
> The only drawback I can see is the camera body won't be able to be as slim as sony/nikon. But that's only a drawback for those who care about a thin camera body.



So long as the camera body itself is lighter I think that's enough. It won't be as convenient as an EOS M but even 1lb off the weight would be great for carrying it around on a trip. Presumably there'd then be a slow migration to the (presumably) smaller/lighter RF lenses.


----------



## .jan (Aug 30, 2018)

What if they use a lens element within the camera, like the ND filters in some compact cameras, to keep a short(ish) flange distance for a thin body and RF lenses and also enable proper focusing with conventional EF lenses?


----------



## Bekippe (Aug 30, 2018)

.jan said:


> Exactly. However, I feel like both Sony and now Nikon are still living off the fascination about the size of the first generation A7 cameras. The third generation A7 cameras as well as the Z6/7 are significantly beefier than the first gen A7 cameras (which had abysmal battery life and - at best - mediocre ergonomics). So while a thin camera body is nice in theory, recent camera models show that too thin isn't ideal either. Especially if you want to have a nicely sized grip, you're not gonna get a tiny camera.



That I think is the "innovation" people are missing. Simply following suit with a thin, small body mirrorless is just more of the same. Giving us a full sized mirrorless, with the ability to control the focal plane depth, would be new. Not to mention not having to rebuild the entire lens line from scratch. I think that Canon is happy having the M line dedicated as the small & light, while keeping the FF cameras big.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2018)

I don't see anything specifically related to mirrorless in the patents, but they do relate to a modernization of the EF lenses. I doubt that it would lock out reverse engineering of 3rd party lenses, that would likely result in lawsuits similar to the ones filed in the Keurig Coffee maker case where they tried to lockout competing brands of K-Cups.

It could very well appear first on a Mirrorless camera, but should eventually appear on all Canon interchangeable lens cameras. I really think that Canon wants lens interchangeability such that lenses with the new electronics work on older cameras.

I could see a telescoping mount to accommodate EF on a short flange back, it could be threaded and rotate into place. The difficult issue would be alignment.


----------



## Respinder (Aug 30, 2018)

jeffpoker said:


> I would consider it a mistake if Canon doesn't shorten the flange distance in its new mount.
> As a sexy fix for EF lenses, someone wrote about a moveable sensor which would be really interesting but I don't understand why an adapter wouldn't work.
> Why wouldn't it work? A Canon adapter, made by Canon for Canon, would work flawlessly and be extremely fast.
> Canon would then have a new future-proof mount and the adapter would make all or their EF lenses work.
> ...



If there are any lessons learned from the Nikon Z launch, it is that people will dismiss adapters, no matter how perfect they are, and only look at what is supported "natively". Despite the performance of Nikon's adapter, a common opinion of the Nikon Z is that it has too few "native lenses" - so essentially people overlook the adapter capabilities.

To have a camera natively support two formats - a legacy format (EF) and new format (RF) is far better when compared to an adapter solution.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't see anything specifically related to mirrorless in the patents, but they do relate to a modernization of the EF lenses.



mentioning mirrorless would be meaningless to the patent really

while it may not lock out lens designers where the problem may occur is metabones and the like reverse engineering the RF/EF mount to support Sony FE to EF/RF adapters.


----------



## knight427 (Aug 30, 2018)

I’m trying to rationalize how the following might all be true:

release of enthusiast FF milc
ef mount and rf mount attach natively to body
launch lens is 24-70 f/2 

What is RF are lenses are designed as m4/3 lens. The cameras that take RF lenses will autocrop to m4/3 when you want to run light, but take FF EF lenses when you are willing to bow to physics and want to use the full sensor capabilities. So maybe the 24-70 f/2 is actually 12-35 f/2 but Canon will market RF lenses with the crop factor built into the name since you won’t be able to mount an RF lens to non-R cameras.


----------



## .jan (Aug 30, 2018)

Bekippe said:


> That I think is the "innovation" people are missing. Simply following suit with a thin, small body mirrorless is just more of the same. Giving us a full sized mirrorless, with the ability to control the focal plane depth, would be new. Not to mention not having to rebuild the entire lens line from scratch. I think that Canon is happy having the M line dedicated as the small & light, while keeping the FF cameras big.


Right. And you'd still get a lighter camera, because there's no mirror box and mechanics needed. The body could also be much smaller, because AF and AE systems are on the sensor instead of underneath or above it. And the prisms for FF cameras are huge, so another big and heavy part to save.


----------



## mensaf (Aug 30, 2018)

All I want to know is if it has 4k with no crop and 120fps @ 1080p. I'm definitely picking up that 32mm f1.4 they're announcing for the EOS-M, but I will definitely consider selling the rest of my EF lenses if the native RF are reasonably fast enough and lighter. I love my 85mm f1.4 IS to death but moving with that thing all day even when attached to the super light M50 is less than desirable. That and weather sealing. I'm getting too excited for this thing, but it's only a few days away now.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 30, 2018)

Damn Canon make this happen. Dual card slot with hybrid mount lens and 24-70 F2. I'll pre-order it.


----------



## .jan (Aug 30, 2018)

canonnews said:


> while it may not lock out lens designers where the problem may occur is metabones and the like reverse engineering the RF/EF mount to support Sony FE to EF/RF adapters.


Would that really be a problem? I mean not in terms of mechanics and optics, but more from a market perspective. The FE lens ecosystem is growing, attractive to 3rd party lens makers and can easily adapt existing EF glass. I don't see Canon coming out with a one of a kind lens for RF first, the kind that everyone would want/need. Especially not given the rumored price tag for the first RF camera.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

I don't see how it's a new mount. If new lenses and new bodies are both backward-compatible (there is no reason for them not to be), just call it "EF mount".


----------



## .jan (Aug 30, 2018)

mensaf said:


> All I want to know is if it has 4k with no crop and 120fps @ 1080p. I'm definitely picking up that 32mm f1.4 they're announcing for the EOS-M, but I will definitely consider selling the rest of my EF lenses if the native RF are reasonably fast enough and lighter. I love my 85mm f1.4 IS to death but moving with that thing all day even when attached to the super light M50 is less than desirable. That and weather sealing. I'm getting too excited for this thing, but it's only a few days away now.


Don't count on lighter glass. Sony's 2.8/24-70 GM is heavier, longer and just 1mm less diameter than Canon's 2.8/24-70 II - and that's with the advantage of being a mirrorless system. I feel like Canon is already p much on top of the game when it comes to keeping lenses compact and lightweight.


----------



## traveller (Aug 30, 2018)

Things seem to be getting pretty whacky around here. 

Craig: are the current sources trusted? I don't see any CR# ratings... does this mean that we're all falling for internet gossip and wishful thinking. What if Canon Rumors' original position turns out to be correct all along? 

I don't know, but it's just not feeling like we are less than a week from what would be Canon's biggest product announcement for a generation and indicate the future of the EF mount. Canon are pretty good at playing their cards close to their chest, but it has never been this quiet before...


----------



## jeffpoker (Aug 30, 2018)

Respinder said:


> If there are any lessons learned from the Nikon Z launch, it is that people will dismiss adapters, no matter how perfect they are, and only look at what is supported "natively". Despite the performance of Nikon's adapter, a common opinion of the Nikon Z is that it has too few "native lenses" - so essentially people overlook the adapter capabilities.
> 
> To have a camera natively support two formats - a legacy format (EF) and new format (RF) is far better when compared to an adapter solution.



I completely understand your point, but in ten years, when most (?) people will have moved to mirrorless (imo), how will people react when they see the limitations of that retro-compatibility? Will people now criticize Canon for that decision?
I'm guessing Canon won't reinvent a completely new mount in just 10 years right?

I'm nowhere near an expert on the subject so keep in mind I'm just speculating here. But I think it's a mistake to limit the future because of the current/past. If Canon keeps that flange distance on their new mount, then every mirrorless camera in the next 20-30 years will be bigger for no reason.
[EDIT] I know size is not the only advantage of mirrorless but for many people, it is one important aspect.


----------



## bks54 (Aug 30, 2018)

Tangent said:


> Guess 1: Body approach -- An EF lens mounts directly. When an RF lens mounts on the camera, a sliding shaft is engaged which pulls the mounting assembly with the lens further in towards the camera. A mount within a mount, in effect. Hopefully they found a way to do this that does not impact unit cost too much.
> 
> Guess 2: Lens Approach -- All RF lenses will have a rear element that extends back towards the sensor once mounted. The basic EF mount stays the same. If a future new lens doesn't need the inward-extending element it will simply be designed as an EF lens. (I don't think telephotos, long zooms, or Big Whites will need the inward extending element, so they will be EF lenses now and in the future). (If an RF lens is mountable at all on a regular EF mount camera it wouldn't hurt anything; the inward-extending element would not deploy, and would not be harmed.)



Guess 3: Modified Lens Approach - In order to make a mirrorless system that is more compact, provide options for advanced and compact wide angle lens design, but also provide for complete backward and forward compatibility of EF and RF lenses, the camera could have an EF compatible short flange design, and new lenses could have in-built capacity to vary the needed distance to the sensor. Long lenses would be designed for long flange distance and have adapter built in which would be extended for EF-R use and retracted for DSLR use. Shorter focal length lenses would be designed for short flange distance in normal position on EF-R but telescope back into mirror box and be usable in live view on DSLRs (and would not be extendable with the mirror down, but could be usable for macrophotography). All new lenses could be designed like this; older EF ones would need an adapter on EF-R (or would not focus closely), and no adapter would be needed when new lenses are used on either system.


----------



## dcsimages (Aug 30, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> I don't understand the point of mounting an EF lens directly onto the mirrorless camera body. It will be much too close to the sensor. How could it possibly work?



Why are you assuming that the flange to focal plane distance needs to be shorter?


----------



## Ditboy (Aug 30, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> I don't understand the point of mounting an EF lens directly onto the mirrorless camera body. It will be much too close to the sensor. How could it possibly work?


*Essentially* It would have to have a built in adapter. Instead of a mirror it would just have air space. This would prevent the boddies from being narrower like the all other mirrorless cameras. But would save weight. The more I have thought about it, the less I have thought Canon needs to introduce a new mount and design lenses with a shorter focus point. Sony has proved that a short flange distance does not make the lenses smaller, in fact in some cases they are larger, so there is no advantage in a full frame sensor body. The size and weight savings can really only be accomplished with an APS-C sensor like Fuji.


----------



## RickWagoner (Aug 30, 2018)

Maybe Canons full frame mirrorless bodies will be all about the pro set of features first with larger battery packs (lpe6 standard) for longer operation times meaning larger bodies able to carry larger ef lenses naively and Canon EOS-M bodies will be all about smaller mirrorless first with mid level features second.


----------



## dcsimages (Aug 30, 2018)

Considering that the 5D series is a little too thin for my hands, I certainly wouldn't be interested in a thinner body than that.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 30, 2018)

Ditboy said:


> *Essentially* It would have to have a built in adapter. Instead of a mirror it would just have air space. This would prevent the boddies from being narrower like the all other mirrorless cameras. But would save weight. The more I have thought about it, the less I have thought Canon needs to introduce a new mount and design lenses with a shorter focus point. Sony has proved that a short flange distance does not make the lenses smaller, in fact in some cases they are larger, so there is no advantage in a full frame sensor body. The size and weight savings can really only be accomplished with an APS-C sensor like Fuji.



Or the M-series!


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 30, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Messing up 3rd party lens compatibility would be a bummer, but will guarantee more Canon lens sales.


Makes sense. A "convertible" camera... Why not? The camera recognizes the lens attached to it already so it should be a transparent solution. Use your old EF or the New EF-R or R or whatever they will call it without any special adapters. Awesome!


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> I don't understand the point of mounting an EF lens directly onto the mirrorless camera body. It will be much too close to the sensor. How could it possibly work?




You presume it will be thin. That may be a bad presumption.

This could be a full EF mount visually, form-wise, etc, but possibly provide other functionality for newer lenses. 

- A


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

Kit. said:


> I don't see how it's a new mount. If new lenses and new bodies are both backward-compatible (there is no reason for them not to be), just call it "EF mount".


I'm guessing here, but maybe it could need to be referred to as a new mount while being backwards compatible because the RF lenses will not be compatible with DSLRs. I.e. and EF lens will mount to an EF or RF mount, but an RF lens will only mount to an RF mount.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

traveller said:


> Things seem to be getting pretty whacky around here.
> 
> Craig: are the current sources trusted? I don't see any CR# ratings... does this mean that we're all falling for internet gossip and wishful thinking. What if Canon Rumors' original position turns out to be correct all along?
> 
> I don't know, but it's just not feeling like we are less than a week from what would be Canon's biggest product announcement for a generation and indicate the future of the EF mount. Canon are pretty good at playing their cards close to their chest, but it has never been this quiet before...



Well, this post was done by me, not Craig, but Craig wanted it up today to see what the community thought of the concept after him and I discussed it today. it's backed up by patent applications and one of his sources saying EF mount lenses mount on it and others saying it has a new "RF mount".

It's also why there was a pretty big caveat mentioned in the bottom of the post. No one knows much of anything at this point


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Can someone give me the short version of these patents? 

Is it identical form-wise (flange distance, physical mount ring, etc.) to EF but it just provides extra communications and options for interacting with the lens?

Or is it a nested lens mount concept with two different flange distances?

- A


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 30, 2018)

josephandrews222 said:


> Or the M-series!


The Sony 24-70 for My A7R III is HUGE, a lot longer and heavier than the Canon.
In a skinny body it makes the camera harder to balance. Even with the vertical grip attached. 
I hope canon gives us a DSLR-body without a mirror and a convertible mount.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2018)

Stuart said:


> For the Sensor to more back and forth waht 12mm? would there be an extra 12mm of space lost to accommodate old lenses?
> How could you get the mechanical sensor moving reliably for say 10,000 movements?



Here are two possible ways:
1) sensor based alignment (sensor picks up three targets on the lens mount to locate and align;
2) kinematic Mount (moving “platform” engages to a set of 1-DOR, 2-DOR, and 3-DOR hard stops at the end of each translation (mating stops on both sides of platform) for repeatable deployments.

Both could be expensive, but I expect an actuated sensor with the ability to locate and align itself to a lens mount both be both simpler and better.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

colorblinded said:


> I'd been wondering a while back if they'd use the same mount but create mirrorless lenses which can extend further back internally, behind the mount. With no mirror in the way perhaps they can support EF lenses and potentially more compact overall mirrorless oriented lenses that way.
> 
> You'd need some really bizarre rear lens caps for RF lenses if that's how they're designed, but so be it.




Read this. The forum already beat this up here. Verdict = possible, but complicated.

- A


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 30, 2018)

dcsimages said:


> Considering that the 5D series is a little too thin for my hands, I certainly wouldn't be interested in a thinner body than that.


the Sony A7R III is skinny as hell. Taking off the mirror doesn't mean they have to make the camera smaller or thinner. They can release a consumer version and a big,, thick Pro version for the big white lenses.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Can someone give me the short version of these patents?
> 
> Is it identical form-wise (flange distance, physical mount ring, etc.) to EF but it just provides extra communications and options for interacting with the lens?
> 
> ...


essentially the patent discuss mounting lenses that have different protocols on a mount that can service both protocols.

Ie: EF lens protocols and RF lens protocols.

_the communicate modes which the interchangeable lens can respond may differ. In order to be able to equip an imaging device with the interchangeable lens of several different types, the technology which distinguishes the type of interchangeable lens with which it was equipped is disclosed. _

_or this..._

_First, synchronous serial communication is performed with the first communication speed with which an interchangeable lens old type can also communicate. When the interchangeable lens with which it is equipped is distinguished from a new lens by the communication content, it changes to the synchronous serial communication in a more nearly high-speed second communication speed. _

It's awkward but sums it up. They don't talk that clearly about the registration distance. THAT fact we gathered from other sources that stated EF lenses were mounting on the camera as if they were RF lenses. The patent simply describe a method of using one mount supporting two different types of lenses, which is exactly what we are surmising here.

Essentially RF lenses will be faster and probably tuned more for mirrorless. EF lenses will mount and work as if they are native to the mount as well.

It's unknown if canon would make DSLR's that could mount an RF mount lens, or whether there will be something similar to the EF-S lenses that prevents the mount from occuring.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Hesbehindyou said:


> Someone came up with an idea, and someone else a graphic to illustrate it, of EF fitting normally and RF lenses having the rear element/s protruding into the camera body.
> 
> This way you retain 100% adaptor-less compatibility with EF lenses and RF lenses can still benefit from getting closer to the sensor & have a small(er) camera+lens size.
> 
> I don't know enough to have any idea whether this will restrict potential designs for RF lenses.




Yes. This. 




Head here to read the team's take on it.

- A


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 30, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Here are two possible ways:
> 1) sensor based alignment (sensor picks up three targets on the lens mount to locate and align;
> 2) kinematic Mount (moving “platform” engages to a set of 1-DOR, 2-DOR, and 3-DOR hard stops at the end of each translation (mating stops on both sides of platform) for repeatable deployments.
> 
> Both could be expensive, but I expect an actuated sensor with the ability to locate and align itself to a lens mount both be both simpler and better.


sounds interesting too but I wonder if the mechanism would last thousands of actuations and not shift over time. Anything movable has a chance to become misaligned


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

canonnews said:


> Well, this post was done by me, not Craig, but Craig wanted it up today to see what the community thought of the concept after him and I discussed it today. it's backed up by patent applications and one of his sources saying EF mount lenses mount on it and others saying it has a new "RF mount".
> 
> It's also why there was a pretty big caveat mentioned in the bottom of the post. No one knows much of anything at this point


Yes, I think an earlier post noted that there will be no CR ratings on these posts moving forward because sources were somewhat unknown, but there was reason to start thinking there could be merit to some of the suggestions.

To be fair though, there is so much interest in this and no information to go on, so the choice is really report on nothing at all or report on less reliable rumours while being clear that their likelihood of accuracy is not verified. I prefer to hear the unverified rumours (obviously caveated) to hearing nothing at all.

Big grains of salt all around, but let the frothing at the mouth continue!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> sounds interesting too but I wonder if the mechanism would last thousands of actuations and not shift over time. Anything movable has a chance to become misaligned



Which is why (1) is what I present as better. The idea is that the sensor measures its location and orientation relative to the mounting flange of the lens, and commands the actuators until it’s within spec.

(2) would be limited by the robustness of the hardstops. Kinematic mounts work and work well, but they would be subject to wear which would affect alignment.

But I expect neither (1) nor (2)


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> Yes, I think an earlier post noted that there will be no CR ratings on these posts moving forward because sources were somewhat unknown, but there was reason to start thinking there could be merit to some of the suggestions.
> 
> To be fair though, there is so much interest in this and no information to go on, so the choice is really report on nothing at all or report on less reliable rumours while being clear that their likelihood of accuracy is not verified. I prefer to hear the unverified rumours (obviously caveated) to hearing nothing at all.
> 
> Big grains of salt all around, but let the frothing at the mouth continue!



Of course. With canon keeping this SO quiet it's just hypothetical musings right now, but we did back it up with some form of logic 

I also tend to do the crazy posts when Craig allows me to  

It's crazy how quiet this is, usually full specs are known and we usually have the first images by now.


----------



## drob (Aug 30, 2018)

So is it safe to say that EOS M was never intended to be developed into a full frame, pro-level system?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Can someone give me the short version of these patents?


Something akin to (from the body - SPI master - point of view):
1. Detect that a lens is connected.
2. Start communicating on a default SPI clock rate (supported by all EF lenses).
3. If the lens reports that it supports a higher SPI clock rate, use a higher SPI clock rate.

Really nothing that would warrant changing the mount name.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 30, 2018)

ecpu said:


> For this reason (reliability), I believe the sensor will be fixed at the standard EF flange distance and new EF-R lenses will simply extend into the body and sit much closer to the sensor. Very simple, reliable and the best of both worlds in terms of short flange distance and full native EF support.
> 
> The only drawback I can see is the camera body won't be able to be as slim as sony/nikon. But that's only a drawback for those who care about a thin camera body.



Most likely an interim solution. After, say 5 years, when a fuller stable of EF-R lenses are released, a slim, EF-R only camera will be released?


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

How about an even crazier hypothesis - what if Canon is introducing a curved sensor? Canon has several patent applications for curved sensors and I believe one of which could change its curve electronically. With that kind of technology (if I'm understanding it correctly, which I may not be), Canon could open the door to very different lens designs, possibly justifying a new mount.


----------



## Ditboy (Aug 30, 2018)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...


If the theories about keeping the current flange distance for EF lens compatibility and the new R lenses using protruding elements into the mirror space to optimize optical formulas is true, hats off to the designers of the EF mount for their forward thinking. That would also make the R lenses the third mount to utilize the same basic design. It would be a "very sexy" solution.


----------



## .jan (Aug 30, 2018)

jeffpoker said:


> I completely understand your point, but in ten years, when most (?) people will have moved to mirrorless (imo), how will people react when they see the limitations of that retro-compatibility? Will people now criticize Canon for that decision?
> I'm guessing Canon won't reinvent a completely new mount in just 10 years right?
> 
> I'm nowhere near an expert on the subject so keep in mind I'm just speculating here. But I think it's a mistake to limit the future because of the current/past. If Canon keeps that flange distance on their new mount, then every mirrorless camera in the next 20-30 years will be bigger for no reason.
> [EDIT] I know size is not the only advantage of mirrorless but for many people, it is one important aspect.


I mean people weren't exactly shitting on Nikon for keeping the F Mount when Canon introduced the EF mount back in the days so it might be a similar scenario here. Plus the oh so new and innovative Z mount is pretty close to the EF mount. Fully electronic communication and just one mm more diameter for the Z mount. Seems like the EF mount was already p mirrorless-ready back in the days.
I think all of this comes down to some lens design changes for any RF (or EF-R?) lenses making them incompatible / unusable for normal EF cameras.


----------



## bks54 (Aug 30, 2018)

drob said:


> So is it safe to say that EOS M was never intended to be developed into a full frame, pro-level system?



The major design focus for EOS M is small size and light weight. All the lenses have a diameter of 60.9 mm. It will be interesting to see if the 32 1.4 will also squeeze into that design parameter. It would be extremely surprising if the EF-M mount were used for a full -frame camera. Sony did something like that and it costs them dearly in design flexibility.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Aug 30, 2018)

Hesbehindyou said:


> Someone came up with an idea, and someone else a graphic to illustrate it, of EF fitting normally and RF lenses having the rear element/s protruding into the camera body.
> 
> This way you retain 100% adaptor-less compatibility with EF lenses and RF lenses can still benefit from getting closer to the sensor & have a small(er) camera+lens size.
> 
> I don't know enough to have any idea whether this will restrict potential designs for RF lenses.



So far this idea makes the most sense and doesn't require removable mounts/adapters or a moving sensor. The EF mount is already as wide as it needs to be (54mm) so no need for Canon to make the RF mount any wider.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 30, 2018)

jeffpoker said:


> I would consider it a mistake if Canon doesn't shorten the flange distance in its new mount.



Why? As a practical matter Sony FF is as large as DSLR FF. Yes, yes, the bodies are a bit smaller but add a lens and you're within a few mm's/ounces of a professional DSLR setup.

Everyone assumes a shorter flange distance will equal great gains in size and weight. That has not happened.


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Why? As a practical matter Sony FF is as large as DSLR FF. Yes, yes, the bodies are a bit smaller but add a lens and you're within a few mm's/ounces of a professional DSLR setup.
> 
> Everyone assumes a shorter flange distance will equal great gains in size and weight. That has not happened.


For most lenses that's true, but for some combinations there are opportunities to reduce size. The opportunities for savings appear mostly in wide angle lenses. This is the 16-35 f/2.8iii vs the 16-35 f/2.8 G master on a 5DIV and a7Riii:


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

jeffpoker said:


> [EDIT] I know size is not the only advantage of mirrorless but for many people, it is one important aspect.




This. We have to have a smaller camera option or a chunk of the market will laugh us away without a second thought.

I also prefer a full EF solution. But if that's all we offered we'd only delight some pros + some of the enthusiast community. The remainder of those groups and tons of the new generation of photographers, investors, etc. would regard full EF mirrorless -- as practical as it might be -- as a relic.

We must go thin.

We ought to go full EF.

Canon is big enough to do both.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Why? As a practical matter Sony FF is as large as DSLR FF. Yes, yes, the bodies are a bit smaller but add a lens and you're within a few mm's/ounces of a professional DSLR setup.
> 
> Everyone assumes a shorter flange distance will equal great gains in size and weight. That has not happened.




Small sells when it looks like this:

​
Yes, this only applies to a handful of lenses, _which is all Canon should make with the thin mount._

Make a thin mount offering and a full EF mount offering. Offer 4-6 lenses (f/2.8 primes, f/4 zooms and a pancake or two) for the thin mount and then put it on mothballs.

Viva EF for the proper flagship lens portfolio. No split loyalties/budgets/priorities to two FF mounts. 

- A


----------



## fullstop (Aug 30, 2018)

that would be so typical "innovative Canon". Pig-snouted RF mirrorless cameras with a new mount, but cameras and lenses just as big and fat as mirrorslappers. 

As if additional communications protocol stuff could not also be piped through existing EF glass electrical pins.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Something akin to (from the body - SPI master - point of view):
> 1. Detect that a lens is connected.
> 2. Start communicating on a default SPI clock rate (supported by all EF lenses).
> 3. If the lens reports that it supports a higher SPI clock rate, use a higher SPI clock rate.
> ...




Or size. Ooh, I worry about this. They could put out a full EF geometry/flange distance/ring/etc. but newer lenses can do newer things on that same mount.

Makes me worry about 10 years from now and EF is starting to look like Nikon F mount -- fragmentation of a system in which every physically connects together but functionality is conditional depending upon fine print, compatibility, etc. Right now, the first time you do something like this, you sell the upsides of the new lens on new body and stress [new on old] and [old on new] is fine.

Do this 2-3 times and then a new feature drops that you can only use if you have [insert conditions here] and it feels like a slow road to F mount confusion.

Am I being a cranky old fart here? Am I reading this wrong? Talk me down, please.

- A


----------



## miketcool (Aug 30, 2018)

Canon has every reason to do this. 

Mount adapters are a weak point and introduce more problems then they solve. Light leakage, structural mounting for larger lenses, wear, etc.

The biggest advantage to doing this is allowing future bodies to adapt Cine lenses that protrude into the body. Canon could make one camera that adapts all their lenses without an adapter while locking out their competition from doing so. This is ultimately what you need to do to transition over the next 5 years from a mirror box depth while keeping your promise of long term lens usage going back to 1987. This is about customer commitment and finding a solution to a problem all the camera makers face.

EOS R = EOS Revolution


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

miketcool said:


> Mount adapters are a weak point and introduce more problems then they solve. Light leakage, structural mounting for larger lenses, wear, etc.




Do (Canon made) extension tubes and teleconverters have these problems? Do adapted EF lenses on EOS-M have this problem?

(Not trying to wind you up -- just curious.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

We're four pages deep in a frenzy right now over tea leaves, speculation and what ifs.

Mount rumors are the bug zapper and we (gleefully) keep flying right into it.

If 9/5 turns out to just be the M5 Mark II, some people's hearts will give out.

- A


----------



## herion (Aug 30, 2018)

.jan said:


> Exactly. However, I feel like both Sony and now Nikon are still living off the fascination about the size of the first generation A7 cameras. The third generation A7 cameras as well as the Z6/7 are significantly beefier than the first gen A7 cameras (which had abysmal battery life and - at best - mediocre ergonomics). So while a thin camera body is nice in theory, recent camera models show that too thin isn't ideal either. Especially if you want to have a nicely sized grip, you're not gonna get a tiny camera.



And if you're powering an EVF and/or backscreen all the time and you want decent battery life, you NEED a heftier battery and hence a heftier grip.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Also, everyone should probably bookmark this, because (with all due respect to CR Guy and a wonderful site) this is where the definitive proof will drop in the form of pictures.

I am not expecting a teaser campaign. It will go from fever pitch on rumors to BANG and then we'll have photos.

Of course, keep coming here.  CR Guy will get the goods on the spec list and all that. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

herion said:


> And if you're powering an EVF and/or backscreen all the time and you want decent battery life, you NEED a heftier battery and hence a heftier grip.




+1 Put a proper 5D-sized chunkomatic grip on this thing. You get more battery, great comfort, top LCD, all the buttons and controls and control wheel, etc. and it conveniently gives you more real estate for a bigger battery.

- A


----------



## Lurker (Aug 30, 2018)

> We're four pages deep in a frenzy right now over tea leaves, speculation and what ifs.



Yes, a slow day today isn't it.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 30, 2018)

I have the old FD cameras.
The FTb (F-1 and others also) is quite thin as far as the body goes yet is a FF camera with a mirror. Where the lens mounts the body extends a bit allowing for clearance of the mirror. Could a similar solution work for the RF series cameras? Native EF mount on a body with a bit thicker area where the lens mounts with RF lenses as needed protruding into the space between the mount and sensor. Thus a perceived smaller camera and some lenses extending less overall (Generally WA lenses) and long lenses don't need to staying the same.
For all we know the new 70-200 f2.8 and other very new lenses have the RF protocol in them and that is why they appeared to have no significant visible changes.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

Skywise said:


> So long as the camera body itself is lighter I think that's enough. It won't be as convenient as an EOS M but even 1lb off the weight would be great for carrying it around on a trip.



But of course, a FF mirrorless camera was never going to be able to compete with the APS-C M series on small size.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 30, 2018)

The more I think about this potential launch next week, the less I believe it.

When major products are launched, isn't it usually a big presentation by executives/engineers in front of an audience (in the case of cameras: photographers, reviewers, media, etc.)?

If there were an announcement next week for a major product like a FF mirrorless, surely the invitees of said launch event would already be invited and therefore be able to confirm the existence of the major event. Yet we hear nothing but subtle hints and speculation from unknown sources.

Just seems hard to believe. Nevertheless, I would love for it to be true.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

jeffpoker said:


> every mirrorless camera in the next 20-30 years will be bigger for no reason.



Well not no reason: plenty of people have expressed a desire to keep current ergonomics. FF lenses will mostly not be any smaller even with a new mount. Why introduce a new mount just for a small advantage for a few lenses? Nikon had their own reasons fo doing so, I believe...


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> sounds interesting too but I wonder if the mechanism would last thousands of actuations and not shift over time. Anything movable has a chance to become misaligned



I'd worry about this too but it occurs to me - we expect the mirror to move hundreds of thousads of times and stay perfectly aligned, so maybe it's not such a big deal (I guess the tolerances are finer with the sensor though). I still doubt the sensor will be mobile in this way though.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

Incidentally, given "RF" already has a pretty established meaning in science and technology, I'd be surprised if they chose that name.


----------



## nchoh (Aug 30, 2018)

drob said:


> So is it safe to say that EOS M was never intended to be developed into a full frame, pro-level system?



In an interview with the Canon team, one of the designers stated that the EOS was not designed for FF.


----------



## Yasko (Aug 30, 2018)

canonnews said:


> mentioning mirrorless would be meaningless to the patent really
> 
> while it may not lock out lens designers where the problem may occur is metabones and the like reverse engineering the RF/EF mount to support Sony FE to EF/RF adapters.



Exactly. Patents are always as common as possible in order to gibe it the most buck for bang (or vice versa?).


----------



## miketcool (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Do (Canon made) extension tubes and teleconverters have these problems? Do adapted EF lenses on EOS-M have this problem?
> 
> (Not trying to wind you up -- just curious.)
> 
> - A



Yes, teleconverters and extension tubes have these issues. You can feel a slight amount of play which means that over time this introduces wear etc. This is why we use PL (positive lock) lenses in cinema cameras. The locking mechanism locks the lens into the body reducing any play, making for a stiffer and more solid connection.

The idea in EOS-M is that you buy EOS-M lenses instead of relying on an adapter full-time. Wearing metal mounts introduces metal dust inside the body near the sensor. It would be interesting to see someone's Sony mirrorless after a few years of living on adapter mounts to see how the wear looks.


----------



## fegari (Aug 30, 2018)

I also think the WINNER combination would be a mount that accepts both EF + R lenses nativelly. Keep the body size roughly in the same kind of lueague as current cameras, human sized button and dials. The killer asset of mirrorless is not saving 4 mm on each side of the camera or saving 200gr of weight while losing usability, battery life etc. The mirrorless assest is the EVF, what you see is whay you get and (not quite there yet) much more advanced autofocus capabilities and no longer the need to calibrate each freaking lens...all the rest (tiny cameras etc) to me is not the furure.

So, gimme a camera where I can use all my EF lenses nativelly and design the R lenses with the protuding thing so they fit longer _inside _the camera.

That way they will sell 10x more cameras than Nikon as there will be no need to replace all lenses (and having to wait 5 years for that). In such way Canon will not need to come up with a complete new line of R lenses right away, and they can make some of those new R lenses (for example) faster than the current EFs or begin releasing the updates of each EF directly into R mount so the transition for people already invested in canon is practically eliminated.

Just DON'T copy SONY nor NIKON!!
**the one drawback I now think of are kinda huge lens caps for those R lenses


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 30, 2018)

I can't sleep, I can't eat, I can't work. This suspense is killing me.
Let it be September 5, give me my life back!
And give me an EF mount!!!!!!


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> For all we know the new 70-200 f2.8 and other very new lenses have the RF protocol in them and that is why they appeared to have no significant visible changes.


I was wondering about this as well, but I figured that if Canon were to release EF lenses that were or were not compatible with the RF mount, there would be some additional designation to help a user know which lenses will and will not work. Although I guess Canon did suggest which lenses would pair well with a 5DSR without changing any designations...


----------



## ecpu (Aug 30, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> I can't sleep, I can't eat, I can't work. This suspense is killing me.
> Let it be September 5, give me my life back!
> And give me an EF mount!!!!!!


lol I'm in the same boat! I dont typically get so worked up about this stuff but I've been wanting to upgrade for many months and just want to know whether I'm getting a Canon MILC or a Sony one. Enough waiting and speculating.

Just launch the damn thing already!


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Aug 30, 2018)

I suppose the only downsides to the recessed lens idea that retains the EF mirror box space are: 1) vintage glass will not be as adaptable as a traditional (short flange) mirrorless mount, and 2) the recessed lens barrel would further restrict the maximum size of the rear-most elements as it would be smaller than the external barrel diameter (although rear elements aren't overly huge anyway). So there isn't a whole lot to lose. Canon already has the EOS M line for adapting vintage glass anyway.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Also, everyone should probably bookmark this, because (with all due respect to CR Guy and a wonderful site) this is where the definitive proof will drop in the form of pictures.
> 
> I am not expecting a teaser campaign. It will go from fever pitch on rumors to BANG and then we'll have photos.
> 
> ...


haha. Poor CR Guy wasn't responsible for this. He's relatively innocent on this one


----------



## colorblinded (Aug 30, 2018)

ecpu said:


> The only drawback I can see is the camera body won't be able to be as slim as sony/nikon. But that's only a drawback for those who care about a thin camera body.


But how slim is the new Nikon camera, really? From the pictures I saw, it looks like the grip still extends further beyond the F mount when the adapter is attached.

If that's the case, keeping the overall flange distance and keeping native support for EF mount lenses (which already has a shorter back flange distance than F mount) makes sense if they design mirrorless lenses to extend inwards inside the mount.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2018)

jeffpoker said:


> [EDIT] I know size is not the only advantage of mirrorless but for many people, it is one important aspect.


I disagree. Until someone shows me something which a mirrorless camera can do which an SLR capable of mirror lockup can not be designed to do, I’ll argue that size is the sole differentiator, and that whether it is an advantage or not is subjective.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> I suppose the only downsides to the recessed lens idea that retains the EF mirror box space are: 1) vintage glass will not be as adaptable as a traditional (short flange) mirrorless mount, and 2) the recessed lens barrel would further restrict the maximum size of the rear-most elements as it would be smaller than the external barrel diameter (although rear elements aren't overly huge anyway). So there isn't a whole lot to lose. Canon already has the EOS M line for adapting vintage glass anyway.



true. but to be fair with the EF mount you get C/Y, F mount, OM1/2, Pentax and a few others anyways. it's missing FD, Minolta and the rangefinder lenses.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Makes me worry about 10 years from now and EF is starting to look like Nikon F mount -- fragmentation of a system in which every physically connects together but functionality is conditional depending upon fine print, compatibility, etc. Right now, the first time you do something like this,


It is not the first time. I am sure it has already happened more than once. But as it's mostly in software, it is still much cheaper to maintain than the hardware part of the diversity (different versions of autofocus, IS, distance encoding etc.)


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I disagree. Until someone shows me something which a mirrorless camera can do which an SLR capable of mirror lockup can not be designed to do, I’ll argue that size is the sole differentiator, and that whether it is an advantage or not is subjective.


There is nothing in the world to stop Canon from creating an EF mount (or EF-RF mount) slightly smaller than an SL2. Which is pretty tiny.
how much smaller do you really need to go when your lenses are usually pretty large anyways.


----------



## traveller (Aug 30, 2018)

canonnews said:


> Well, this post was done by me, not Craig, but Craig wanted it up today to see what the community thought of the concept after him and I discussed it today. it's backed up by patent applications and one of his sources saying EF mount lenses mount on it and others saying it has a new "RF mount".
> 
> It's also why there was a pretty big caveat mentioned in the bottom of the post. No one knows much of anything at this point



I was referring to the recent few rumours in general, rather than this one in particular. 

Like Canon Rumors, your Canon News site isn’t generally one for posting unfounded nonsense (like some sites out there), but I just get the sense that perhaps both you and Craig are not quite so confident in your sources as would normally be the case in the week before a major announcement. 

Perhaps Canon is taking extra effort, as they regard this announcement as especially important? Perhaps we aren’t getting the usual leaks because all we’re getting on the 5th September is a “development” announcement?


----------



## ecpu (Aug 30, 2018)

traveller said:


> I was referring to the recent few rumours in general, rather than this one in particular.
> 
> Like Canon Rumors, your Canon News site isn’t generally one for posting unfounded nonsense (like some sites out there), but I just get the sense that perhaps both you and Craig are not quite so confident in your sources as would normally be the case in the week before a major announcement.
> 
> Perhaps Canon is taking extra effort, as they regard this announcement as especially important? Perhaps we aren’t getting the usual leaks because all we’re getting on the 5th September is a “development” announcement?


Or, perhaps there is no announcement...


----------



## gmon750 (Aug 30, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> I don't understand the point of mounting an EF lens directly onto the mirrorless camera body. It will be much too close to the sensor. How could it possibly work?



So you're privy on how Canon's full-frame body is designed? Maybe it has a slimmer body, maybe it doesn't.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I disagree. Until someone shows me something which a mirrorless camera can do which an SLR capable of mirror lockup can not be designed to do, I’ll argue that size is the sole differentiator, and that whether it is an advantage or not is subjective.



1) MLU + Liveview on an SLR does not allow you to hold the camera up to your eye unless you design a hybrid VF or use some comical eye loupe on the back LCD. In short, this (below) isn't what I want to do as my default shooting posture. It's a nice trick to have, esp. with an articulating screen. But I overwhelmingly prefer the VF and a more stable shooting posture.

​
2) An SLR design -- even with MLU + liveview -- cannot adapt other people's lenses. You cannot bolt a Nikkor 14-24 2.8 or 105 f/1.4 on an EF mount... but you might be able to with a thin mount.

I take your point that size is (somehwat idiotically) a huge driver for reducing the flange distance. Who wants all the headaches of a new mount to save 1 measly inch? But to say that SLR + MLU can do everything a mirrorless camera can is simply not so. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

canonnews said:


> There is nothing in the world to stop Canon from creating an EF mount (or EF-RF mount) slightly smaller than an SL2. Which is pretty tiny.
> how much smaller do you really need to go when your lenses are usually pretty large anyways.




And controls go to hell at that size. SL2 is lovely, I'm sure, but I'll take my 5D wheel / grip / buttons over that any day.

- A


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> And controls go to hell at that size. SL2 is lovely, I'm sure, but I'll take my 5D wheel / grip / buttons over that any day.
> 
> - A


I tend to agree. you need body size to implement a good fit, relaxed controls and good ergonomics.

but keep in mind that "Similar ergonomics to the EOS M50, and slightly larger body than the EOS M50" is being rumored right now.





which may dissappoint some, as this would sound like a full frame entry level camera.


----------



## BillB (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> And controls go to hell at that size. SL2 is lovely, I'm sure, but I'll take my 5D wheel / grip / buttons over that any day.
> 
> - A


Fair enough, but the point is that if you want small, you can go pretty small while keeping the EF mount and avoid adapter hassles


----------



## Refurb7 (Aug 30, 2018)

Keeping the native registration distance of EF lenses sounds like a terrible idea to me. I sincerely hope Canon doesn't do that. It would mean needlessly fatter bodies, etc.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2018)

Native Dual mount capacity would be really something special. I couldn't fully imagine Canon going FF MILC and having to build another entirely new line. I know Others do it, but when you already have the best lenses... you want to find a way to use them. So assuming RF lenses would be smaller and lighter, the dual mount could still accommodate EF. Could the Sensor plane actually be mounted onto a movable structure that would re-position the sensor forward or backward inside the body slightly to accommodate the lens variances between RF and EF? Total BS conjecture but that could be perhaps one way?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2018)

canonnews said:


> mentioning mirrorless would be meaningless to the patent really
> 
> while it may not lock out lens designers where the problem may occur is metabones and the like reverse engineering the RF/EF mount to support Sony FE to EF/RF adapters.



It is said by some that faster data transmission speeds are needed to achieve DSLR like focus speeds for Mirrorless, and that the faster data bus speeds are in the Nikon lens. Those speeds could benefit EF as well.

That is probably why we would see the new electronics in mirrorless first.


----------



## BillB (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 1) MLU + Liveview on an SLR does not allow you to hold the camera up to your eye unless you design a hybrid VF or use some comical eye loupe on the back LCD. In short, this (below) isn't what I want to do as my default shooting posture. It's a nice trick to have, esp. with an articulating screen. But I overwhelmingly prefer the VF and a more stable shooting posture.
> 
> View attachment 179995​
> 2) An SLR design -- even with MLU + liveview -- cannot adapt other people's lenses. You cannot bolt a Nikkor 14-24 2.8 or 105 f/1.4 on an EF mount... but you might be able to with a thin mount.
> ...


and one measly inch or the shortest dimension at that.


----------



## Refurb7 (Aug 30, 2018)

dcsimages said:


> Why are you assuming that the flange to focal plane distance needs to be shorter?


I'm assuming that because that's the most sensible design once the mirror is removed. A mirror box space with no mirror is very inelegant.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 2) An SLR design -- even with MLU + liveview -- cannot adapt other people's lenses. You cannot bolt a Nikkor 14-24 2.8 or 105 f/1.4 on an EF mount


i'm confused by your post here, there is most certainly EF to F mount adapters, and EF to OM1/2 and EF to Contax / Yashica and EF to Pentax,etc


----------



## colorblinded (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Read this. The forum already beat this up here. Verdict = possible, but complicated.
> 
> - A


Ah, fun. Thanks for sharing, wish I had been able to follow/participate in that chat as it was happening.


----------



## MikeD (Aug 30, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I'd worry about this too but it occurs to me - we expect the mirror to move hundreds of thousads of times and stay perfectly aligned, so maybe it's not such a big deal (I guess the tolerances are finer with the sensor though). I still doubt the sensor will be mobile in this way though.



Not for mirrorless, only with a DSLR where the focus sensor needs to stay aligned with the mirror then same to the sensor. W/O a mirror and separate focus sensor, the Z alignment of the sensor is not critical as it would be calibrated with every focus.


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

canonnews said:


> i'm confused by your post here, there is most certainly EF to F mount adapters, and EF to OM1/2 and EF to Contax / Yashica and EF to Pentax,etc


I think that is in reference to only adapting lenses which require longer flange distances to bodies with shorter flange distances. This way the adapter just needs to add some distance between the sensor and the back of the lens. If the mount provides too much flange distance than a lens supports, the adapter will need some optics instead of being a pass through. This is (to my admittedly limited understanding) why EF lenses can be adapted to Sony E mount bodies, but not the other way around.


----------



## scottw (Aug 30, 2018)

I have had various Canon cameras over the years (my first decent digical camera was a Elph S200 from ~2002), but never got into their DSLRs until the SL2, which I eventually sold to get into their EF-M system. In both cases I'm been using them for video mostly. Though with the M50 I'm taking it out for photos a lot as well. From my perspective it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to basically have an integrated EF to (whatever) adapter on the camera. That would give these new lenses less diameter to do what they need to do. Considering this new lens would need to fit a good chunk of itself into the opening of the EF mount then I'd speculate that these new lenses to not be capable of larger apertures. I'd much prefer they use the EF-M mount (doesn't have to be exactly 35mm FF in size just as their APS-C is 1.6x crop...). Really, the thing I'm personally hoping for is more ergonomic in that it has a fully articulating screen, more customizability, and with the larger sensor of course. After the release of DPAF on the M50 and M100, it seems like the EF-M system is really positioned well to expand. It could certainly be an option to keep things separate, but I'd imagine they only have so many resources to dedicate to each mount. Being able to have more lens options on my M50 and also having a larger sensor camera would be nice (sure, my few EF-M lenses would have to work in a crop mode on this camera but not a huge deal as their intent is to be small and for crop cameras mostly). Edit: Also, keeping the large flange distance basically makes it not ideal for adapting film era glass which is a pretty appealing option with these mirrorless. EF does have it a bit better than some mounts but not ideal (it couldn't adapt things like L39).


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> Keeping the native registration distance of EF lenses sounds like a terrible idea to me. I sincerely hope Canon doesn't do that. It would mean needlessly fatter bodies, etc.



^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
As much this forum seems to be dominated with fans of Full EF mount for FF mirrorrless, the 'Keep it small' crowd absolutely exists -- and right now, they are the only show in town between the A7/A9/Z6/Z7/Leica M/Leica SL.

- A


----------



## SilverBox (Aug 30, 2018)

If we look at the Canon cinema cameras the C700 has a "full frame" (38.1 x 20.1 mm) sensor option in EF or PL mount, so we know they can build a mirrorless FF body that can support EF lenses. The PL and the EF mount are nearly the same diameter but on PL the rear element is closer to the sensor, seen below


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

canonnews said:


> i'm confused by your post here, there is most certainly EF to F mount adapters, and EF to OM1/2 and EF to Contax / Yashica and EF to Pentax,etc




Forgive me, I always thought EF and F were sufficiently close on flange distance that adapting would be impossible. (Aren't they only a couple mm apart?)

- A


----------



## traveller (Aug 30, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> I'm assuming that because that's the most sensible design once the mirror is removed. A mirror box space with no mirror is very inelegant.



Im not going to pretend that I’m an optical designer, so I’ll just point to some links that might show other benefits of a short flange-back design: 

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=27468

https://diglloyd.com/


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

I'm sceptical of this EF-depth body with R-mount lenses that sit deep in the body. This suggests the mount is offset part way up the lens barrel. 
In addition, those R-mount lenses intended for this first-generation mirrorless will have an outer barrel thin enough to go through the EF mount which means that they will be narrower lens elements than native lenses. 

As and when Canon go full-bore mirrorless in 5-10 years time and start to make bodies that are thinner and lighter, I presume they will have a full-on 54mm R mount and Canon will have to design a whole new set of R-mount lenses - and the lenses they buy now will not be compatible with the future mirrorless body.

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Tom W (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> Maybe I'm not understanding the hypothesis (I'm slow, give me a break)... How would the flange difference be rectified? If there is no flange difference, than what benefit could there be in switching mounts? Or is the hypothesis that the mount would be switched and the camera can support two protocols?



My hypothesis, FWIW, and based on the limited information we've seen here, is that there is some type of automatic flange extension that pushes out the required 1/4 to 1/2 inch when an EF lens is mounted, but locks in the recessed position when it is an "R" lens.

Seems complicated, but maybe.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Tom W said:


> My hypothesis, FWIW, and based on the limited information we've seen here, is that there is some type of automatic flange extension that pushes out the required 1/4 to 1/2 inch when an EF lens is mounted, but locks in the recessed position when it is an "R" lens.
> 
> Seems complicated, but maybe.




Is allllll that trouble worth a measly 1/4-1/2"?

I need something sexier than that to sign up for all his trouble. Faster than ring USM on SLR focusing. A modern 50 prime to go on that new mount. Something.

- A


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 30, 2018)

I don't think anything will be announced on 5th, except lenses. Hard to believe there are no credible leaks only days before the announcement.


----------



## applecider (Aug 30, 2018)

A moveable sensor doesn’t sound so bad to me. I’d think that the sensor would only move in a macro way with lens changes, I change lenses on a given body less than ten times a day even with busy shooting. If another lens is needed it usually goes on a separate body. So a moveable sensor perhaps on a rail, could be called upon with lens type changes. EOS R for railed sensor.

Canon already has patents for conformational sensor changes, so this is not a bridge too far.

Unlike others I see a ML as initially a cross grade rather than an upgrade, unless a new sensor technology comes with it.

Now a fifty MP, ten plus FPS ML with full screen cross type focus points handling f8 focus would be tempting.


----------



## bks54 (Aug 30, 2018)

Tom W said:


> My hypothesis, FWIW, and based on the limited information we've seen here, is that there is some type of automatic flange extension that pushes out the required 1/4 to 1/2 inch when an EF lens is mounted, but locks in the recessed position when it is an "R" lens.
> 
> Seems complicated, but maybe.



Such a system would probably require more than than 1/4 to 1/2 inch extension; more like 26 mm (more than an inch) since EF is at 44 mm and thin mirrorless much shorter (18 mm for EF-M). If they want to do something like this it would be better done on the lens rather than in the camera. I hope Canon makes a thin mirrorless, but they could make some new WA lenses for it that could extend into the live-view mirror-box of EF DSLRs so everyone can use them.


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Is allllll that trouble worth a measly 1/4-1/2"?
> 
> I need something sexier than that to sign up for all his trouble. Faster than ring USM on SLR focusing. A modern 50 prime to go on that new mount. Something.
> 
> - A


An electronically curved sensor would be sexy, especially if it can change its curve to suit the lens 

The description on this literally says the curve would adapt to the needs of the lens, so it may not be limited to one lens design as previously thought.


----------



## Adelino (Aug 30, 2018)

Why do so many people assume this is a do or die situation for Canon. It's entirely possible to have an EF mount now and wait to introduce a new mount later, one that will work with curved sensors or Medium Format sensor. Also these Rube Goldberg shifting sensor mechanisms don't sound so attractive especially since Canon are known for reliability, quality and performance. Keep it simple Canon, EF mount now sit back and plan something truly revolutionary for the next mount.


----------



## Adelino (Aug 30, 2018)

dcsimages said:


> Considering that the 5D series is a little too thin for my hands, I certainly wouldn't be interested in a thinner body than that.


Right! I certainly don't have large hands but I prefer the size of my 7D to my 6D.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 30, 2018)

So what's the likelihood that Canon has already implemented the protocol switching in the M-series series cameras and never mentioned it? One thing that has always puzzled me is that M-series cameras have an extra pin with which to communicate with the lens.


----------



## bks54 (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I'm sceptical of this EF-depth body with R-mount lenses that sit deep in the body. This suggests the mount is offset part way up the lens barrel.
> In addition, those R-mount lenses intended for this first-generation mirrorless will have an outer barrel thin enough to go through the EF mount which means that they will be narrower lens elements than native lenses.
> 
> As and when Canon go full-bore mirrorless in 5-10 years time and start to make bodies that are thinner and lighter, I presume they will have a full-on 54mm R mount and Canon will have to design a whole new set of R-mount lenses - and the lenses they buy now will not be compatible with the future mirrorless body.
> ...



Many wide angle lenses have rear elements that are already much smaller in diameter than the 54 mm EF mount. And, non-retrofocus designs of the past almost always had small rear elements. Nice article here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...review-non-retrofocus-ultra-wide-angle-lenses


----------



## Adelino (Aug 30, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> Keeping the native registration distance of EF lenses sounds like a terrible idea to me. I sincerely hope Canon doesn't do that. It would mean needlessly fatter bodies, etc.


Not so needlessly, full compatibility with all those EF lenses.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

bks54 said:


> Many wide angle lenses have rear elements that are already much smaller in diameter than the 54 mm EF mount. And, non-retrofocus designs of the past almost always had small rear elements. Nice article here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...review-non-retrofocus-ultra-wide-angle-lenses



That is wide-angle sorted, but what about standard to telephoto, or zooms?


----------



## Adelino (Aug 30, 2018)

nchoh said:


> In an interview with the Canon team, one of the designers stated that the EOS was not designed for FF.


EOS not designed for FF? It was designed for 35mm film, the original FF.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Forgive me, I always thought EF and F were sufficiently close on flange distance that adapting would be impossible. (Aren't they only a couple mm apart?)
> 
> - A


I have several F to EF adaptors, I keep them on each of my Nikon lenses. They have been available for many years. There are a very few that adapt Nikon lenses with no aperture rings, but they exist.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/novoflex-nikon-canon-lens-adapter


----------



## BillB (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> That is wide-angle sorted, but what about standard to telephoto, or zooms?


Longer than about 40mm, the EF mount works fine--no need to recess the lens.


----------



## NWPhil (Aug 30, 2018)

I really hope that EF lenses can be mounted without too much fuss. For what I see with other FF mirror less systems (except Leica rf) the lenses are almost as big and as expensive....however legacy lenses will be left in the dark.sort of.
After all how much more is needed to make it work? Isn't live view sort of a temporary mirrorless already?


----------



## bks54 (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> That is wide-angle sorted, but what about standard to telephoto, or zooms?



Standard and tele lenses don’t need elements close to the sensor. Wide zooms mostly have narrow rear elements.


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have several F to EF adaptors, I keep them on each of my Nikon lenses. They have been available for many years. There are a very few that adapt Nikon lenses with no aperture rings, but they exist.
> 
> https://photographylife.com/reviews/novoflex-nikon-canon-lens-adapter


Yes, but adapting an EF lens to F would mean the lens needs a reduced flange distance than the f-mount can provide (if I understand correctly). I would suspect that any adapter which allowed an EF lens to be mounted to F mount would need optics?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2018)

applecider said:


> A moveable sensor doesn’t sound so bad to me. I’d think that the sensor would only move in a macro way with lens changes, I change lenses on a given body less than ten times a day even with busy shooting. If another lens is needed it usually goes on a separate body. So a moveable sensor perhaps on a rail, could be called upon with lens type changes. EOS R for railed sensor.
> 
> Canon already has patents for conformational sensor changes, so this is not a bridge too far.



It’s not a bridge too far to another patent. Production-worthy might be a long haul though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 30, 2018)

bks54 said:


> Such a system would probably require more than than 1/4 to 1/2 inch extension; more like 26 mm (more than an inch) since EF is at 44 mm and thin mirrorless much shorter (18 mm for EF-M). If they want to do something like this it would be better done on the lens rather than in the camera. I hope Canon makes a thin mirrorless, but they could make some new WA lenses for it that could extend into the live-view mirror-box of EF DSLRs so everyone can use them.



Really difficult and expensive to have a moving sensor and keep it parallel to 1/10000 in tolerances. Canon puts shims under each sensor to keep it parallel to the lens mount, its difficult. The shim thickness is marked on the sensor, but a check with a special tool is also a requirement.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> I'm assuming that because that's the most sensible design once the mirror is removed. A mirror box space with no mirror is very inelegant.


It is not only mirror that can go into that space. For example, EF mount videocameras keep their ND filter wheels there.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 1) MLU + Liveview on an SLR does not allow you to hold the camera up to your eye unless you design a hybrid VF or use some comical eye loupe on the back LCD.




... or unless it’s given a second viewfinder (an electronic one, specifically). You made blue the pertinent caveat 


Personally I don’t consider the hybrid VF to be the same capability as it doesn’t look through the lens in optical mode.




ahsanford said:


> 2) An SLR design -- even with MLU + liveview -- cannot adapt other people's lenses.



Sure it can. But to do so without optics, the lenses have to come from a larger format. The same restriction applies to mirrorless short flange cameras. The Nikon Z for example likely won’t be able to adapt Sony mirrorless lenses without adding optics. But a 35mm SLR can adapt for example medium format lenses.

But fair enough: they can adapt a smaller set of lenses. So there’s one thing. In terms of core functionality, however, I’m still coming up short:

You can give an SLR an EVF, IBIS, electronic shutter, sensor-based metering and AF, etc.
You can’t give a mirrorless TTL OVF (without removing the sensor from the path while composing); you can’t use dedicated and optimized sensors for AF and metering without a mirror.

While a dual VF may be a bit of a kludge, I think I’d take one rather than trade away the advantages the mirror brings.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I have several F to EF adaptors, I keep them on each of my Nikon lenses. They have been available for many years. There are a very few that adapt Nikon lenses with no aperture rings, but they exist.
> 
> https://photographylife.com/reviews/novoflex-nikon-canon-lens-adapter



Okay. Cool. But limited. No AF (for me) would limit this to landscape work on a tripod.

But still interesting. Thanks for sharing.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Really difficult and expensive to have a moving sensor and keep it parallel to 1/10000 in tolerances. Canon puts shims under each sensor to keep it parallel to the lens mount, its difficult. The shim thickness is marked on the sensor, but a check with a special tool is also a requirement.
> 
> View attachment 179997


But that’s for a sensor which doesn’t move. If you can move the sensor, you can align it, in demand, without shims.

I’m not saying that mightn’t be expensive, but it’s doable.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Aug 30, 2018)

It does not need a "sexy solution" or some overly engineered way of mounting EF lenses. Scrap EF mount in favour of the long term benefits and offer a simple adapter to keep current users as happy as they can.

Awkwardly engineering a mount that is looking to the past and not the future will only end badly.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

bks54 said:


> Standard and tele lenses don’t need elements close to the sensor. Wide zooms mostly have narrow rear elements.



But my point was that if we have a deep body with a R lens that sits deep in the mount, if Canon make a slim mirroless later on those deep-sitting rear element will be damned near touching the sensor.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> But my point was that if we have a deep body with a R lens that sits deep in the mount, if Canon make a slim mirroless later on those deep-sitting rear element will be damned near touching the sensor.


And that’s probably a good thing, optically.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Adelino said:


> Why do so many people assume this is a do or die situation for Canon. It's entirely possible to have an EF mount now and wait to introduce a new mount later, one that will work with curved sensors or Medium Format sensor. Also these Rube Goldberg shifting sensor mechanisms don't sound so attractive especially since Canon are known for reliability, quality and performance. Keep it simple Canon, EF mount now sit back and plan something truly revolutionary for the next mount.




There's a perception that the near-term is a critical inflection point where Canon needs to get in and stop some ascendant Sony market share phenomenon in the making. As Neuro pointed out, Sony is not winning unit share _yet_ -- they continue to stumble on basics, support, accessories, etc. But few would doubt that their products (with their A7 III generation) are not making strides towards a point where Sony will finally start flipping a lot of professionals and enthusiasts into their ranks.

A poorly spec'd FF mirrorless that either leaves out a critical feature (4K, IBIS, every day more calls for Eye AF, etc.), leaves a big part of the market behind (i.e. full EF vs. thin mount), etc. could be the tipping point that pushes people to Sony -- warts and all. There comes a point that the spec per dollar value proposition is so much better (coupled with finally getting some lenses) and Sony becomes that 6 out of 10 option that is consistently trending upwards enough that folks stop waiting for Canon to give them the camera they want.

Many folks feel that time is now.

I am not one of them, but I also think it's not Canon's MO to stay on the sidelines this long. I don't personally believe an off-target FF mirrorless will be Canon's undoing at all, but a poorly thought through platform could be an anchor around their necks that they might stick with rather than fix (Nikon 1, I'm looking at you).

In short, Canon's greatest threat may not be Sony -- it might be Canon itself. They could end up rocking the boat with a bad major decision on this platform. Don't believe me? When they launch this thing, see how long/often Canon points out that EF is going to work and work perfectly with this new system. They will be reassuring as many people as they are prospectively selling this new system to. They have (in many folks' minds) more to lose than to gain.

But you are right, Canon is absolutely big enough to get this wrong, course correct and get back on track.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> But my point was that if we have a deep body with a R lens that sits deep in the mount, if Canon make a slim mirroless later on those deep-sitting rear element will be damned near touching the sensor.




That's fine. They won't do both. They either go full EF with 'stuff-tuckable-insideable' or they offer a thin mount body. Why on earth would they do both? The point of a tuckable-insideable lens mount is to _not have to make a thin mount body. _

In other words, if they want a thin mount body that requires an adaptor, they just go out and build one and not waste time on a more complicated nested design.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> That's fine. They won't do both. They either go full EF with 'stuff-tuckable-insideable' or they offer a thin mount body. Why on earth would they do both. The point of a tuckable-insideable lens mount is to _not have to make a thin mount body._
> 
> - A



Which obviates them from the 'mirorless is small' brigade and commits them to a long line of development. I know you have shown repeatedly the graphic that shows how most lenses will extend beyond the grip, but when packing that camera into the bag.....

It may work, but at worst it echoes Nikon's decision all those years ago to keep with an AF mount that would ensure compatability with existing lenses whereas Canon took the decision to make a complete break. Their market research will be based on what people think they need now and the immediate future. In this respect the slimmer Nikon/Sony mounts offer greater flexibility for the long-term future but Canon are taking a gamble. 

Oh, boy, I wonder how many hours they spent discussing this round the Canon boardroom!! And whose neck is on the block.


----------



## davidhfe (Aug 30, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> It does not need a "sexy solution" or some overly engineered way of mounting EF lenses. Scrap EF mount in favour of the long term benefits and offer a simple adapter to keep current users as happy as they can.
> 
> Awkwardly engineering a mount that is looking to the past and not the future will only end badly.



Exactly this—there is zero need to add a bunch of moving parts or awkwardly designed lenses to address something that is effectively a non issue. One of the big plusses of mirrorless is that you're removing hardware complexity and putting it into software: No half silvered mirror with an AF module, no prism bouncing light to an AE sensor, etc etc. And everyone who's talking about "but SD cards fail" should be aghast at the idea of a half inch lens elements protruding into a camera or a sensor that shuffles around while somehow retraining registration.

Now is Canon's chance. Sony and Nikon have both demonstrated the engineering benefits and the market acceptance of some sort of mount change/optimization. Do it now and have the EOS mount updated for the next 20 years. Don't kick the can down the road. And unlike Nikon, the "RF" mount can be mechanically and electrically identical to EF—just change the flange distance and, if necessary, the communication protocol while having the body support both.

This body should ideally telegraph the future (or lack thereof in some cases) for EF, EF-M, EF-S, Cine, Cine S, potential medium format, etc or it's just going to keep the market in a state of unease until they do.

Weird engineering hacks (even if they're labeled as sexy) are the last thing needed right now.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> As and when Canon go full-bore mirrorless in 5-10 years time and start to make bodies that are thinner and lighter, I presume they will have a full-on 54mm R mount and Canon will have to design a whole new set of R-mount lenses - and the lenses they buy now will not be compatible with the future mirrorless body.
> 
> Or am I missing something?


Yes. An adapter.

I hope Canon is not that stupid to use mechanically compatible mounts at several different flange distances.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 30, 2018)

The only thing that we know with certainty, is that we don't know squat...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

brad-man said:


> The only thing that we know with certainty, is that we don't know squat...




Not true. We do know this:




- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 30, 2018)

So it does seem they're not trying to compete with Sony or Nikon but are being more conservative and looking primarily to their existing customer base for this particular product - assuming the rumors are correct.

This may not be a bad thing for them with Nikon aiming directly at Sony with their camera and having a very much more radical redesign on their current DSLRs.

The RF design as proposed above is a workable solution for a body with a native EF mount and no mirror. It allows more compact wide angle lenses particularly but it doesn't really give the same level of compactness that the Sony system (and potentially Nikon) offer. That's a big deal for me, it's probably less of a deal for others.

The question that now interests me is where would Canon fit a mirrorless 7D-class replacement in the lineup? EOS-M class, with EF-M lenses? or an RF mount body with an APS-C sensor? Logically the latter seems more likely but that would lead to a future where even after DSLRs are long gone Canon would still need to make EF-M lenses, EF lenses, RF lenses *and* EF-S lenses. (or possibly RF-S lenses!)

And there's still a (very small) chance that they could launch a FF EOS-M series camera in the future. Potentially this could have an RF to EF-M adaptor and its own range of EF-FM full-frame lenses too.

As someone one said, the great thing about standards is having so many to choose from


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> But my point was that if we have a deep body with a R lens that sits deep in the mount, if Canon make a slim mirroless later on those deep-sitting rear element will be damned near touching the sensor.



No, because if it's a slim mirrorless using something like the EF-M mount it'd need an adaptor to take RF lenses keeping the distance between sensor and rear element exactly the same.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Not true. We do know this:
> 
> View attachment 179999
> 
> ...


So, it's your contention that Canon has no interest in our money. Interesting perspective...


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> No, because if it's a slim mirrorless using something like the EF-M mount it'd need an adaptor to take RF lenses keeping the distance between sensor and rear element exactly the same.


and back to the discussion we are having now only in reverse...


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 31, 2018)

The new Canon MILC will also have AI and you won't even have to set/change the settings. It will have a direct link to plug into your head.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 31, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> The new Canon MILC will also have AI and you won't even have to set/change the settings. It will have a direct link to plug into your head.


But which mount should the plug be? You see, one way or another, the mount question stays unresolved for now.


----------



## Respinder (Aug 31, 2018)

jeffpoker said:


> I completely understand your point, but in ten years, when most (?) people will have moved to mirrorless (imo), how will people react when they see the limitations of that retro-compatibility? Will people now criticize Canon for that decision?
> I'm guessing Canon won't reinvent a completely new mount in just 10 years right?
> 
> I'm nowhere near an expert on the subject so keep in mind I'm just speculating here. But I think it's a mistake to limit the future because of the current/past. If Canon keeps that flange distance on their new mount, then every mirrorless camera in the next 20-30 years will be bigger for no reason.
> [EDIT] I know size is not the only advantage of mirrorless but for many people, it is one important aspect.



I don’t think that establishing a hybrid solution now would lock Canon into the EF mount for decades to come.

On the contrary - if Canon introduces an “RF” solution, I don’t see why in the future they could release “RF-only” cameras that simply do not accept EF mount. 

By allowing both EF and RF as native lenses on the mirrorless solution today, they can enable a much more gradual transition from one lens style to the other and eventually force EF owners onto adapter solutions years from now when everyone has transitioned to the “sharper”, higher-quality RF lenses.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 31, 2018)

brad-man said:


> So, it's your contention that Canon has no interest in our money. Interesting perspective...


I think it's safe to say ahsanford's post was tongue in cheek (except that he most certainly does want that lens, of course!)


----------



## streestandtheatres (Aug 31, 2018)

Can someone explain to me why a mirrorless camera can't just have an EF mount? Why can't it be a camera that's like the current cameras, but mirrorless?
With all the great EF lenses, what's the advantage of a new mount?


----------



## Talys (Aug 31, 2018)

As long as I can mount an EF lens onto an RF mount without an adapter and not lose core functionality, I will be a very happy person, and I will consider RF a "sexy" solution.

Since I have no issue with the size of EF lenses, and have no desire for smaller lenses for my ILC's, everything else (the benefits of RF, whatever they may be) is just gravy.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 31, 2018)

streestandtheatres said:


> Can someone explain to me why a mirrorless camera can't just have an EF mount? Why can't it be a camera that's like the current cameras, but mirrorless?
> With all the great EF lenses, what's the advantage of a new mount?


Perhaps new communications protocol which requires a different interface.

Otherwise: selling new lenses.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 31, 2018)

jeffpoker said:


> I completely understand your point, but in ten years, when most (?) people will have moved to mirrorless (imo), how will people react when they see the limitations of that retro-compatibility? Will people now criticize Canon for that decision?
> I'm guessing Canon won't reinvent a completely new mount in just 10 years right?
> 
> I'm nowhere near an expert on the subject so keep in mind I'm just speculating here. But I think it's a mistake to limit the future because of the current/past. If Canon keeps that flange distance on their new mount, then every mirrorless camera in the next 20-30 years will be bigger for no reason.
> [EDIT] I know size is not the only advantage of mirrorless but for many people, it is one important aspect.



You make it sound like a camera with the same flange distance can't be made considerably smaller. It can. The EF flange distance only keeps the size the same in one direction - the depth. If you want a decent grip, then the depth dimension won't change much anyway. Height and width can be made much smaller as witness the difference between the SL-1 and other Canon DSLRs.


----------



## Timedog (Aug 31, 2018)

What if RF lenses have an another moving element, like the rear element or something, that focuses the light on a closer plane. I don't know anything about lens design, is this possible?

Then they could update their lenses to this new design, while keeping a thicker body for now, and then come out with the thin body a few years from now, with a bunch of lenses that'll work on thin body. At some even later point, when thick body cameras are phased out, they could stop making lenses with the extra moving part.

This idea I'm sure sounds idiotic, and probably isn't even physically possible, but no solution really sounds good right now


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 31, 2018)

streestandtheatres said:


> Can someone explain to me why a mirrorless camera can't just have an EF mount? Why can't it be a camera that's like the current cameras, but mirrorless?
> With all the great EF lenses, what's the advantage of a new mount?




1) The market (at least a good portion of it) wants smaller gear -- it's easier to differentiate on the market as different/new/better than something that looks the same as the last camera.

2) If they go thin, it unlocks the potential to go adapt lenses.

3) Potentially ring USM, STM, etc. are not ideal for DPAF (it's fine but not as quick as OVF / AF array SLR folks use) and some future communication protocol from lens to camera is required to drive lens as quickly as with an SLR.

- A


----------



## streestandtheatres (Aug 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Perhaps new communications protocol which requires a different interface.
> 
> Otherwise: selling new lenses.



Ah, that makes sense, I guess, good for Canon but not so good for those of us with a few lenses that we like!


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 31, 2018)

dak723 said:


> You make it sound like a camera with the same flange distance can't be made considerably smaller. It can. The EF flange distance only keeps the size the same in one direction - the depth. If you want a decent grip, then the depth dimension won't change much anyway. Height and width can be made much smaller as witness the difference between the SL-1 and other Canon DSLRs.



+1. See yellow open box + shaded yellow box on far right. It could be that small.







- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 31, 2018)

streestandtheatres said:


> Ah, that makes sense, I guess, good for Canon but *not so good for those of us with a few lenses that we like!*


Only if a new mount means those lenses you like cease to function, which it unlikely.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> While a dual VF may be a bit of a kludge, I think I’d take one rather than trade away the advantages the mirror brings.



Full disclosure - I'm not a graphic artist (obviously), but here's the idea. Imagine proximity sensors, one per VF. Bring your eye near the top one, and the mirror goes down for optical VF and off-sensor low light AF goodness. Bring your eye near the side one, and the mirror locks up for sensor-based AF tracking, WYSIWY(kinda)G viewfinding, etc.

I think they'd earn my money just for trying.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 31, 2018)

davidhfe said:


> ....
> Now is Canon's chance. Sony and Nikon have both demonstrated the engineering benefits and the market acceptance of some sort of mount change/optimization.



Perhaps there is market acceptance or perhaps the marketing is so pervasive that what is best no longer matters and people will be duped into buying anything "new" and "innovative." Those engineering benefits that Sony introduced with their 18mm flange distance are enough to have convinced me that if Canon has a similar new mount, I won't be buying any new FF mirrorless. Unlike many here, I can not afford to buy the top level lenses Sony lenses, so when I bought the A7 II, I could only afford their kit lens (a not so cheap kit lens, mind you - and their other 28-70 kit lens has reviews that are similar to my experience). And those lenses are probably the worst performing lenses I have ever bought - having very poor performance away from the center. After further study and speculation, it is very likely the short flange distance that was the cause.

So that engineering benefit of a drastically reduced flange distance may sway some, but will prevent me from going mirrorless FF unless some technological progress has been made to improve performance.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 31, 2018)

streestandtheatres said:


> Can someone explain to me why a mirrorless camera can't just have an EF mount? Why can't it be a camera that's like the current cameras, but mirrorless?
> With all the great EF lenses, what's the advantage of a new mount?



A new mirrorless can indeed just have an EF mount. It could be exactly like the current DSLRs, only mirrorless. There seem to be many folks who would like just such a camera.

And there seem to be many who want the smaller size that a new mount could bring.

That is the qaundary. Which group is bigger. And can Canon somehow satisfy both groups.


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 31, 2018)

nikon got abashing for the new mirrorless having ond sd slot, so are we going to get deja vu and hear everyone bashing canon now for the same thing. Shouldn't they hold off revealing it and producing it,until they put 2x sd card slots in it and that will shut some people up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2018)

Food for thought...

Sony couldn't compete with CaNikon in the DLSR market, so they pivoted to APS-C mirrorless. They saw Canon coming with APS-C MILCs, and shifted focus to FF MILCs. 

Nikon had been losing ILC share for some time, saw an opportunity in mirrorless, and brought out the Nikon 1...which flopped. Time passed. 

Canon has been for >15 years and remains the ILC market leader, currently by a huge margin with nearly 50% share. They entered APS-C mirrorless and have had major commercial success in that segment. 

So, Sony and Nikon are in the FF MILC space from places of relative weakness, whereas Canon is going there from a position of strength. To me, that means Canon has quite a bit of freedom in their approach. The other two players need to take customers from Canon, which neither has been able to do successfully, even with 'better sensors' and the only FF MILCs (Leica notwithstanding). Canon isn't likely going to take many customers from Sony and Nikon, holding their share is still a win, meaning their main target for FF MILCs are current Canon ILC owners. To me, that means Canon will make choices that appeal to their current base. A FF MILC with a native EF mount may be that path.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 31, 2018)

dak723 said:


> A new mirrorless can indeed just have an EF mount. It could be exactly like the current DSLRs, only mirrorless. There seem to be many folks who would like just such a camera.
> 
> And there seem to be many who want the smaller size that a new mount could bring.
> 
> That is the qaundary. Which group is bigger. And can Canon somehow satisfy both groups.


I'm curious .. how much smaller do you want it? the rumors suggest slightly bigger than the M50.
that's around SL2 sized, so quite small.


----------



## tmroper (Aug 31, 2018)

Maybe it'll be something like my Mamiya 6's 50mm lens. The camera's lens mount is pretty far away from the film plane, and the back part of the 50 reaches pretty far back into body (the back of the lens looks kinda like a rocket nozzle). I don't know why they're designed that way, but with this idea in mind, the Canon RF lenses could do a similar thing, and have the mount part way up the barrel, leaving a back part to reach into the body and closer to the sensor.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 31, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Scrap EF mount in favour of the long term benefits


 
Remind me, aside from slightly smaller/maybe easier-designed and cheaper lenses for wide angle, what are those benefits?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 31, 2018)

Adelino said:


> Not so needlessly, full compatibility with all those EF lenses.



Not to mention better ergonomics with big lenses, which seems mostly ignored in these dicussions!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 1) The market (at least a good portion of it) wants smaller gear -- it's easier to differentiate on the market as different/new/better than something that looks the same as the last camera.
> 
> 2) If they go thin, it unlocks the potential to go adapt lenses.
> 
> ...



I understand you want to be fair to all concerned, but I think you're running the risk of overstating the case here. 1. We don't know how much of the market wants this (not enough to say 'a good portion of'), though it may indeed be the case. But you yourself have shown in diagrams how for FF, once most lenses are attached, there's not much size difference. It would be reasonable for Canon to say 'if you want small, go APS-C', though I'm not predicting whether they will. 2. People further up the thread have reminded us that you can already adapt lenses for EF - though some are notably impossible, like FD. 3. Is there any evidence this is coupled to a new mount?


----------



## stevewhitemd (Aug 31, 2018)

streestandtheatres said:


> Can someone explain to me why a mirrorless camera can't just have an EF mount? Why can't it be a camera that's like the current cameras, but mirrorless?
> With all the great EF lenses, what's the advantage of a new mount?


Three reasons:

One: flange distance, that is, the distance from the back end of the lens to the sensor. For the EF lens that is 46mm. That allows the lens to clear the mirror on a DSLR. Importantly, that's the distance that the throw of light from the lens focuses -- on the sensor, where it should. Change that distance and the lens no longer throws the light to focus on the sensor.

So on a mirror-less camera, you'd need to support a flange distance of 46mm to use the EF lens. But that MILC camera doesn't NEED 46mm, because there's no mirror to accommodate. One of the appeals of a MILC is a smaller, lighter camera. Building it to accommodate the EF lens is a problem.

Two: that long flange distance creates another problem, that is, the design of the lens. Particularly for a wide-angle lens, to throw the light onto the sensor becomes difficult, and the design required to do that is complex -- therefore heavy and expensive. Notice how light an EF-M lens is? With the short flange distance (I think 15mm for that series), it turns out that the lens design becomes simpler, therefore lighter and less expensive (yes, you could make it some heavier with weather sealing, construction, etc., and since you're Canon you could always, always make it more expensive). 

Three: the width of the mount, that is, the hole in the body where you attach the lens. On an MILC you can make that wider; that means (potentially, all other things being equal) you can have lenses with larger apertures. The new Nikon 50mm f/0.95 S series lens is an example.

So in a new MILC it's really, really tempting to design a new lens series. You can, because of the fact that you have room, design an adapter for the EF lens, much like the EFM adapter for the M series cameras. All that does is connect the lens electronically and reset the flange distance to 46mm. If Canon has a new R series camera, their choices are 1) forsake the EF series (not happening), 2) find a way to mount the EF lenses natively (that's the issue here) and 3) use an adapter (like the M series).


----------



## psolberg (Aug 31, 2018)

like others, I miss the CR rating. I know some people here like big cameras, me too, but IMO a compact FF camera is convenient too, even if it has a small grip sony/Nikon style. I would be interested to see what they do with this huge flange distance vs Z and E mounts. The camera will have a snout and be annoyingly larger than it needs to without actually being more useful, unlike say, dual grip bodies with shutter triggers built in. So I would have personally liked to have seen a true A7 whatever competitor in size with better/similar Nikon-like ergonomics, yet retain the short flange. And before you obviously tell me: hey lenses are big, etc, yes, I realize it. But for some applications you don't need big lenses and size-weight matter more, specially as a backup.

as stevewhitemd points above, other advantages exist. 

Either way, yeah, interesting.


----------



## David Littleboy (Aug 31, 2018)

streestandtheatres said:


> Can someone explain to me why a mirrorless camera can't just have an EF mount? Why can't it be a camera that's like the current cameras, but mirrorless?
> With all the great EF lenses, what's the advantage of a new mount?



Lenses in the 10mm to 50mm range can be made smaller and lighter and better. The Nokton 40/1.2 (a seriously lovely lens) is about half the weight of the Canon 35/1.4 II. And the Voughtlander 10, 12, and 15mm lenses are seriously kewl. (All of these are manufactured by Cosina, the Japanese company that also makes (some of?) the Zeiss SLR lenses.) Standard zooms* can also be made smaller and lighter and better. Some of the "better" bit here is that you don't need IS anymore (which is added optical complexity in the lens design), which will happen anyway. Currently the Sony 24-105/4.0 is the lightest and best 24-105/4.0 even though it still has IS in it. (It's expensive, though.) If Canon came out with a short-flange system, IBIS, and a killer 24-105/4.0, they'd be home free, whatever kludgy mount they use. The kludgy mount being described here would probably preclude Canon versions of the Cosina lenses, though. Still, the point that the rear, protruding into the camera, elements of superwides and standard zooms are pretty small means that this kludge just might fly.

*: This is a major irritation here: the 5D2 + 24-70/2.8 II produces amazing images. Every.Single.Time. Like falling off a log. But it's heavy, I really need another 25mm or so on the long end, and it is, not coincidentally, not IS.


----------



## MaximPhotoStudio (Aug 31, 2018)

If true, EF and RF lens "sexy" mounts are game changers for sure. Let's hope the new camera has dual card slots.


----------



## amorse (Aug 31, 2018)

At this point I just hope they release it soon so we can postulate about something else for a while


----------



## Refurb7 (Aug 31, 2018)

Adelino said:


> Not so needlessly, full compatibility with all those EF lenses.


I say "needlessly" because that's what adapters are for: to create compatibility if and when needed. I'd much rather have a smaller, thinner mirrorless camera body, and resort to an adapter when needed to use an EF lens. Keeping the body fat for EF lenses would remove one of the key advantages of mirrorless. It would be a fat DSLR-like mirrorless, built for DSLR lenses. That just seems terribly wrong to me. I sincerely hope Canon hasn't taken that route.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> But that’s for a sensor which doesn’t move. If you can move the sensor, you can align it, in demand, without shims.
> 
> I’m not saying that mightn’t be expensive, but it’s doable.


I doubt that anyone would want to align a sensor every time they mounted a lens, being doable and practical are not the same. Moving a sensor 1/2 inch with micron precision ?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 31, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I doubt that anyone would want to align a sensor every time they mounted a lens, being doable and practical are not the same. Moving a sensor 1/2 inch with micron precision ?


if it were not automated, certainly not. If the mount and adapter had targets and the sensor assembly a way to key off them optically and command the actuator, it could happen every time you turn on the camera.

I don’t expect it, just talking technique.

Edit: alternately, you would really only need to align it during mirrorless mode, where orientation matters more than gross location (sensor based focus). In SLR mode, drive it back into a kinematic mount. The hard stops would have to be shimmed on assembly, but then the sensor plate would be able to repeatably return to its “back” position. 

Again, I expect neither a moving sensor nor a telescoping mount. Just talking how it could be done.


----------



## weixing (Aug 31, 2018)

Hi,
"R" for Radio enabled mount? Such as this patent reported in the past: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-short-range-wireless-lens-mount-other-accessories/

Have a nice day.


----------



## Quackator (Aug 31, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Perhaps new communications protocol which requires a different interface.



That doesn't need a new interface. Canon uses Motorola SPI, 
and that can switch to asynchronous data transfer with a much 
higher clock rate. Anything between factor 10 and 100.

I bet that many lenses introduced over the last two to four years 
already have this on board. Certainly the new 70-200s.

We have seen the patent, it's just that many people misinterpret it.

The camera asks the lens to identify, and if the lens can do it,
camera and lens will switch to bionic speed. That simple.



3kramd5 said:


> Otherwise: selling new lenses.



Canon sells in excess of 10,000,000 lenses a year. 
Among the buyers that are users of cameras made
by Sony (adapted), Blackmagic, RED, Arri, Panasonic
(native EF-mount), just to name a few.

Changing the mount would kill this business, and would 
damage native user lens sales, because everyone 
would wait to see where Canon is headed.

One guy asked about the empty room (where the mirror 
box has been). Applying telecentric construction, you need
a certain room between rear lens element and sensor.
You can have that in your camera, or you need to put it into 
every lens that has a focal length over ~40mm.

That's fine, if you only use wideangle pancake lenses with 
slow max apertures. Use three or more lenses and the
switch to a thinner body makes your bag swell instead 
of saving room and weight. Sony is proof for that already .

Canon EF doesn't have the technical shortcomings that 
Nikon F had. They are in a completely different boat.


----------



## drama (Aug 31, 2018)

> like others, I miss the CR rating.



Amen. I think the fear of Canon W*tch has got Craig posting any crank's nonsense because it means web traffic. I've seen so much contradictory nonsense about everything from spec to mount, that none of it really means anything. If the point of this site was to be an authoritative voice in what's next, that seems to have gone out of the window in exchange for "will print whatever some loony emails me if it means ad clicks in the run-up to a potential product cycle". Which is a real shame.


----------



## PerKr (Aug 31, 2018)

Nothing is stopping Canon from doing both full EF mirrorless and new-mount mirrorless in parallell. Not following the stream and make a slim-size (vintage SLR size basically) body doesn't seem like a very good idea in terms of attracting customers. Having select lenses intrude some 25-30mm into the body also seems a bit clunky and limiting in terms of lens size.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 31, 2018)

It is amusing to watch all the excited buzz and speculation around this rumor from an "I don't care" viewpoint. 

As for some of the speculation:
Has anyone seen a patent for moving a sensor along the main axis to adjust register distance?..
I posit that solution as impractical to do just yet for a mass produced product that needs to be that precise AND reliable. The tech exists but don't forget, Canon likes to make profitable products so keeping it simple helps. Existing 3-motion IBIS is enough mechanical complication. The extra volume required inside the body to accommodate this is also unpalatable.

Making the new mount so it's compatible with the EF(-s) mount but augmenting functionality is at least plausible. 
Extending the rear elements of a lens into the body can work but then you're going to have a compromise with the entrance angle of microlenses in the periphery of the sensor; shallow angles for rear-extended wide-angles vs closer to perpendicular for legacy long focal lengths. Also, such a design will consume precious mm of flange ID and convergence location which could reduce maximum apertures possible with certain focal lengths... not necessarily a big deal however.

Whatever they do, they better make it good.
Altho Nikon's initial Z products are, IMO, mediocre, the overall design parameters have a lot of potential.
Lots of great stuff to look forward to!


----------



## fullstop (Aug 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The other two players need to take customers from Canon, which neither has been able to do successfully, even with 'better sensors' and the only FF MILCs



so you think all Sony and Fuji mirrorfree cameras were sold only to new, first-time buyers? ;-)

in reality the vast majority of Sony (and Fuji) mirrorfree customers had Canon or Nikon mirrorslappers before. most went Sony or Fuji only because there were no (or no competitive) mirrorfree cameras available from their preferred maker. Almost every Sony (and Fuji) sale could have easily been a Canon and Nikon sale, had they offered decent mirrorfree cameras with APS-C and FF sensors. 

unfortunately unit sales per brand and type of camera are nowhere publicly available, but my impression is that

* since decent EOS-M cameras are available (M5, M6, and especially the up to current specs and affordable M50), the bleeding from Canon to Fuji has come to a stop. 
* there is still bleeding from Nikon to Fuji. 
* there is a lot of bleeding from both Canon and Nikon to Sony mirrorfree and the earlier trickle has become a sizeable creek by now, momentum has been tilting to Sony. Nikon has now started to build a dam with Z6/Z7. 

nokia had a dominant market position and Kodak even more so -for much longer than 15 years. It did not help them to survive, when they did not bring the right products to market, when customers wanted them.


----------



## Talys (Aug 31, 2018)

PerKr said:


> Nothing is stopping Canon from doing both full EF mirrorless and new-mount mirrorless in parallell. Not following the stream and make a slim-size (vintage SLR size basically) body doesn't seem like a very good idea in terms of attracting customers. Having select lenses intrude some 25-30mm into the body also seems a bit clunky and limiting in terms of lens size.



If the new mount is EF compatible (ie direct mount sans adapter) there is no reason to also build a body with an EF mount, though. It would still make sense to make EF mount lenses, as there are still a massive number of DSLRs that are EF mount; however, a fully EF compatible mount would mean that future bodies could just be built using the new mount.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 31, 2018)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> "R" for Radio enabled mount? Such as this patent reported in the past: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-short-range-wireless-lens-mount-other-accessories/
> 
> Have a nice day.



RF for radio frequency triggered the same thought in my brain - it would be a great solution to connect only the power and transmit the data at high speed without having any thoughts about contact reliability for high frequencies. On the other hand what about interferences of an antenna output signal with the sensor photosites?

EDIT:
After consulting the content of your links website: A range of 30mm and good shielding might keep disturbances away from the sensor - maybe it is a communication of two antennas (body + lens) in a shielded cavity made of metal to (1) protect the data transmission from external influences (other photographer with similar body) and (2) protect the bodies / lens' internal electronics ...

I have designed & built two simple sensor packages which communicate via Wifi and provide a Website for teaching. An acceleration sensor with on board power to measure e.g. acceleration inside a falling body and a thermal imager with 64 pixels (!!! no mega !!!) supplied by a power bank. I enjoyed the flexibility of designing the communications between web server/browser without fiddeling around with long i2c or spi connections. The u-controlers are ESP8266 for 5 EUR/$ with Wifi and webserver on board which is really cheap.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 31, 2018)

Aglet said:


> Whatever they do, they better make it good.
> Altho Nikon's initial Z products are, IMO, mediocre, the overall design parameters have a lot of potential.
> Lots of great stuff to look forward to!



+1 fully agree


----------



## tizianof (Aug 31, 2018)

Do you have any idea if it's possible for a lens to focus on a different plane, using autofocus system? 
Because, if it's possible, maybe with a system specifically designed for that, that could be the explanation of the renewal of many lenses of the last months. That could bring this solution:
- Mirrorless camera with an EF mount closer to the sensor (let's say not as Nikon/Sony, but enough for a compact camera, like 30 mm)
- R means "Reduced" flange
- All the new EF lenses natively supported
- Maybe EF-R lenses, specifically designed


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 31, 2018)

I can definitely imagine a new mount that extends out from the body when an EF lens is attached and then goes flat against the body with an R lens. If well made, it should last thousands of lens changes. It could also mean a built-in 30mm or so extension tube for macro photos using normal R lenses.
If Canon manage to bring out something like this, Nikon will do something unpalatable in their pants that Canon came out with such an elegant solution.
As more and more R lenses are sold, the next generation of R cameras may not need the converter on them.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 31, 2018)

A "Radio Frequency" mount really sounds sexy to me. 

Reminds me of good joke:
Americans, Japanese and Russians argue over who had best communication technology in early stages of humanity.
American says: We found stone writing on a stone twenty meters under ground. That means that 1500.b.c. we could write and share...
Russian says: We found a pack of wires fourty meters under ground, so we had electricity and internet 3000 years b.c.
Japanese guy: We tried to dig 250m deep, yet we didn´t find anything. Therefore it´s obvious, that we already had wireless communication as early as 100 000 b.c.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 31, 2018)

fullstop said:


> nokia had a dominant market position and Kodak even more so -for much longer than 15 years. It did not help them to survive,


Hello?

Nokia has about the same revenue as Canon. It just doesn't produce its phones anymore (kinda; it still has quite a lot of say over what HMD Global does) after being burned by a stupid marketoid decision to jump to Windows Mobile.


----------



## vscd (Aug 31, 2018)

Folks, maybe there is no need for a discussion about focal flange distance. Just imagine a lens with "RF-Mount" which extrudes on the back for maybe 20mm. You Need other caps for the bottom of the lens and it has to be minimal smaller in the Diameter. You could attach old EF-lenses *AND* RF Lenses on such a Body without Problems. The only difference would be a bayonett which is a bit longer on the front. But not nearly as Long as a grip... like the Sigma Quattro.

Edit: Of course this "RF"-Lens would not work on EF-Byaonetts with mirrors. Like EF-S.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 31, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> RF for radio frequency triggered the same thought in my brain - it would be a great solution to connect only the power and transmit the data at high speed without having any thoughts about contact reliability for high frequencies. On the other hand what about interferences of an antenna output signal with the sensor photosites?



This sounds like nonsense - if you have two items physically connected then the fastest and absolutely most reliable way for them to communicate is over a direct electronic connection eg plain old copper. Less interference, less hassle and far less battery power than wireless.

The ONLY advantage for wireless connectivity is for lenses that are not physically attached to the body, or for those crazy people like me who occasionally use reversing rings to put lenses on backwards.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 31, 2018)

EF stands for Electro-focus.

RF stands for ? 

Every other variant of EF is a suffix, ie EF-S and EF-M.

The EF mount has also been used on non-autofocus lenses such as the TS line and the MP-E which don't carry the EF name because they don't electro-focus!

TS is obvious what it stands for MP-E stands for Macro Photo (Exceptional) or Macro Photo (Extendable) 


Now, I can see the R standing for 'recessed' but "recessed focus" doesn't make sense, and Canon do tend to use boring and predictable names for their product codes. 

EF-R would make a lot more sense for a mount name than RF if the R stands for recessed.


----------



## rjbray01 (Aug 31, 2018)

canonnews said:


> Continue reading...



R = "Revolution"

RF = "Revolution Focus" 

?


----------



## Stuart (Aug 31, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> EF stands for Electro-focus.
> 
> RF stands for ?


Rumour Focus


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 31, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Perhaps there is market acceptance or perhaps the marketing is so pervasive that what is best no longer matters and people will be duped into buying anything "new" and "innovative." Those engineering benefits that Sony introduced with their 18mm flange distance are enough to have convinced me that if Canon has a similar new mount, I won't be buying any new FF mirrorless. Unlike many here, I can not afford to buy the top level lenses Sony lenses, so when I bought the A7 II, I could only afford their kit lens (a not so cheap kit lens, mind you - and their other 28-70 kit lens has reviews that are similar to my experience). And those lenses are probably the worst performing lenses I have ever bought - having very poor performance away from the center. After further study and speculation, it is very likely the short flange distance that was the cause.
> 
> So that engineering benefit of a drastically reduced flange distance may sway some, but will prevent me from going mirrorless FF unless some technological progress has been made to improve performance.


I believe this poor performance has absolutely nothing to do with the short flange distance of mirrorless cameras.
Want a proof?
- Leica lenses on Leica SL or Leica M 10
A badly designed lens cannot perform any miracles, regardless whether it's mounted on an SLR or on a mirrorless.


----------



## ThomsA (Aug 31, 2018)

Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):

"Canon confirmed [...] a new product announced in September"

EOS R body
EOS R 24105 kit
RF 35 mm F 1.8 M IS
RF 50 mm F 1.2 L USM
RF 28 - 70 mm F 2 L USM
RF 24 - 105 mm F4 L USM
EF-M 32 mm F 1.4 STM
EF 400 mm F 2.8 L III
EF 600 mm F4 L III
M adapter R

※ The lens name is not the official name, only the part that can be confirmed


(P.S. First post on this forum  )


----------



## Stuart (Aug 31, 2018)

ThomsA said:


> Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):
> 
> "Canon confirmed [...] a new product announced in September"
> 
> ...


5 lenses - Wow

Nokish rates it as a credible rumour - 

*C (credible rumor)* : rumors from trustworthy sources. You can trust the rumor general, but there are many mistakes about trivial information.


----------



## SimonW (Aug 31, 2018)

ThomsA said:


> Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):
> 
> "Canon confirmed [...] a new product announced in September"
> 
> ...



I've been waiting forever for an updated 50mm L - If they finally announce one and it doesn't have an EF mount I'm going to be crying into my coffee for the rest of the year…


----------



## vjlex (Aug 31, 2018)

ThomsA said:


> Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):
> 
> "Canon confirmed [...] a new product announced in September"
> 
> ...



Wow, it's like a seismic event- even when you know the big one can come at anytime, it still catches you off-guard when it does. These would be the first non-EF L lenses wouldn't they? It feels like it marks the beginning of a MAJOR shift. I have mixed feelings, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## NicoN (Aug 31, 2018)

ThomsA said:


> Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):
> 
> "Canon confirmed [...] a new product announced in September"
> 
> ...


So the "M adapter R" would be the next generation of the ef to eos-m adapter which could mount the new style of lenses?
Hope we might geht the ef-x mount with an extended rear element. The new adapter makes sense in this case since there is this anti reflection plastic thing in the current adapter which prevents the rear element to get closer to the sensor.


----------



## edoorn (Aug 31, 2018)

well well....I might need to see a doctor to see if a) I could miss a Kidney and b) if it would be enough for say three nice lenses. 

but I see something odd in the rumour; it says 35mm 1.8 IS. But the body is said to have IBIS. So why the need for IS? I would not say this is a done thing yet..


----------



## NicoN (Aug 31, 2018)

edoorn said:


> well well....I might need to see a doctor to see if a) I could miss a Kidney and b) if it would be enough for say three nice lenses.
> 
> but I see something odd in the rumour; it says 35mm 1.8 IS. But the body is said to have IBIS. So why the need for IS? I would not say this is a done thing yet..


Its called M IS … lets hope that stands for Multi IS


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 31, 2018)

https://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/08/eos-r.html

From this we see the following:


M adapter R?

Since only "M.ADAP R" "M.ADAP R ND" "M.ADAP R PL" is written in the simple order form, the official name is unknown


Does this mean we see three adaptors: standard, ND (neutral density) and PL (polarizer) ??????


----------



## Stuart (Aug 31, 2018)

Leica have a R M adapter - https://www.parkcameras.com/p/L152421B/lens-adapters/leica/r-adapter-m-lens-adapter


----------



## .jan (Aug 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 1) The market (at least a good portion of it) wants smaller gear -- it's easier to differentiate on the market as different/new/better than something that looks the same as the last camera.
> 
> 2) If they go thin, it unlocks the potential to go adapt lenses.


I mean - yes. But then again, Canon so far haven't really cared about market demands in terms of features for cameras and they certainly don't care at all about adapting anything but Canon glass to their cameras.

After all Canon are the biggest manufacturer out there, and a rather stubborn one, too. I can definitely see them go "f*ck whatever Sony and Nikon say, if anyone knows how to do mirrorless it's us".


----------



## NicoN (Aug 31, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> https://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/08/eos-r.html
> 
> From this we see the following:
> 
> ...


PL might be for PL mount cine lenses?


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 31, 2018)

This M adaptor also opens up the possibility for a FF EOS M in the future.

However... let's not ignore the small but ridiculous possibility that it's an adaptor to allow EF-M lenses to be fitted to the R mount


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 31, 2018)

NicoN said:


> Its called M IS … lets hope that stands for Multi IS



Macro IS. It will be a 35mm macro with ringlight I suspect.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 31, 2018)

edoorn said:


> but I see something odd in the rumour; it says 35mm 1.8 IS. But the body is said to have IBIS. So why the need for IS? I would not say this is a done thing yet..



Not unusual at all. IS in the lens works in conjunction with IBIS to give even better stabilization.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 31, 2018)

NicoN said:


> PL might be for PL mount cine lenses?



No. the adaptor clearly states R to M (or M to R), so those are the two mounts involved. the ND and PL are something else.


----------



## .jan (Aug 31, 2018)

stevewhitemd said:


> Two: that long flange distance creates another problem, that is, the design of the lens. Particularly for a wide-angle lens, to throw the light onto the sensor becomes difficult, and the design required to do that is complex -- therefore heavy and expensive. Notice how light an EF-M lens is? With the short flange distance (I think 15mm for that series), it turns out that the lens design becomes simpler, therefore lighter and less expensive (yes, you could make it some heavier with weather sealing, construction, etc., and since you're Canon you could always, always make it more expensive).
> 
> Three: the width of the mount, that is, the hole in the body where you attach the lens. On an MILC you can make that wider; that means (potentially, all other things being equal) you can have lenses with larger apertures. The new Nikon 50mm f/0.95 S series lens is an example.


I agree with one, but two and three are to be discussed further. Regarding lens design and size there may be an advantage, but EF-M lenses being so light and small is also a point of materials and an overall much smaller mount. The 18-55 EF-S kit lenses or the 10-18 EF-S are also fairly small and light, imagine if they wouldn't have to fit the big EF mount, they'd be even tinier. Which brings me to three, the mount: The EF mount's inner diameter is just 1mm smaller than the Nikon Z mount. I don't think they'd have trouble making a lens like the Noct for EF sized mounts. After all there is a 1.0/50 from Canon.


----------



## lightthief (Aug 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Small sells when it looks like this:
> 
> View attachment 179994​
> Yes, this only applies to a handful of lenses, _which is all Canon should make with the thin mount._
> ...



hello,
i think you are right. Canon need something small.
You faked a 28mm lens inside some bigger DSLRs. Can you do this with a 200D and the 28mm lens, please?
I think, it should be possible to put in a FF sensor in the 200D. Today, it is limited by the OVF and the smaller APS-C mirror.
200D without mirror -> no OVF + a lens design that uses the free space of the mirror box. This could be small.
Am i wrong (and where)?
Thank you!


----------



## NicoN (Aug 31, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Macro IS. It will be a 35mm macro with ringlight I suspect.


That makes more sense.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Is all that trouble worth a measly 1/4-1/2"?
> I need something sexier than that to sign up for all his trouble. Faster than ring USM on SLR focusing. *A modern 50 prime to go on that new mount*. Something.
> - A



Now it is clear: Canon does read this forum and they listen to you. There you go ... 



ThomsA said:


> EOS R body
> EOS R 24105 kit
> RF 35 mm F 1.8 M IS
> *RF 50 mm F 1.2 L USM*
> ...


----------



## Stuart (Aug 31, 2018)

NicoN said:


> That makes more sense.


I'd guess its more of a video/street lens. Unless its intended for vloggers who need face lighting.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 31, 2018)

.jan said:


> I don't think they'd have trouble making a lens like the Noct for EF sized mounts. After all there is a 1.0/50 from Canon.



The NOCT probably doesn't need the wider Z mount at all. The wider Z mount is really more important for ultrawide lenses. 

There is a third party 50mm f/0.95 lens that works on the Sony FE mount, which is the same dimensions as EF-M


----------



## .jan (Aug 31, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The NOCT probably doesn't need the wider Z mount at all. The wider Z mount is really more important for ultrawide lenses.
> 
> There is a third party 50mm f/0.95 lens that works on the Sony FE mount, which is the same dimensions as EF-M


Oh, good to know. I read somewhere that it was the F mount's diameter that keeps Nikon from making faster than f/1.4 glass and the whole emphasis of Nikon was on the Noct lens rather than smaller lenses (which btw doesn't seem to be the case with the announced lenses, as none of them look particularly small).


----------



## BurningPlatform (Aug 31, 2018)

To me it looks like we are going to have a dual mount camera, having the construction that was described in one of Canon patents earlier (not the electric communication patents but the other one that is pictured on Keith's Northlight Imaging pages here: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-eos-r/). Turn the mount selector ring and you change the flange distance.

To me it looks like it would bring additional weight to the body, and some moving parts that I would rather live without. I do not think that this solution would be highly regarded by the internet crowd, though.

But considering there does not seem to be an EF to R adapter on that list...


----------



## BillB (Aug 31, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> EF stands for Electro-focus.
> 
> RF stands for ?
> 
> ...


Given the flakiness of the rumors, EF-R would seem to be quite possible. Analogous to EF-S--EF lens works on an EF-R camera, but an EF camera will not accept an EF-R


----------



## Guldborg (Aug 31, 2018)

What if canon decided to leverage their large mount diameter and produced a camera with the same flange-to-sensor distance as the standard EF mount, allowing EF lenses to mount naturally, but created a new series of lenses where some of the lens would sit inside the camera, effectively shortening amount of lens protruding from the mount? 
This would yield full compatibility with the EF lenses, but also deliver on the promise of more compact camera/lens systems from mirrorless. 
Just a thought...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2018)

fullstop said:


> so you think all Sony and Fuji mirrorfree cameras were sold only to new, first-time buyers? ;-)
> 
> in reality the vast majority of Sony (and Fuji) mirrorfree customers had Canon or Nikon mirrorslappers before. most went Sony or Fuji only because there were no (or no competitive) mirrorfree cameras available from their preferred maker. Almost every Sony (and Fuji) sale could have easily been a Canon and Nikon sale, had they offered decent mirrorfree cameras with APS-C and FF sensors.
> 
> ...


Regardless of your 'impressions', the *fact* is that over the past few years Canon has _gained_ ILC market share. You can woulda-shoulda-coulda all you want, it doesn't affect reality...and reality exists independent of your refusal to acknowledge it or your inability to comprehend it.

Yes, yes...Nokia and Kodak. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how ILC-with-a-mirror to ILC-without-a-mirror is a paradigm shift (and that wait will exceed my lifespan, because it's not), so those past examples aren't at all relevant (and as pointed out, Nokia remains a successful company...but there's that pesky reality thing again, which you ignore or can't comprehend).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2018)

ThomsA said:


> Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):
> 
> "Canon confirmed [...] a new product announced in September"
> 
> ...


Hey AvTvM – what do you think of all those USM designations in the 'credible rumor'? And what about the lack of an EF to R adapter?


----------



## lightthief (Aug 31, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I'm sceptical of this EF-depth body with R-mount lenses that sit deep in the body. This suggests the mount is offset part way up the lens barrel.
> In addition, those R-mount lenses intended for this first-generation mirrorless will have an outer barrel thin enough to go through the EF mount which means that they will be narrower lens elements than native lenses.
> 
> As and when Canon go full-bore mirrorless in 5-10 years time and start to make bodies that are thinner and lighter, I presume they will have a full-on 54mm R mount and Canon will have to design a whole new set of R-mount lenses - and the lenses they buy now will not be compatible with the future mirrorless body.
> ...


I'm sure that, in this case, we will get an adapter.


----------



## BillB (Aug 31, 2018)

ThomsA said:


> Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):
> 
> "Canon confirmed [...] a new product announced in September"
> 
> ...



Great first post! I find myself wondering why a new 50mm would need to use the RF mount. A 50mm wouldn't seem to need to protrude past the mount, or might there be some advantage in doing so? Why couldn't a 50mm be a plain old EF? Maybe that is the reason the 50mm was such a long time coming. To do it right, Canon had to roll out a new mount.


----------



## .jan (Aug 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> Great first post! I find myself wondering why a new 50mm would need to use the RF mount. A 50mm wouldn't seem to need to protrude past the mount, or might there be some advantage in doing so? Why couldn't a 50mm be a plain old EF? Maybe that is the reason the 50mm was such a long time coming. To do it right, Canon had to roll out a new mount.


Highly doubt the "had to" part, but a state of the art fast 50mm could drag a lot of people towards a new system - especially if they manage to keep it smaller/lighter and/or cheaper than the Sigma 1.4/50.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 31, 2018)

.jan said:


> Oh, good to know. I read somewhere that it was the F mount's diameter that keeps Nikon from making faster than f/1.4 glass and the whole emphasis of Nikon was on the Noct lens rather than smaller lenses (which btw doesn't seem to be the case with the announced lenses, as none of them look particularly small).



I think people forget Nikon makes a 50mm f1.2 already and has done so for decades. So where this f1.4 rumor started I am not sure. Also the Canon 7s had a 50mm f0.95 lens on a relatively small diameter mount (Less than most current mounts). In fact Canon made the first lens in this aperture range. https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2012/01/the-incredible-canon-50mm-f0-95/


----------



## BillB (Aug 31, 2018)

.jan said:


> Highly doubt the "had to" part, but a state of the art fast 50mm could drag a lot of people towards a new system - especially if they manage to keep it smaller/lighter and/or cheaper than the Sigma 1.4/50.


Well, it will also annoy people who want to put it on their DSLR and there are a lot of them out there


----------



## .jan (Aug 31, 2018)

BillB said:


> Well, it will also annoy people who want to put it on their DSLR and there are a lot of them out there


Yes and no. Enthusiasts maybe, but professionals who write off and switch to new gear on a regular basis will be more pragmatic. But then again I feel like more enthusiasts than professionals are really demanding a FF mirrorless system.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 31, 2018)

ThomsA said:


> Just published at Nokish_ta (translated):
> 
> 
> RF 28 - 70 mm F 2 L USM



Why not wider 24-70 instead? Would it be too big at f2.0? Will EF 24-70/2.8 be still effectively 24mm?


----------



## BillB (Aug 31, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> Why not wider 24-70 instead? Would it be too big at f2.0? Will EF 24-70/2.8 be still effectively 24mm?



Might be IQ issues at f2, or constraints from the new mount, or weight. Also, there may be an ultra wide zoom in the pipeline.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 31, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Remind me, aside from slightly smaller/maybe easier-designed and cheaper lenses for wide angle, what are those benefits?



It's _new...! Shiny..! And new..!_

Come on man, get with the programme!


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> TBut few would doubt that their products (with their A7 III generation) are not making strides towards a point where Sony will finally start flipping a lot of professionals and enthusiasts into their ranks.



Only if (and as "ifs" go, it's a biggie) at the same time that Sony continues to "ascend" (or "catch up", as some of us might put it) Canon's offerings go _markedly_ in the opposite direction...

Remember that it wouldn't just be market share from Canon's dominant MILC position, but from its existing DSLR dominance too...

Is that likely?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> :
> 
> View attachment 179999



I suppose I might be able to convert it into an extender to go on the back of my 500mm...

Otherwise - maybe _not_ "Everyone"...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 31, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But which mount should the plug be?



Doesn't matter - Metabones will make an adaptor...


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 31, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> This sounds like nonsense - if you have two items physically connected then the fastest and absolutely most reliable way for them to communicate is over a direct electronic connection eg plain old copper. Less interference, less hassle and far less battery power than wireless.
> 
> The ONLY advantage for wireless connectivity is for lenses that are not physically attached to the body, or for those crazy people like me who occasionally use reversing rings to put lenses on backwards.



My medium deep experience in electronics says that a contact which works for 10 000 cycles is relatively expensive - those well known serial SUB-D connectors were made for 100 cycles and low speed. These were reliable. But do you ever have seen an ethernet connector which has seen more then 100 cycles? Probability is low. Thinking about 10 contacts for 100 MBit (~ 100 MHz) with 10 000 cycles plain copper doesn't work due to oxidation - you NEED gold contacts. If you think 10 000 cycles are more the need for a body - it's 10 lens changes per work day over 5 years.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 31, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> My medium deep experience in electronics says that a contact which works for 10 000 cycles is relatively expensive - those well known serial SUB-D connectors were made for 100 cycles and low speed. These were reliable. But do you ever have seen an ethernet connector which has seen more then 100 cycles?


Yes. I also saw micro-USB and USB-C connectors that have seen more than 1000 (they are normally rated at 10 000 anyway).

What I haven't seen is consumer wireless that cannot be jammed. Besides, having an RF transmitter complicates certification.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 31, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Yes. I also saw micro-USB and USB-C connectors that have seen more than 1000 (they are normally rated at 10 000 anyway).
> 
> What I haven't seen is consumer wireless that cannot be jammed. Besides, having an RF transmitter complicates certification.



It's a comparison of apples with eggs if you compare plugin connectors with those used in camera/lens mounts and 2 data pins with at least 5 or 6 data pins.

Maybe you read the link, weixing delivered with his post:
https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-short-range-wireless-lens-mount-other-accessories/


----------



## Kit. (Aug 31, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> It's a comparison of apples with eggs if you compare plugin connectors with those used in camera/lens mounts and 2 data pins with at least 5 or 6 data pins.


I am not getting it, sorry.

EF mount is SPI, it has 2 data pins (and 1 clock pin).
USB starts with 4 data pins, but they are differential (and asynchronous), so still the same 2 data signals, just at much higher frequency.



mb66energy said:


> Maybe you read the link, weixing delivered with his post:
> https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-short-range-wireless-lens-mount-other-accessories/


It's just a patent (a patentable idea for patent portfolio), and it doesn't mention costs as a factor.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 1, 2018)

Bekippe said:


> IBIS systems imply that it is already possible, it's more a question of logistics. Realistically, the same mechanisms that drive the focus group in the lens could drive the sensor plane as well, as long as there are flex cables attached to everything. And those systems actuate far more frequently. Part of the new lens protocol could be a key value to position the sensor. That would open up the lens design for any flange distance that is optimal for the lens, not forcing them to use one constant one for everything.



Movement for IBIS is very tiny. Nothing near 12mm. Probably not even near 1mm (I really don't know.). I very much doubt this will be a case of the sensor being moved back and forth up to 12mm. The distance will, instead, be compensated for in the mount.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 1, 2018)

knight427 said:


> I’m trying to rationalize how the following might all be true:
> 
> release of enthusiast FF milc
> ef mount and rf mount attach natively to body
> ...


----------



## knight427 (Sep 4, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


>



Note that two of the assumptions turned out to not be true, that's why I listed them, so grown-ups could understand where I was coming from. Rumors at that point were saying the camera would take EF without an adapter, but there was the new RF mount too. On top that, the *24*-70 f/2 (not *28*-70) was being talked about, which would be unimaginably huge for a FF sensor. This is why I wondered if perhaps the RF mount would be m43 lenses. It was a simple thought experiment about what that might mean. When it turned out the 24-70 was actually 28-70, this made a whole lot less sense. 

Maybe one day you'll go through puberty and understand the difference between a meaningless pissing contest on the internet, and thoughtful discussion. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 4, 2018)

knight427 said:


> Note that two of the assumptions turned out to not be true, that's why I listed them, so grown-ups could understand where I was coming from. Rumors at that point were saying the camera would take EF without an adapter, but there was the new RF mount too. On top that, the *24*-70 f/2 (not *28*-70) was being talked about, which would be unimaginably huge for a FF sensor. This is why I wondered if perhaps the RF mount would be m43 lenses. It was a simple thought experiment about what that might mean. When it turned out the 24-70 was actually 28-70, this made a whole lot less sense.
> 
> Maybe one day you'll go through puberty and understand the difference between a meaningless pissing contest on the internet, and thoughtful discussion. I won't hold my breath.



Wow. I put a "Laughing so hard I'm crying" emoji at what you wrote (without launching into a pissing contest or personal attack) because I thought it was funny and saw your confusion and you launch into a tirade. You want to lecture me on being grown up and awaiting puberty? Wow.

My funny bone was tickled because I happen to own a tiny M43 lens and know it would never fit RF and could never natively fit a huge RF mount. Well, they could put an M43 lens on an RF mount, but what's the point and how nice would that look? But them, how would that adapt to an M43 camera? (BTW: It would't be an M43 lens with an RF mount.). I'm not allowed to laugh at that without you getting pissed? Would you have reacted the same way in person if we were buddies having a Coke? Or is it just the internet that pisses you off?  Grow up. I didn't get into or ask for any pissing contest from you. You, however, seem to want one.

BTW: Standard EF lenses (small and light, not "L") could be adapted to RF, still allow FF without the M43 crop factor messing things up. It is the "L" line people are crying about the weight over.

Bless your heart.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 13, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But which mount should the plug be? You see, one way or another, the mount question stays unresolved for now.


Oh don't fret none over that. We're talking Canon here so it will be HDMI - mini no doubt...


----------

