# Long term future for EF lenses. A rambling thought...



## jolyonralph (Sep 14, 2015)

I wonder how much money Canon make on pro lenses vs pro bodies?

My thinking is that with cameras such as the A7R II being able to use (with adaptors) many EF lenses and autofocus at decent speeds then there will be a time, not long away, when those of us with investments in EF lenses can seriously consider bodies from other manufacturers to use with our glass.

Similarly they face competition from Sigma, Tamron etc. 

Would it not make long-term financial sense if Canon were to consider at this point replacing the EF mount with something newer that they could better protect. Perhaps backwards compatible so a new 'EF+' body can still use EF lenses, but not the other way round. The EF interface dates back to 1987 and is pretty easy to reverse engineer, but a modern communication system on a redesigned EF interface could allow for a very much more secure (as in difficult to reverse engineer) system for Canon* even if there is no real benefit to the end user. 

I don't know enough about lens design to know if the serial interface on the EF that dates back to 1987 is a limiting factor in lens performance and whether anything faster would bring any real benefits to the new lens format.

This in conjunction with some new 'killer' lenses would mean we HAVE to upgrade our bodies to take advantage of the newer lenses, and only Canon bodies will do. 

Now, I say this not hoping this is going to happen, but hoping that it will NOT! I've not heard ANY rumours of even a possibility of a change to EF - has anyone else?



* All systems can be reverse engineered, but there is a relatively easy way to protect this. Imagine a system like this:

Lens is attached to camera, camera sends signal to lens saying, literally "This is a Canon EOS body XXX. This statement is Copyright Canon Inc 2018". And without that all-important copyright statement the lens refuses to power up. And the lens returns something similar to the body. Consequently neither product can work without transmitting a copyrighted statement which, sure, the Chinese cloners will copy in a heartbeat, but will be problematic for anyone more visible to try to do without Canon coming down on them hard.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 14, 2015)

I don't think Canon will give two hoots about people using their EF lenses on third party bodies. Within the scheme of EOS bodies and EF lenses it will be insignificant. In the reverse I know someone who doesn't shoot Canon yet has bought an EF 24-70 f/4 IS specifically to use on a Sony a7rII. 

At present there is nothing like the move to FF mirrorless that the gear orientated forums would have you believe. You've only to look at the used market place to see how much these things are depreciating compared with a Nikon or Canon dslr. 

For anyone wanting small, light weigh and a quality image there are many other offerings; in fact there are boat loads of them now. The EF on a Sony a7 series is just a drop in the ocean.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2015)

Canon is not going to change their mount unless they have absolutely no other option. They have often said one of the most difficult and controversial decisions they ever made was dropping the old FD mount. They had to do it, but it was not an easy decision to make and caused a lot of turmoil in their customer base.

They have worked very hard to design the EF lenses and mount to allow for technological upgrades. 

Canon has enough confidence in the superiority of their own products not to worry about losing market share because people are using their lenses with third-party adapters. 

On the other hand, I have often wondered why a company like Sigma didnt' reverse engineer the Canon or Nikon mount and use that for their own brand of cameras. I wonder if eventually we will see a Yongnuo DSLR using a reverse engineered Canon lens mount and offering a 6D Clone for $600.


----------



## zim (Sep 14, 2015)

jolyonralph said:


> Lens is attached to camera, camera sends signal to lens saying, literally "This is a Canon EOS body XXX. This statement is Copyright Canon Inc 2018". And without that all-important copyright statement the lens refuses to power up. And the lens returns something similar to the body. Consequently neither product can work without transmitting a copyrighted statement which, sure, the Chinese cloners will copy in a heartbeat, but will be problematic for anyone more visible to try to do without Canon coming down on them hard.



Why would they need to change mount to do a software lockout? 
They could also extend to include all other 'add-ons' like batteries. Actually they already have to a certain extent but they choose not to go the whole hog as you describe. I'm sure they have very good business reasons not to, after all they also allow ML on most bodies, they could easily stop that.
Maybe it's simple that Canon actually care about their relationship and reputation with photographers as wel as their top line


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 14, 2015)

Yes, the first thing Canon should do is upend its loyal customer base and make using dSLR's more bewildering for potential new customers.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 14, 2015)

It appears that the EF-M mount is not wide enough to support a full frame sensor. So I guess they will need at least one new mount for FF (or perhaps larger than FF) mirrorless.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 14, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:



> It appears that the EF-M mount is not wide enough to support a full frame sensor. So I guess they will need at least one new mount for FF (or perhaps larger than FF) mirrorless.


There is no reason that Canon can not use the current FF mount on a FF mirror less camera.....

While it is important to users of crop mirror less cameras to get as small as possible, for those who have deliberately chosen a larger camera, it is of less importance.....


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 15, 2015)

No, the EF-M mount is perfectly fine for full-frame, in fact it appears to have been designed exactly to be the minimum size necessary for full frame. virtually identical in size to Sony E mount (and Nikon F, for that matter)


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 15, 2015)

Indeed I was under the impression that the M mount was too small for a 135 sensor, but I was wrong. 

Having said that, I don't believe Canon see that as a short or mid term plan, I believe they see the utility of the mirrorless concept as being smaller and lighter, start throwing decent ff lenses on any 135 format sensor and you get too big for current design ethos.

I believe they made the M mount very firmly with the APS-C sensor size in mind but with a strategic nod to the possibility of it growing in the distant future.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 15, 2015)

jolyonralph said:


> No, the EF-M mount is perfectly fine for full-frame, in fact it appears to have been designed exactly to be the minimum size necessary for full frame. virtually identical in size to Sony E mount (and Nikon F, for that matter)



Why did Canon say that a FF sensor would not work with the "M" system? What do you know that they don't?

The "M" lenses do not have a large enough image circle to cover a FF sensor. So there would be no point in putting a FF sensor in it. Canon is not likely to confuse users by having two series of "M" lenses, one APS-C and one FF. 


http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20120810_551672.html

Canon has patented a larger lens mount that is apparently intended to work with FF, but no sign of a camera.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 15, 2015)

In a recent interview Fuji said they considered full frame before launching their mirrorless line and concluded that APS-C was the ideal format for mirrorless as it offered the best mix of image quality and size. I think Canon probably concluded the same thing.

Canon may someday offer a full frame mirrorless camera but it is far in the future and when and if it arrives it will accept EF lenses and be virtually indistinguishable from DSLRs. (Just using an EVF instead of a mirror)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 15, 2015)

unfocused said:


> In a recent interview Fuji said they considered full frame before launching their mirrorless line and concluded that APS-C was the ideal format for mirrorless as it offered the best mix of image quality and size. I think Canon probably concluded the same thing.
> 
> Canon may someday offer a full frame mirrorless camera but it is far in the future and when and if it arrives it will accept EF lenses and be virtually indistinguishable from DSLRs. (Just using an EVF instead of a mirror)



I'm certainly hoping that's true, but their patent for a mirrorless FF lens adapter that fits a new mount puts my wishes in doubt.


----------



## timmy_650 (Sep 15, 2015)

I think they already did something like this awhile ago. Other people here will know better than me bc they were shooting back them. When canon switch over from film to digital, they changed something not the mount. So there are third party lens that are EF mount that wont worked with canon digital. That is one reason sigma is making a dock so that wont happen again.


----------



## LDS (Sep 15, 2015)

jolyonralph said:


> can seriously consider bodies from other manufacturers to use with our glass.



Some people will do it, but most people want a system that "just works", without messing too much with adapters, possible issues, and maybe voided warranties. Do you build your computer yourself? You can achieve far better performance selecting the best pieces available and assembling them yourself (and resolve all the issues...). Or do you buy a Mac because "it just works"?



jolyonralph said:


> I don't know enough about lens design to know if the serial interface on the EF that dates back to 1987 is a limiting factor in lens performance and whether anything faster would bring any real benefits to the new lens format.



That interface has not much data to transfer, so I guess speed is really not a big factor.

There would be no need to change mount - just improve the protocol to require authentication between the lens and the body. Add some kind of hardware encryption to protect the authentication keys and the protocol, and you can easily block competitors, exactly like Sony does with its game consoles. And if someone breaks the protection, you can easily sue him or her, just like Sony did with the one who broke the PS3 protection.

Sure, some may try to "jailbreak" the protection to bypass it, but no (reputable) company wold make lens adapters in such a case and risk an expensive litigation.

Just, as long as there is no really a big dip in body sales, I guess Canon doesn't care much if it sells expensive lenses *also* to people using them on non-Canon bodies.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 15, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > It appears that the EF-M mount is not wide enough to support a full frame sensor. So I guess they will need at least one new mount for FF (or perhaps larger than FF) mirrorless.
> ...


Of course they could use the existing one, like they did on the ME20F-SH.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 15, 2015)

jolyonralph said:


> No, the EF-M mount is perfectly fine for full-frame, in fact it appears to have been designed exactly to be the minimum size necessary for full frame. virtually identical in size to Sony E mount (and Nikon F, for that matter)


The position of the data interface pins in the EF-M mount forces the throat to be narrower than the Sony FF mount even though the mechanical interfaces (locking bayonettes) are similar in dimensions. This is the reason I doubt full frame will work on EF-M, perhaps APS-H can work, but with FF I'm doubtful.


----------

