Mirrorless mount - will Canon stick to EOS?

[BernardLanguillier]

The very same compromises that have listed these past 20 years when comparing the value of the larger EOS mount compared to the smaller F mount?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rado]

My main hope about keeping the EF mount for mirrorless is that Canon (and others) will continue to produce lenses that are NOT focus-by-wire. I might be wrong but it seems that all native lenses for mirrorless systems use focus by wire, which I hate. Why is that when we finally get an usable viewfinder for manual focusing (compared to old film bodies the DSLR viewfinders are pretty bad at this) they hit you with the other end of the stick and mess up focusing?

[32BT]

My main hope about keeping the EF mount for mirrorless is that Canon (and others) will continue to produce lenses that are NOT focus-by-wire. I might be wrong but it seems that all native lenses for mirrorless systems use focus by wire, which I hate. Why is that when we finally get an usable viewfinder for manual focusing (compared to old film bodies the DSLR viewfinders are pretty bad at this) they hit you with the other end of the stick and mess up focusing?

Because of video demands... but yes, direct manual focus (override) with decent tactile feedback would certainly be appreciated.

[Rado]

I don't do video but my impression is that video people don't like focus by wire either and prefer manual lenses for predictable focusing. Maybe Canon's alleged crippling of video features in cameras to protect their cinema line will be finally good for something :-)

[Paulo Bizarro]

The very same compromises that have listed these past 20 years when comparing the value of the larger EOS mount compared to the smaller F mount?

Cheers,
Bernard

Right... so it seems that Nikon have learned their lesson (new Z mount is larger than F mount, so it seems). And Canon had the foresight of developing a mount for MILC that is able to cater for FF without compromises (taking the Sony E mount as analogy).

[BernardLanguillier]

Right... so it seems that Nikon have learned their lesson (new Z mount is larger than F mount, so it seems). And Canon had the foresight of developing a mount for MILC that is able to cater for FF without compromises (taking the Sony E mount as analogy).

What factual elements do we have at hand to assess the kind of lens design sacrifices Sony has to do because of their small sized mount?

Will they be able to handle 100~ mp sensors in 10 years?

Cheers,
Bernard

[E.J. Peiker]

Personally, I'd be surprised if they introduced a new mount.  My money would be on EF-M.

[davidgp]

What factual elements do we have at hand to assess the kind of lens design sacrifices Sony has to do because of their small sized mount?

Will they be able to handle 100~ mp sensors in 10 years?

Cheers,
Bernard

Well... if we trust Sony representatives... when they launched the GM series of lenses they said they were designed to support 100 mp sensors...



http://dgpfotografia.com

[Guillermo Luijk]

If there is a brand capable of best selling the worst (or less good, no offence fanboys) bodies, is Canon. I think there's 50% chances the new mirrorless is a mirrorless 5D IV. Fingers crossed that Canon takes a valiant step since EOS was born and it is something new.

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

Somewhat old but still very relevant.

https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guillermo Luijk]

I don't think that article is still relevant since it has been demonstrated to be false.  The E mount has allowed for a good tradeoff between compact bodies and any kind of focal length and apertures without known limitations. Canon TS lenses adapt fine to the mount, Laowa has launched a fantastic Zero distortion 12mm which can become a good 17mm TS with their shiftable 1,4x converter, the new 400mm f/2,8 weights more than a 1Kg less than Canon's and Nikon's, the A7 is the best body so far to adapt legacy lenses... so I don't see any mistake here. I don't think either that Sony (and Canon with their EF-M as well) didn't think of the mount needs for a FF mirrorless body as part of their mount requirements.

If Nikon has made it possible to design their lens lineup (including their 14-28 zooms and 19mm TS) with the following, I doubt Sony has any bottleneck here:
 

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

Most of the points in terms of compactness, weight,... are clearly true.

The fact that Sigma didn’t design any specific E lenses is very telling also.

The point has never been that it is impossible to design wide lenses for E mount, the point is the complexity of doing so. And what it means in terms of design trade-off (including size).

And yes, the 400mm f2.8 is remarkably light, but for long teles the mount appears to be mostly irrelevant.

Cheers,
Bernard

[davidgp]

The fact that Sigma didn’t design any specific E lenses is very telling also.

I think that it is more a comercial decision of Sigma than a limitation of the mount... Sigma is a small company... the CEO is always commenting that... look, in the time FE mount exists, Sigma has been focusing in finishing its ART series of lenses for DSLR cameras while adapting them to cine lenses versions... they saw that they were going to get more money that way...

Probably now that there are going to have three FF mirrorless systems... they are going to move to this market.

For the lenses Sigma is doing... basically f1.4 there is no limitation in the FE mount...



http://dgpfotografia.com

[Paulo Bizarro]

What factual elements do we have at hand to assess the kind of lens design sacrifices Sony has to do because of their small sized mount?

Will they be able to handle 100~ mp sensors in 10 years?

Cheers,
Bernard

Well, you continue to insist on a few points, while opening new ones, all the time without getting informed properly. As already stated:

Some FE lenses (GM, Zeiss, basically top tier ones) have been designed to cater for 100 mp sensors. Even here in Lula Kevin Raber has mentioned that, as evidence that Sony will introduce cameras with 100 mp sensors.

In want facts: look into the list I linked to above, the list of existing FE native lenses from all manufacturers, and point to what is missing. There are already rumours about 500 amd 600mm lenses from Sony. TS lenses? Sony never had those anyway, not even for A mount.

To me, it seems clear that if any compromises have been made, they are not impacting lens design for Sony FE.

I get it, you now have something - Nikon Z mount is larger than Sony and Canon one's - to hold on to. But that is the result of in the past, the F mount was compromised for the future, so that is why they had to change it.

[BJL]

About good dimensions for a 36x24 format mirrorless system lens mount: clearly there are disadvantages to being too narrow or too deep, but there is also such a thing as being wide enough (or shallow enough) for all practical purposes, beyond which “wider” just means bulkier bodies and lenses, and “shallower” just means that each lens is a bit longer to have the lens elements at the right distance from the focal plane.

With this in mind, I am fairly sure that both Sony and Canon designed their mirrorless mounts to be wide enough to provide plenty of lens design flexibility for the 43mm image circle needs of 36x24mn format. One clear argument is that they are far wider than can be of benefit for their “APS-C” systems: EF-M is a huge 20mm wider than its 15x22mm “EF-S” format sensors, compared to the already abundant 11mm excess of EF mount over the 36x24 format’s image circle.

Another thought: there is clearly a marketing advantage to have longer lenses for the larger format also usable on the smaller one, without the fiddle of an adaptor, which would also force the imagined new 36x24 format Canon mirrorless mount to be deeper, just to accomodate that “mirrorless-to-mirrorless” adaptor.

[Tony Jay]

Well, you continue to insist on a few points, while opening new ones, all the time without getting informed properly. As already stated:

Some FE lenses (GM, Zeiss, basically top tier ones) have been designed to cater for 100 mp sensors. Even here in Lula Kevin Raber has mentioned that, as evidence that Sony will introduce cameras with 100 mp sensors.

In want facts: look into the list I linked to above, the list of existing FE native lenses from all manufacturers, and point to what is missing. There are already rumours about 500 amd 600mm lenses from Sony. TS lenses? Sony never had those anyway, not even for A mount.

To me, it seems clear that if any compromises have been made, they are not impacting lens design for Sony FE.

I get it, you now have something - Nikon Z mount is larger than Sony and Canon one's - to hold on to. But that is the result of in the past, the F mount was compromised for the future, so that is why they had to change it.

And, given that TS-E lenses are manual focus anyway, and that any EF to FE adaptor will work fine for mounting any TS-E lenses we may never see TS lenses for Sony.

Nonetheless, while the lens line-up for the Sony FE mount is not yet complete it is still pretty extensive for anybody that is not a dedicated sport/action/wildlife shooter...

Tony Jay

[BernardLanguillier]

I get it, you now have something - Nikon Z mount is larger than Sony and Canon one's - to hold on to. But that is the result of in the past, the F mount was compromised for the future, so that is why they had to change it.

Euh... I don’t have anything more than you do.

We as photographers have one more option to investigate.

I am surprised by the defensiveness I see in this thread at the idea that Nikon may have come up with a superior mirrorless platform.

It is only natural that a solution designed 6-7 years later benefits from past learnings. Canon has the opportunity to do the sane btw.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guillermo Luijk]

Bernard, I am very happy that Nikon designs a fantastic mirrorless system because it's a serious candidate to replace my A7 in a few years (I could use absolutely all my lenses, only needing adaptors which would be very cheap for my FD collection).

I have to say I see no defensiveness from Canon or Sony users, I rather see 'attackness' from you to make Nikon prevail at any cost

Let's all mirrorless lovers (you were not very fond of mirrorless till recently BTW) enjoy the coming times.

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

I have to say I see no defensiveness from Canon or Sony users, I rather see 'attackness' from you to make Nikon prevail at any cost

Let's all mirrorless lovers (you were not very fond of mirrorless till recently BTW) enjoy the coming times.

Not at all.

I have not taken any decision in terms of purchasing any of the mirrorless systems. I find Sony to be very good, just short of excellent for a varierty of reasons.

I have no visibility about Canon’s intent.

As far as EVFs go, I still far prefer the shooting experience delivered by OVFs. I would be surprised if Nikon came up with something that changes my mind on this. But I have always acknowedged that mirrorless does have some obvious advantages. As solutions become more mature I continue to assess them to see what part of my photography they could help with.

Most of my recent focus has been on studio equipment though.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Paulo Bizarro]

Euh... I don’t have anything more than you do.

We as photographers have one more option to investigate.

I am surprised by the defensiveness I see in this thread at the idea that Nikon may have come up with a superior mirrorless platform.

It is only natural that a solution designed 6-7 years later benefits from past learnings. Canon has the opportunity to do the sane btw.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, I enjoy your photos (when you posted them) and your civilized discussions, always interesting. I am not being defensive in any way, as in the past I have used Canon, Nikon and Sony. What I point out is that in spite of what other people have said (which you may believe or not), and some links that have been posted, you choose "not to see". I detail my ideas below:

- Assuming the new Z mount is larger than the F mount, to me it shows that the latter is compromised for FF MILC systems. By making it large, it seems to be able to cater for say f/0.95 lenses with excellent optical quality.

- When Canon introduced the EF-M mount, they did so with a size that will cater for FF in the future.

- When Nikon introduced the E mount, they did so with a size to cater for FF in the future.

- I can't see how the E mount is compromised in any way for FF. Do you see it compromised because no f/0.95 lenses have been made? We now have for example native FF 15 f/2.0 lenses that are very good. We have 40 f/1.2 lenses that are very good. I suppose that Sony, Zeiss, Voigtlander would have the expertise to produce f/0.95 lenses, but they are not a priority in any system.

- I see the EF-M mount not being compromised in any way, as for Sony's E mount.