EOS20 wrote:
Sony offers autofocus adapters for the A mount SLR lenses on the NEX cameras, one with contrast detect, and the second offers phase detect autofocus.
Yeah, if Canon gets the on-sensor PDAF going as fast as their normal DSLR AF, then it'll be a great development, but, until then, it seems that the SLT approach is the best bet.
LightShow wrote:
I believe the pink square is the IR/anti dust system, the sensor is the square behind the glass that holds the top section of the body.
I doubt that. That square looks like a plain piece of metal, maybe a simple heatsink or some kind of metal cover for the DIGIC processor or whatever it's called for this camera.
I want to like this camera but I just can't come around to it. Why Canon didn't make the mount EF to begin with makes no sense. Come out with a few pancake lenses in EF-S mount and keep things fairly uniform.
AhamB wrote:
I doubt that. That square looks like a plain piece of metal, maybe a simple heatsink or some kind of metal cover for the DIGIC processor or whatever it's called for this camera.
Yeah, I think the pink square is the dust/shaker IR filter at the front of the sensor assembly, so the sensor is probably directly behind it.
Why Canon didn't make the mount EF to begin with makes no sense. Because it wouldn't really help to keep the M compact. Don't forget the register distance from the EF lenses is significantly higher than of the EF-M mount lenses. An EF mount body that would adapt EF lenses would almost be as big as a DSLR body since it would have an empty space with no mirror in the mirrorbox but being there to cover the register distance. Also, it would restrain the design of compact fast lenses. The adapter to EF lenses takes the function to bridge the different register distances between EF-M and EF lenses and camerabody. I do agree though, the price of just a tube with electronic contacts is not really EOSfunny
Pentax tried that, it's called K01, doesn't make sense to throw away the mirror and keep the flange distance.
coppertop wrote:
I want to like this camera but I just can't come around to it. Why Canon didn't make the mount EF to begin with makes no sense. Come out with a few pancake lenses in EF-S mount and keep things fairly uniform.
1: lens mount
2: shutter mechanism
3: dustoff shaker, containing IR absorbing layer, hotmirror, first AA filter layer and a phase plate
4: (plexiglass plate holding the top part of the camera body)
5: The single main board of the camera, WITHOUT sensor mounted. The sensor goes in the large open space at the right, the left part is the Digic processor (oops sorry, looked again. It's the SD-card holder...). See the flexo connector that is going to connect the sensor plate in orange at the top, and the lower mount in green.
6: Heat spreader and mount alignment plate for the sensor
7: the LCD mount plate
dasrocket wrote:
Nikon either went for a totally different angle on the mirrorless market, or for a totally different market altogether.
So am i correct in that Canon is the only player with three cocurrent lens standards between EF, EF-S and EFM?
Nikon has 1, DX and FX
Sony has E, DT and regular A mount (DT being equivalent to DX and EF-S, but no mount incompatibility, just like DX)
Ricoh Pentax has Q, DA (APS-C), D-FA/FA (35mm FF), DA 645 and M, as well as GXR module lenses, they pretty much win the concurrency sweepstakes since you can stack adapters to use your DA 645 lenses on your Q using nothing but current Pentax adapters & lenses.
rscheffler wrote:
So seeing as it has a short flange distance (18mm), the question (for me) will be how nicely it plays with M mount glass... But considering it's apparently the T4i sensor and probably has non-optimized sensor toppings, I'm not optimistic about wide angle lenses.
wfrank wrote:
I'd say that's the current million dollar question. For me, not with M lenses but rather the Contax G's. Will corners be better? What does the difference in cropfactor, flange distance and such mean? I dont know why you're a pessimist here , I only see hope :-)
If it handles some of the lens designs better (read: WA, protruding back elements) than e.g the NEX 5N this is surely an attractive camera.
I'm a pessimist about the sensor because it's apparently the same one in the T4i/650D, which likely means the same sensor 'package' with anti-dust/shake cover glass, AA filter, etc.
The greater the number and thickness of the sensor toppings, the worse edge performance becomes with many wide angle RF lenses, more so the near symmetrical designs. Some of the current Leica M wide lenses might work OK because they're more retrofocus in design with farther exit pupils and seem to work OK on the finicky NEX-7. But yes, the NEX-5N has many of these and is generally OK. But still, comparing images shot with wide RF glass on the 5N vs. the AA-less and micro-lens optimized sensor in the GXR M module, and the edge sharpness is better from the GXR sensor. This was discussed and compared fairly extensively in the "no love for GXR" thread, IIRC.
But I agree, it's just speculation at the moment. We'll have to wait until someone can actually test it with these lenses.
It might also be worth noting that the XP1's flange distance is also around 18mm and supposedly has a fairly thick 2.5mm sensor topping. Over at DC Watch, they tested the Biogon-G 21mm on it and it was crud in the corners - very soft - http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/dressup/20120406_524161.html
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Pentax tried that, it's called K01, doesn't make sense to throw away the mirror and keep the flange distance.
It makes some sense for small player like Pentax, which might not have the capacity to instantly design and make a lot of new lens.
I have a thought ... does it make sense to make the space (that used to hold the mirror) retachable ?
