p.2 #1 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
alundeb wrote:
Of course, but Canon has released a patent for it. What are they thinking?
I'm thinking and they're thinking . get rid of the flipping mirror, precision mechanics, micro AF, vibration, etc
maybe it's all about the "patents" ... or simple mechanics
p.2 #2 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
arbitrage wrote:
I believe the EF-M mount is big enough for FF sensor, or is it? I agree with Dan that most likely will be EF-M mount (if that can cover FF sensor). I also agree this will be a camera for people still stuck in the Canon world and maybe, just maybe could attract back some Sony guys who still use mostly Canon lenses....but Canon will really have to wow that crowd to get them back.
If Canon's adaptor allows AF as good as a native EF-M (FF) lens and if Canon has AF features as good as Sony's latest series then Canon probably doesn't have to rush out native EF-M FF lenses as they won't be any smaller anyways based on Sony's high end FE lenses. They should concentrate on getting out native EF-M FF lenses in the type of focal lengths that can be made smaller on a mirrorless camera and won't have to worry about something like an EF-M 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 for a good while....Show more →
EF-M opening diameter is 47mm, so larger than FF diagonal of 43.3mm, however it is 7mm smaller than EF and EF-S diameter of 54mm. I don’t think they’ll use that mount, that might restrict them on fast glass, it limits the exit pupil diameter which affects vignetting, limits ability to use TS-E lenses, and alters design of lens to be more asymmetric which affects DoF and OOF highlights.. Nikon is going to use a 49mm opening diameter and a 16mm register on their new Z mount. Having said that Sony’s E/FE mount is 46.1mm in opening throat diameter, and also 18mm register, som EF-M is viable. But I’m not sure Sony has intentions for f/1.2 or faster glass. Nikon already has f/0.95 patents for mirrorless lens. Maybe Canon will be happy with f/1.4, or will accept heavy vignetting ng on faster glass?
Jan 22, 2018 at 12:45 AM
Guest
Guest
p.2 #3 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
I wager it's the M100 in luminous gold color and an 18-250 lens!
p.2 #5 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Pixel Perfect wrote:
EF-M opening diameter is 47mm, so larger than FF diagonal of 43.3mm, however it is 7mm smaller than EF and EF-S diameter of 54mm. I don’t think they’ll use that mount, that might restrict them on fast glass, it limits the exit pupil diameter which affects vignetting, limits ability to use TS-E lenses, and alters design of lens to be more asymmetric which affects DoF and OOF highlights.. Nikon is going to use a 49mm opening diameter and a 16mm register on their new Z mount. Having said that Sony’s E/FE mount is 46.1mm in opening throat diameter, and also 18mm register, som EF-M is viable. But I’m not sure Sony has intentions for f/1.2 or faster glass. Nikon already has f/0.95 patents for mirrorless lens. Maybe Canon will be happy with f/1.4, or will accept heavy vignetting ng on faster glass?...Show more →
I read in some forums that Nikon many times proved their statements wrong. One guy was told during a product demonstration in a big company in 1990 (after Canon introduced AF in lens), that Nikon couldn't do that, the F-mount was too small to allow AF in lenses. Two years later, AF in lenses was introduced.
Another was was told that a successor for the 105/1.8 wouldn't be made, the F-mount being too small and electrical contacts would make the rear elements too small (now 105/1.4 is available).
So I am not convinced that Sony and Canon can't make f1.2 lenses in their new mounts, although of course distance and mount diameter restrain the maximum speed of the lenses.
p.2 #7 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Honestly, Canon will make a worse mistake by not including IBIS in a mirrorless camera than by choosing the wrong mount for a new line of short flange FF lenses, whatever the wrong mount is.
p.2 #8 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
alundeb wrote:
Honestly, Canon will make a worse mistake by not including IBIS in a mirrorless camera than by choosing the wrong mount for a new line of short flange FF lenses, whatever the wrong mount is.
There are some subtleties concerning the inclusion of IBIS that are worth acknowledging. It has some obvious upsides — non-IS lenses get image stabilization, costs are applied once for body IS rather than separately for each lens, etc. But there are also some things that (at least currently) lens-bases IS does better — adapting to the characteristics of individual lenses, providing maximum effect on longer lenses, controlling heat/power consumption.
There is an argument for considering in-body IS, and there are certainly lots of places where it can make sense. But the answer to the question of whether not including it would be a "mistake" to stick with lens IS is at least open to some debate.
p.2 #9 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are some subtleties concerning the inclusion of IBIS that are worth acknowledging. It has some obvious upsides — non-IS lenses get image stabilization, costs are applied once for body IS rather than separately for each lens, etc. But there are also some things that (at least currently) lens-bases IS does better — adapting to the characteristics of individual lenses, providing maximum effect on longer lenses, controlling heat/power consumption.
There is an argument for considering in-body IS, and there are certainly lots of places where it can make sense. But the answer to the question of whether not including it would be a "mistake" to stick with lens IS is at least open to some debate.
p.2 #12 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
snapsy wrote:
IBIS doesn't preclude designing image-stabilized lenses. For example Sony just released their stabilized full-frame 24-105mm.
chez wrote:
Yep, you can have your cake and eat it too. As well, IBIS works together with the lens based IS to provide even more stabilization.
Not only that, but an IBIS system provides the hardware for things like high resolution modes in which the sensor is shifted automatically and the resulting images combined in-camera for a high resolution file. My 20mp Olympus E-M1 II has this mode and can output 80mp RAW files with great detail and lower visible noise.
p.2 #13 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
To all the benefits of a potential new Canon mirrorless with whatever lens mount they will use, I am mostly interested to see how this camera will work with other adapted manual focus lenses including rangefinder ones. I am sure reviews about this in comparison to Sony FF cameras will pop up quickly after Canon releases its FF mirrorless camera. This would be my #1 criteria to determine if it is worth to consider Canon FF mirrorless (plus the sensor of course).
p.2 #14 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
snapsy wrote:
IBIS doesn't preclude designing image-stabilized lenses. For example Sony just released their stabilized full-frame 24-105mm.
That is a fact.
The fact that it is regarded as a plus also raises some questions about relative pluses and minuses of the two systems.
My point is and was that neither IBIS nor in-lens IS is a panacea — pure upside with no downside — and that a choice to include in-camera IS or a choice not to could be a reasonable one.
p.2 #15 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are some subtleties concerning the inclusion of IBIS that are worth acknowledging. It has some obvious upsides — non-IS lenses get image stabilization, costs are applied once for body IS rather than separately for each lens, etc. But there are also some things that (at least currently) lens-bases IS does better — adapting to the characteristics of individual lenses, providing maximum effect on longer lenses, controlling heat/power consumption.
There is an argument for considering in-body IS, and there are certainly lots of places where it can make sense. But the answer to the question of whether not including it would be a "mistake" to stick with lens IS is at least open to some debate.
Take care,
Dan...Show more →
Debate welcome!
I am concerned about heat, but think that IBIS makes a better selling point than the lowest thermal noise for long exposures.
p.2 #16 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
alundeb wrote:
Debate welcome!
I am concerned about heat, but think that IBIS makes a better selling point than the lowest thermal noise for long exposures.
Sony certainly isn't worried about thermal noise for long exposures, as evidence by how poorly their cameras perform in this regard Btw that predated their inclusion of IBIS.
p.2 #17 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Can we back up these IBIS comments with published research or is this all armchair expert drivel? The Olympus and other MFT implementations of IBIS with or without a IS lens seems to point to the future unless something better comes along. Why would a high end camera company not incorporate electronics capable of adding 5 or more usable stops?
p.2 #18 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
DES-1 wrote:
Can we back up these IBIS comments with published research or is this all armchair expert drivel? The Olympus and other MFT implementations of IBIS with or without a IS lens seems to point to the future unless something better comes along. Why would a high end camera company not incorporate electronics capable of adding 5 or more usable stops?
Panasonic must have had a reason to eliminate IBIS on the GH5S
p.2 #19 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
DES-1 wrote:
Can we back up these IBIS comments with published research or is this all armchair expert drivel? The Olympus and other MFT implementations of IBIS with or without a IS lens seems to point to the future unless something better comes along. Why would a high end camera company not incorporate electronics capable of adding 5 or more usable stops?
Again, you don't have to "pick sides" on this. As with so many things that lead to heated positioning in photo forums, it is a bit more complex than "A is great! B is awful!".
Btw that predated their inclusion of IBIS.