What's next? Give all the new EF lenses a set of gyro sensors and send the motion capture playback to the camera so extra stabilisation can be done in software?
[/wild speculation]
I'm still a bit puzzled why the existing connection would have to be extended. But that isn't to say that it won't happen.
Juan55 wrote:
From here on, any speculation could be possible, but one thing it has to be true: BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY --->>> It should work in the old mount, with less performance, but it should work ....
I agree about backwards compatibility. A truly new mount that discounted EF would be a huge and unnecessary business risk. The first rule of a successful business is that you don't "bet the farm", no matter how good the new idea.
What's next? Give all the new EF lenses a set of gyro sensors and send the motion capture playback to the camera so extra stabilisation can be done in software?
[/wild speculation]
I'm still a bit puzzled why the existing connection would have to be extended. But that isn't to say that it won't happen.
reliable data rate. maybe the IS in the lens talking to the IS in the camera body. they would also design the physical connection for much higher rate future features.
Not sure how Hasselblad do their in-camera lens corrections, but could it be feeding more lens data to the camera to assist autoadjustment of barrel distortion and so on?
Regards,
DaveMart
dcmiller wrote:
I agree about backwards compatibility. A truly new mount that discounted EF would be a huge and unnecessary business risk. The first rule of a successful business is that you don't "bet the farm", no matter how good the new idea.
Wrong. Canon bet the farm 20 years ago on EOS / EF.
Regarding the lens contact issue: Just how much data could there be travelling between a lens and a camera body? Enough to require a different/faster system than currently in use? Seems to be that there wouldn't be all that much (many? :-) data, at least compared to other data types that cameras are handling - e.g., image data.
Tentacle wrote: "No Sh*t Sherlock!" I think you're onto something here
I noticed earlier this week there were about 20,000 views of this thread in a 24 hour period. At least us poster are having fun talking. And the Canon people have to keep an eye on the nuts. But what are the rest you doing? Looking for a rumor that is said in a convincing enough way that you believe it's true?
danmitchell wrote:
Regarding the lens contact issue: Just how much data could there be travelling between a lens and a camera body? Enough to require a different/faster system than currently in use? Seems to be that there wouldn't be all that much (many? :-) data, at least compared to other data types that cameras are handling - e.g., image data.
I gave the only example I could think of. But I don't have a 3 billion dollar R&D budget. Even with big Kolbe beef and Geisha expenses, they must have some money left for new ideas.
Juan55 wrote:
As far as I know, the actual EF lens system use a serial protocol: Power lines (motors + electronics) + 2 lines for serial protocol communication. If I am not wrong, they use a kind of PSI protocol (Peripheral Serial Interface, if I am not wrong - speaking by memory) of the same class that the microdevices from Motorola type 68XX use. So, all binary data are serialized and sent via two connectors/wires. This could be a slow system today, but it did work since years ago.... Probably itīs also time to improve.
From here on, any speculation could be possible, but one thing it has to be true: BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY --->>> It should work in the old mount, with less performance, but it should work ....
Edited by Juan55 on Feb 08, 2007 at 02:17 PM GMT...Show more →
Well, USB is also a serial protocol that runs over data over just two lines, and USB 2 is hardly slow.
dcmiller wrote:
I noticed earlier this week there were about 20,000 views of this thread in a 24 hour period. At least us posters are having fun talking. And the Canon people have to keep an eye on the nuts. But what are the rest of you doing? Looking for a rumor that is said in a convincing enough way that you believe it's true?
I care little for rumours, was just making a tongue in cheek observation to provoke witty comebacks such as this!
How much would you pay now? BUT WAIT, thats not all also included are 2, not one but 2! sets os Ginsu 2000 knives. Get your credit card ready, only 256 easy payments. Operators are standing by!
sirhibernac wrote:
After 168 pages of reading I can only come to one definite and total conclusion as to what Canon will for sure announce at the upcoming PMA:
A digital SLR that will end all digital SLRs and can single handedly take a picture the size of our national bureaucracy, transport you across the universe, dissolve mountains in seconds with it's new built in laser, freeze lava flow with the new ice cold white balance option, and on a quiet evening note it can cut your vegetables with precision accuracy. It can slice em, dice em and even NEWER for this years model a built in Julienne Fry maker!
I don't know about the rest of you pros out there but I'm all over this with my checkbook even before the official announcement. Oh and I can't forget about the new meat grinding accessory attachment that is built into the upgraded 400mmL! If I swing a new 500mm too I'll get the automated pasta making tool as well....Show more →
You get one free pass for bet the farm. Canon did it with the EF mount.
Some one mentioned that the hypothetical yet alledged new EF variant would have to remain backwards compatable with decreased performance on existing bodies. Thats all well and fine as long as the 'decreased performance' on current bodies is measured from how much bigger better and faster the new lenses work on the new bodies.
In other words, performance of the new mount lenses must by equal to or slightly better than current lenses when used on current bodies.
dcmiller wrote:
I agree about backwards compatibility. A truly new mount that discounted EF would be a huge and unnecessary business risk. The first rule of a successful business is that you don't "bet the farm", no matter how good the new idea.
darknite wrote:
You get one free pass for bet the farm. Canon did it with the EF mount.
Some one mentioned that the hypothetical yet alledged new EF variant would have to remain backwards compatable with decreased performance on existing bodies. Thats all well and fine as long as the 'decreased performance' on current bodies is measured from how much bigger better and faster the new lenses work on the new bodies.
In other words, performance of the new mount lenses must by equal to or slightly better than current lenses when used on current bodies.
They had to with the EF mount. They were not foresighted enough with the FD mount. It's not a big risk if users know it's necessary, so your point is not valid.
