Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-18-2019, 07:11 PM   #1
Banned




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,324
Is this a message from Canon?

Interesting times for EOS owners.

Canon explains why RF mount lenses are better than EF mount ones - DIY Photography

06-18-2019, 07:20 PM - 1 Like   #2
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,459
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Yes, Canon's DSLR users don't want MILCs the way Canon thought they would.
06-18-2019, 08:36 PM - 1 Like   #3
Pentaxian
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 1,930
Big marketing gimick but peoples will drink that, too bad.
06-18-2019, 08:46 PM - 1 Like   #4
Pentaxian
disconnekt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Riverside, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 954
I figured a large bulk of Canon's dslr users weren't going to jump to mirrorless right away, one of the reasons I see it is being the lack of lenses (why go to a new mount with ~4 lenses & pay extra money (~$100+) to adapt what you have & wait who knows how long for the mirrorless equivalent to come out), and when the mirrorless options are just "rebadged" variants of what they already have.


Last edited by disconnekt; 06-18-2019 at 09:13 PM.
06-18-2019, 08:51 PM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,395
Not much to learn here. Retrofocus designs for the greater registration distances of SLRs make wide-angle lenses bigger and more complex, of course, but non-retrofocus designs have to deal with more acute angles of incidence in the corners, as Leica found with their first digital M-series.

So, “better”? Maybe. If my initial discussions with Canon owners who have bought into the RF system are anything to go by, they’ll have to push harder to win new RF lens sales in that area, which is probably their biggest market at the moment.
06-18-2019, 09:24 PM - 1 Like   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2017
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 536
One thing that I feel confident to take exception to in the Photography article linked above is that Canon doesn't own the term 'back focal distance.' I'm sure it preceded Canon's establishment as a company (1933), the year Max Born published Optik (in German). It likely appeared in Huygens', Abbe's or Herschel's papers. Less theoretical work, as noted in Wikipedia re the history of the telephoto lens, goes back into the early 19th century. Back focal distance would have been an essential characteristic of any lens group intended for photography.

I believe the best advantage of a shorter minimum back focal length is that it eases design of telecentric configurations, thereby improving flatness of field and relative uniformity of ray bundles across the focal plane. I'm not so sure about the video's claim that blur is inherently worse just because the back focal length of a lens group is longer. This would make much of the equipment on Mauna Kea somewhat useless. Canon must have left unstated a condition under which the claim is true.

Last edited by kaseki; 06-18-2019 at 09:32 PM.
06-18-2019, 09:28 PM   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 13,213
They would be soiling themselves at the moment, because I read (don't know how true it was) that all EF mount development has been stopped and all projects put on hold for twelve months to work on the RF mount instead. Small companies are used to things like that (it's said the K-1 was held off because of the 645Z, in which amongst other design efforts they got right a tilting screen that evolved into the WR reticulating one in the K-1).

But this is Canon, the Big Boss Man!
06-18-2019, 10:54 PM - 1 Like   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Tyumen, Russia
Posts: 64
"Hey guys we really want you to buy a few grand worth of your equipment again for a minor increase in optical quality"
Canon © 2019

06-18-2019, 11:39 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: SW Bavaria
Posts: 91
I like the conclusion "but aren't high end EF lenses good enough?".

When reading about better lenses and cameras I always think of the pictures of Henri Cartier-Bresson taken with, from todays standards, really crap equipment.

Last edited by Papa_Joe; 06-19-2019 at 01:50 AM.
06-19-2019, 02:44 AM - 1 Like   #10
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20,305
Clearly Canon is planning a transition away from EOS mount and traditional SLR design and are preparing the ground for that eventual move. It may take them ten years, but I would surprised if it didn't happen eventually.

There is clearly a small segment of lenses where shorter registration distances really helps with lens designs and those tend to be wide to ultra wide lenses. When it comes to focal lengths that are longer than the registration distance it makes less and less difference. As far as sharpness goes, older SLR lenses are plenty sharp and cover standard situations. Sure, you don't have a 28-70 f2 available, but the cost makes it incompatible with most photographers wallets, even if their mount will accept it. Further, Sigma has shown that you can create f2 zooms for SLRs.

In the end, to move forward, I guess Canon has to pretend that all the gear they sold up till now was sub optimal because of the mirrors they were forced to use on their cameras. Finally photographers will actually be able to capture sharp images -- but only if they buy RF specific lenses.
06-19-2019, 04:45 AM - 1 Like   #11
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,553
Canon are beginning the slow process of burning their bridges with EOS. Expect expect EOS to be slowly starved of new optics and eventially phased out completely.


QuoteOriginally posted by kaseki Quote
' I'm sure it preceded Canon's establishment as a company (1933), the year Max Born published Optik (in German). It likely appeared in Huygens', Abbe's or Herschel's papers
Short back focus lenses have been used in cine lenses for a considerable amount of time. The size and weight savings of short back focus lenses have been a consideration for cinematography as it often involves quite a bit of travel and the heavier the gear is, the more expensive it is to ship around the world.


QuoteOriginally posted by kaseki Quote
I'm not so sure about the video's claim that blur is inherently worse just because the back focal length of a lens group is longer.
Yes, I saw that: and I'm calling BS. While astigmatism and coma are more problematic with long back focus lenses, the psf is fundamentally the same whether the lens has a short back focus or a long one.
06-19-2019, 06:01 AM - 2 Likes   #12
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,315
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
Not much to learn here. Retrofocus designs for the greater registration distances of SLRs make wide-angle lenses bigger and more complex, of course,.
I read that often, but I call it BS until someone shows evidence of a real consumer Lens for shorter registration distance which is significantly smaller and cheaper than my 12mm f2.8 DSLR lens and is optically significantly better.
Note the "cheaper" part, which is needed for evidence as less complex is cheaper and the cost constraint in consumer lens construction is massive. For loads of money they all could build sexy new type lenses.
06-19-2019, 08:34 AM - 3 Likes   #13
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,459
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
I read that often, but I call it BS until someone shows evidence of a real consumer Lens for shorter registration distance which is significantly smaller and cheaper than my 12mm f2.8 DSLR lens and is optically significantly better.
Note the "cheaper" part, which is needed for evidence as less complex is cheaper and the cost constraint in consumer lens construction is massive. For loads of money they all could build sexy new type lenses.
Although smaller+cheaper+sharper is technically possible, a for-profit lens maker is unlikely to offer that. They will make more money by offering better optics for the same high price or smaller lenses at the same sharpness & price or maybe cheaper with the same sharpness. The point is to encourage photographers to pay more to get more.

The article does over-sell the issue a bit. The advantages of a short register distance for making small, high-quality wide angle lenses is more true for film cameras than digital cameras. The most compact, sharpest possible UWAs work well on film because the film surface absorbs light coming from almost any angle. But digital sensors don't capture light from oblique angles which means a compact UWA vignettes badly on digital.

The article also ignores a key drawback of the MILC design -- constraints on the lens design dictated by putting PDAF on the imaging sensor. For digital sensors, the microlenses on the sensor must be optimized across the sensor to match the pattern in the spray of angles of the incoming light rays. That spray of angles is defined by the rear nodal point of the lens.

For the simplest, cheapest lenses, the rear nodal point varies with the focal length. But that variation causes problems, especially for MILCs. For a DSLR, a mismatch between the sensor's preferred rear nodal point and the lenses actual rear nodal point creates some vignetting and that's all. For a MILC, a mismatch between the sensor's preferred rear nodal point and the lenses actual rear nodal point creates some vignetting but also causes focus to fail at the corners and edges, especially in reduced lighting. Avoiding PDAF failure in a MILC constrains lens designers at both ends of the focal length spectrum.

Thus, the MILC design relaxes one optical design constraint faced by DSLR lens designers, but replaces it with another optical design constraint not faced by DSLR lens designers. MILC's so-called optical advantages are NOT as big as they first seem but they are there.

Last edited by photoptimist; 06-19-2019 at 08:42 AM.
06-19-2019, 09:23 AM - 1 Like   #14
Banned




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,324
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
They would be soiling themselves at the moment, because I read (don't know how true it was) that all EF mount development has been stopped and all projects put on hold for twelve months to work on the RF mount instead. Small companies are used to things like that (it's said the K-1 was held off because of the 645Z, in which amongst other design efforts they got right a tilting screen that evolved into the WR reticulating one in the K-1).

But this is Canon, the Big Boss Man!
I think you might have figured it out. Personally, I think Canon just put some writing on the wall signalling the demise of the EF system.

---------- Post added 06-19-19 at 10:28 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Papa_Joe Quote
I like the conclusion "but aren't high end EF lenses good enough?".

When reading about better lenses and cameras I always think of the pictures of Henri Cartier-Bresson taken with, from todays standards, really crap equipment.
From a technical standpoint, by today's standards, his pictures are pretty crappy.
Cartier-Bresson proves that good photography can often overcome technical problems, or as St. Ansel said, "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"
06-19-2019, 10:56 AM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,846
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Yes, Canon's DSLR users don't want MILCs the way Canon thought they would.
Well , if you look and try Canon EF camera bodies and lenses, they are pretty good and still at prices from a few years ago. Today I tried a 6DII, handling feels good, it feels quite solid and works well, does live view, movable LCD, 4K video, and the shop where I tried it was price new at 1100 Euros. I could say the same for the EOS R which takes the same pictures as the 6DII.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
canon, cartier-bresson, ef, k-1, lenses, photo industry, photography, pictures, standards
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon users, is Canon EF-S 55-250 mm good? micromacro Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 09-02-2014 08:39 PM
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 for Canon 40D? metalmania Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 13 05-01-2011 08:38 PM
Canon Rumors-> Canon to buy MF company Winder Pentax News and Rumors 34 08-08-2010 03:58 PM
New to Pentax from the Canon Camp Pentax equivalent to Canon 70-200mm f/4 L frank2001 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 53 12-23-2009 05:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: Canon Rebel XT/350D, Sigma 18-200, Canon 50mm (more)… Duh_Vinci Sold Items 14 02-01-2007 01:14 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:49 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top