Posts: 621
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
Hi,
43rumors reports with reference to quesabesde that Olympus is not going to develop/release any more FT lenses. The writing for that was on the wall.
Before Nikon, Canon, Sony and Pentax users start grinning, they better think how their systems will handle the swing-mirror to mirror-less transition. Who wants a mirror less body with the lens-mount to sensor distance of a 1959 Nikon F or a 1988 Canon EOS? Give it a few more years and I am sure it is curtains for the (D)SLR.
J.
enjoy
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1284990012' post='2980']
Hi,
43rumors reports with reference to quesabesde that Olympus is not going to develop/release any more FT lenses. The writing for that was on the wall.
Before Nikon, Canon, Sony and Pentax users start grinning, they better think how their systems will handle the swing-mirror to mirror-less transition. Who wants a mirror less body with the lens-mount to sensor distance of a 1959 Nikon F or a 1988 Canon EOS? Give it a few more years and I am sure it is curtains for the (D)SLR.
J.
[/quote]
Not until OVFs and PD-AF in DSLRs have no advantages anymore. Four thirds did not fall into the mirrorless trap, but rather the small sensor format trap.
Posts: 154
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation:
0
The distance between the lens mount and sensor doesn't need to remain fixed. The first brand to introduce expanding/collapsing lens mounts can offer full backward compatibility support for legacy lenses and truely compact size with new lenses designed for the shorter distance. Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Samsung already missed the opportunity, hopefully Pentax, Nikon or Canon would retain their existing mounts and introduce an expanding mechanism to please both the mirrorless and the DSLR crowds. No need for adapters either :-)
Posts: 2,441
Threads: 320
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
19
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1284991117' post='2984']
No need for adapters either :-)
[/quote]
But also no real advantage, IMO. Mounting an adapter is not that much trouble ...
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
Posts: 621
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1284990798' post='2983']
Not until OVFs and PD-AF in DSLRs have no advantages anymore. Four thirds did not fall into the mirrorless trap, but rather the small sensor format trap.
[/quote]
I think PD-AF is the key here. Once they have a way to implement that into a mirrorless or come up with an alternative way to AF fast in a mirror less, I think the SLR is toast (apart from special applications which means $$££€€). Considering how quickly the transition went with film, I would give it 2 years from now.
enjoy
Posts: 621
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1284991117' post='2984']
The distance between the lens mount and sensor doesn't need to remain fixed. The first brand to introduce expanding/collapsing lens mounts can offer full backward compatibility support for legacy lenses and truely compact size with new lenses designed for the shorter distance. Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Samsung already missed the opportunity, hopefully Pentax, Nikon or Canon would retain their existing mounts and introduce an expanding mechanism to please both the mirrorless and the DSLR crowds. No need for adapters either :-)
[/quote]
How do you want to do something as slim as an Oly pen with the 17mm with the senor to mound distance of the Nikon F?
enjoy
Posts: 621
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1284991754' post='2985']
But also no real advantage, IMO. Mounting an adapter is not that much trouble ...
-- Markus
[/quote]
I think the crucial point here is, whether you get these lenses to AF reasonably fast on a mirror less.
I understand what Olympus and Panasonic are presently rolling out, is to have special focusing mechanisms in the µFT lenses to allow them to contrast AF quickly. If that is the solution, then many current SLR lenses (with or without adapter) could be of limited use for certain applications. Many FT lenses on µFT bodies do not AF at all (Lumix) or slowly (Oly).
Also how about Nikon screw driver lenses?
enjoy
Posts: 2,441
Threads: 320
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
19
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1284992260' post='2988']
I think the crucial point here is, whether you get these lenses to AF reasonably fast on a mirror less.
[/quote]
It's my impression that AF speed is not really the problem to be solved. At least from my experience with the G1, the AF ist certainly fast enough for most applications.
The issue that needs a better solution is AF tracking for moving subjects.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
Posts: 154
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation:
0
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1284991754' post='2985']
But also no real advantage, IMO. Mounting an adapter is not that much trouble ...[/quote]
If you (1) don't switch lenses often -and- (2) don't switch lenses in a hurry -and- (3) don't care about compact size when the camera is off with the lens attached, then yes, I agree that a collapsing (folding) lens mount has no advantage over a detachable adapter.
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1284991980' post='2987']
How do you want to do something as slim as an Oly pen with the 17mm with the senor to mound distance of the Nikon F?[/quote]
That depends on what type of lens you connect - legacy (e.g. regular F-mount) or new (e.g. F-mount, but optics designed for short register distance)
When you use a legacy lens, the mount is folded when the camera is turned off and overall depth of the body is similar to the PEN. When you turn the camera on, the mount expands to the correct register distance (it's obviously deeper in this mode).
When you use a new lens, the mount remains folded regardless of whether the camera is on or off.
Added bonus #1: When you use a new lens and want to shoot macro, just flick a switch and the mount expands like using a built in extension tube.
Added bonus #2: When you use an old MF lens, the lens mount expansion/folding mechanism can double as a moving platform to implement AF.
Now you'll probably say that all this is impossible to engineer, too expensive, too heavy, too slow, too unreliable, too ugly and so on, right? That's the way of naysayers I guess...
' /> I agree though that AF has to be better then what we have today.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />