01-19-2017, 02:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2017, 02:35 AM by Arthur Macmillan.)
Yes! I don't see why people are so convinced that how thin the camera is is the most important thing. My iPhone is thin. I rarely use it as a camera!
Since you mentioned it Toni-a, I think that would be the perfect way to make a full frame MILC. As you say, the adapter for EOS would be an extension tube. Does Canon really need to repeat Sony, and all of the others mistake of making the mount to close to the image plane? If you are shooting full frame, I assume you want excellent results more than the smallest size possible. People have been banging their heads saying, "Oh, someday, they will have a battery that will allow the camera to take enough photos.
Why not make a registry distance that is enough shorter than Leica M and Zeiss Contax / Kiev / Nikon 35mm rangefinders. Then you would have a camera that can fully use some of the legendary lenses, finally on a camera that can also utilize the Canon lenses developed. But I would foresee a couple obvious shifts in direction:
1- The increased registry distance, would provide space for a much larger battery. One that is practical to use.
2- The greater space would also allow light to be dispersed to the corners and edges without being directed at distortion causing angles.
3-The wide throat would allow Canon to incorporated some sort of in camera image stabilization. Sony has to deal with its insufficient room because there is not enough room near the image circle to allow much shift, and its short registry distance exaggerates the problem.
If you want a FF sensor, you necessarily will have FF sized lenses. When I lift my 5D Mark II body, I don't feel there is any big strain involved. If you want a very fast lens, or a long telephoto, and you don't like the weight, then you want a smaller format.
The improvements I look for are low light focusing performance, and electronic viewfinders that allow you to see better in low light situations. I also look forward to slightly cheaper FF lenses that don't require image stabilization within the lens.
If Canon started out with all the right ingredients it would not have to make a ton of compromises later. For instance, I'm not sure if Oly, Sony, Pentax, and other makers with in camera stabilization always read the focal length data of third party lenses, or if they make you enter it manually. I seem to remember an Oly user having to input the length of his Sigma Macro, in order for the ICIS to work correctly. That seems lame to me, but I could be wrong.
Also, if Canon wants to keep its enviable user base, It would do well to make something as simple as a tube to convert current FF lenses. For people that want APS-C sized cameras, or smaller...then stick with them!
I agree with toni-a. It makes a lot of sense to work with specifications that do not leave current Canon users out in the cold, and yet give Canon the room to grow, and easy surpass Sony, just by virtue of a versatile mount with room to grow and an established base of lenses. Many of Canon's best lenses require you to chose from the not stabilized F/2.8 version, or stabilized F/4 version. E.g 24-70 F/2.8 or the F/4 IS version. Canon: It's time to realize people can have both!
Since you mentioned it Toni-a, I think that would be the perfect way to make a full frame MILC. As you say, the adapter for EOS would be an extension tube. Does Canon really need to repeat Sony, and all of the others mistake of making the mount to close to the image plane? If you are shooting full frame, I assume you want excellent results more than the smallest size possible. People have been banging their heads saying, "Oh, someday, they will have a battery that will allow the camera to take enough photos.
Why not make a registry distance that is enough shorter than Leica M and Zeiss Contax / Kiev / Nikon 35mm rangefinders. Then you would have a camera that can fully use some of the legendary lenses, finally on a camera that can also utilize the Canon lenses developed. But I would foresee a couple obvious shifts in direction:
1- The increased registry distance, would provide space for a much larger battery. One that is practical to use.
2- The greater space would also allow light to be dispersed to the corners and edges without being directed at distortion causing angles.
3-The wide throat would allow Canon to incorporated some sort of in camera image stabilization. Sony has to deal with its insufficient room because there is not enough room near the image circle to allow much shift, and its short registry distance exaggerates the problem.
If you want a FF sensor, you necessarily will have FF sized lenses. When I lift my 5D Mark II body, I don't feel there is any big strain involved. If you want a very fast lens, or a long telephoto, and you don't like the weight, then you want a smaller format.
The improvements I look for are low light focusing performance, and electronic viewfinders that allow you to see better in low light situations. I also look forward to slightly cheaper FF lenses that don't require image stabilization within the lens.
If Canon started out with all the right ingredients it would not have to make a ton of compromises later. For instance, I'm not sure if Oly, Sony, Pentax, and other makers with in camera stabilization always read the focal length data of third party lenses, or if they make you enter it manually. I seem to remember an Oly user having to input the length of his Sigma Macro, in order for the ICIS to work correctly. That seems lame to me, but I could be wrong.
Also, if Canon wants to keep its enviable user base, It would do well to make something as simple as a tube to convert current FF lenses. For people that want APS-C sized cameras, or smaller...then stick with them!
I agree with toni-a. It makes a lot of sense to work with specifications that do not leave current Canon users out in the cold, and yet give Canon the room to grow, and easy surpass Sony, just by virtue of a versatile mount with room to grow and an established base of lenses. Many of Canon's best lenses require you to chose from the not stabilized F/2.8 version, or stabilized F/4 version. E.g 24-70 F/2.8 or the F/4 IS version. Canon: It's time to realize people can have both!