POLL - micro cameras for Nikon and Canon

[Barney]

it would bugger me up if Canon used MFT and not a mount more compatible with the lenses I own, and I'm not alone there. I'm simply not interested in a standardised mount, it would be a catastrophic move IMHO for everyone who owns a few lenses.

Catastrophic? Give over. All Canon or Nikon would have to do is ensure that any adaptor maintained AF and metering and you could use all the lenses you currently have.

The point is though, that the beauty of the EVIL format is the reduction in size of both the body and the lenses. Why bother getting one if you still wanted to stick all your 35mm lenses on the front? You;d be as well to get one of the entry level DSLRs if you were going to do that.

[Benchista]

Oddly enough, I have. But I suspect Canon will be able to make their EVIL lenses compatible with EF-S, which would be a far greater benefit than having to buy duplicate lenses - two-way compatibility.

[Barney]

So how would Canon adopting the MFT mount be catastrophic then? As long as the adaptor works what's the issue?

[Benchista]

Because that wouldn't permit the two-way compatibility I envisage, and probably wouldn't even permit the compatibility you envisage.

[Barney]

I've no doubt it's a moot point, both Canon and Nikon would do their own thing anyway, but I've no no doubt that it would be feasible (though certainly only for those lenses with built in AF motors) to maintain AF and metering.

I've no idea what you've envisaged, but to suggest it would be 'catastrophic' is daft.

[Benchista]

Daft? If Canon users couldn't use their existing lenses on such a camera, which I think is highly likely, then I do indeed think it would be a catastrophic decision from a marketing perspective.

[Barney]

Firstly, it wouldn't be catastrophic, that is just daft hyperbole.

Secondly, it's not the mount that it the problem, it's Canon willingness to maintain compatibility that would be the issue. So, you may say that it wouldn't be advisable for Canon to produce an EVIL camera without ensuring at least some compatibility with it's 35mm lenses, but that's a world away from saying that it would be catastrophic for Canon to choose an MFT mount.

[Benchista]

Oh whatever. Waste of time arguing with you, your mind is more closed than Woolworths. If you've no concept of the history and politics of the EF mount, you won't understand why it really would be catastrophic, but those that do will, regardless of your opinion.

[Damien_Demolder]

your mind is more closed than Woolworths

Can I buy a licence for that one please?

[Barney]

Oh whatever. Waste of time arguing with you, your mind is more closed than Woolworths. If you've no concept of the history and politics of the EF mount, you won't understand why it really would be catastrophic, but those that do will, regardless of your opinion.

Firstly, I think you'll find that Woolworth's are still open

Secondly, we're not talking about a system to replace Canon's current mount, so again you're exaggerating out of all proportion.

Anyway, how many Canonites still hold a grudge about the change of mounts? That's ancient history and the people who are still bothered about it aren't the market Canon will be targeting these days. If you straw polled every Canon owner I'm certain you'd find that the vast majority didn't even know about the change of mount nevermind giving a stuff about it.

[RogerMac]

Anyway, how many Canonites still hold a grudge about the change of mounts? That's ancient history and the people who are still bothered about it aren't the market Canon will be targeting these days. If you straw polled every Canon owner I'm certain you'd find that the vast majority didn't even know about the change of mount nevermind giving a stuff about it.

Me for one and I SHOULD be in Canon's target market as I now have the funds to buy any camera I want.

Roger

[Barney]

Me for one and I SHOULD be in Canon's target market as I now have the funds to buy any camera I want.

To risk sounding like David Brent, you're looking down the wrong end of the telescope there.

[DaveS]

And I still haven't forgiven Canon for changing their mount (Right back to when they axed the FD BL for the cheepskate version) even though I buy their kit.
Oh, and there is a "universal" mount for "C" size formats, it's called PL and is a breach-lock bayonet type to be found on most cine and high-end digital cine cameras (Think Arri, Red etc). Mind you have you seen how big cine lenses are, never mind how much they cost?
Dave

[Learning]

And I still haven't forgiven Canon for changing their mount (Right back to when they axed the FD BL for the cheepskate version) even though I buy their kit.
Oh, and there is a "universal" mount for "C" size formats, it's called PL and is a breach-lock bayonet type to be found on most cine and high-end digital cine cameras (Think Arri, Red etc). Mind you have you seen how big cine lenses are, never mind how much they cost?
Dave

I have already suggested a compatibility for micro still and professional cine. Never mind the cost. The size could be an issue however the aperture is large and the zoom range somewhat impressive so we would only need at most 3 lenses. The breach block arrangement was always seen as epitome of excellance in the old days when the merits of screw, bayonet and breech were discussed.

[dangie]

Most of these replies are far above my head by those far more knowledgable than me. However as I see it, digital photography is still in its infancy. There is plenty more to come. What I think though is a major stumbling block at the moment is the dSLR as we know it. If manufacturers have to consider existing users, making new products compatable with what the user already has, this will inhibit full development of what is possible. A large company like Canon could develope a new technology without worrying about back compatability as long as the "old" range was still supported.

[P_Stoddart]

I have to agree with the last posting. The whole point of engineering a small SLR style camera is to make it more compact and lighter. Therefore you have to engineer new lens
to get the maximum benefit of any new format. Canon have the
deep pockets to do this and they have a fast AF contrast system they can plug into a say a mirrorless 43 camera design. I cannot see them sitting back and letting the likes
of Panasonic and Samsung getting ahead of them and getting
any market share. Surely it cannot be 'if more 'when' will one of the big two make a move into a micro system with mirrorless. I still think we are looking at 20MP at 20FPS by 2012 and 3MP EVF. My money is on Canon they have the tools to do it now.

[Still_Togging_Along]

I would have thought there is more an enough space within an M4/3rds to (any other camera mount) adaptor, to provide nigh-on full compatability.
I suppose the only people holding a grudge are those who have a load of old lenses and don't want (come hell or high water) to buy any new lenses.

I suspect this old 'Pot-Boiler' goes back as far as the original Nikon, Canon and other mounts, and why some users, want a FF digital camera ..... But maybe I am just being excessivly Cynical?

[Done_rundleCams]

I don't really give a ratsas and,FWIW, that goes for Pentax, as well.

Cheers,

Jack

[Damien_Demolder]

Firstly, I think you'll find that Woolworth's are still open

[Pedant mode on] I think you'll find that Woolworths is singular - there was only one Woolworths after all - so that should be 'Woolworths <u>is</u> still open'. [Pedant mode off]

I enjoyed that.

[Barney]

Firstly, I think you'll find that Woolworth's are still open

[Pedant mode on] I think you'll find that Woolworths is singular - there was only one Woolworths after all - so that should be 'Woolworths <u>is</u> still open'. [Pedant mode off]

[Pedant mode restored] I think you'll find that that there are more than one Woolworths and they're still open too. [Pedant mode off]

I enjoyed that.

Not as much as I did!