There's a lot of angst going on over at places like DPReview as to what will happen with Canon's (supposed) new 35mm format MILC and the EF and EF-M mount.
I was thinking about some discussions I've had here at POTN over the years relative to the abandonment of the FD mount. As I've said before, I know this decision by Canon hurt their existing customer base at the time, but over the long haul it was the right thing to do. The new AF systems hitting the market called for a new, all electronic mount that would not hinder lens design. I think it paid off.
So now the question is, does the new MILC arena present the same opportunity? Should the camera have a new mount? I think overall, probably yes. But I can make a few arguments either way.
1) Flange distance and size - MILCs allow a short flange distance, which is cool for adapting all sorts of lenses. Theoretically this also means your entire wide angle lens setup can be designed smaller and lighter. In practice though.....I'm not seeing that happen. Look at lenses like Sony's 35/1.4. It's still a gigantic retrofocus design. What I'm seeing is that for best performance and good corners on digital, most of the time lenses are still retrofocus.
2) AF motors - The other lesson I'm seeing from Sony primarily is that combined, on-sensor PDAF and CDAF systems are at their best with purpose built AF motors that are a bit different than what is best on a pure PDAF dSLR setup. One argument I hear for using EF mount on a MILC is preserving legacy lenses. But what if you really need a new lens with different AF motors for the absolute best performance?
3) Adapting - Sure, a new shorter flange mount can work with adapting. But using adaptors is a hassle and what if this (along with point #2) means the lenses are not optimal?
