I think I am starting to miss the aperature ring.

There is no problem. It's all electronic and computer-controlled --the camera would obey the last setting, whichever control was used. The camera is never "trying to set the aperture" while you're operating the aperture control--it doesn't do it now, it would not do it if the aperture control were on the lens (or on the camera around the mount).

How do you think the camera knows even now what the maximum and minimum apertures are on the lens? The camera interrogates the lens when it's first mounted. Have you ever set the lens to the maximum aperture with a variable aperture zoom and watched the camera adjust the aperture as you zoom? The lens is constantly communicating its maximum aperture to the camera as it varies while it zooms. If the aperture control were on the lens, the lens would merely inform the camera whenever it was changed...the same way the camera controls do now.

That's what those contacts are for, and one of them already conveys aperture information. It's no big technical feat to have the camera read a control from the front just as it currently reads controls on the top and on the back.

One could solve the aperture ring problem the way the µ4/3 Panasonic-Leica 14-150mm lens does. Notice the aperture ring. Aperture is purely manual unless the ring is set to the "A" mark (to the right of the f/22 mark), in which case it is automatic and controlled by the camera.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

By the way, in all the Panasonic-Leica lenses with aperture rings, presetting the aperture does not affect focus. Focusing is always done with the lens wide open. The aperture stops down only when the picture is taken.

And yes, the camera always knows what the lens aperture is set to.

Jon wrote in post #12297292
Read what I said. If you set the aperture on the lens, and the camera is trying to set the aperture due to your shooting mode, who wins? The lens has to respond to the camera's signal to know when to stop down. And if the camera thinks you should stop down to f/4, or f/8 when you set the lens to f/5.6, again, who wins? Because when you have a camera that's designed from the get-go to have aperture controlled by the camera body, any lens with its own discrete aperture control would have to look like a manual aperture lens to the camera. That's in Tv, Av, P, or M (never mind the basic modes). So an EF-mount lens with a separate aperture ring would either be offered to a very limited market that wanted the lens only to have manually, discretely, controlled aperture or would have to have some form of over-ride built in, thus increasing the cost and decreasing the market. If you want a discrete aperture control ring, buy an old MF lens and an EF adapter for it.

I think its much simpler than your making it out. I am a test engineer for my company and pretty much all I do is write software that runs hardware. Having an aperture ring electronically control the aperture is a piece of cake and it wont interfere with other shooting modes. How? All it takes is about one line of code. When in other shooting modes, such as Av where the camera is controlling the aperture, the camera simply ignores the electronic aperture ring. Because it is electronic and not mechanical it makes no difference where the ring is resting.

I hope I am following correctly. This seems like a no brainer to me. Correct me if I am mistaken on what is trying to be accomplished.

example..

while(Av)
   ManualApperture = 0;

Well, what about inadvertently setting manual aperture on the lens while the camera's in Tv, P, M? Remember (or are you all too young) the problems Sigma had reverse-engineering the EF lens spec? And don't forget that the aperture control needs to be electronic, and that pretty much means you need to be using an electronic aperture control ring.

With FTM (and how many companies besides Canon have FTM focus on any EF-mount lenses?) at least the lens is physically moving as you focus, and the body doesn't care what the focusing distance is (many lenses don't even report focusing distance). With the aperture, the body needs to know, and needs to know independent of what the lens' max. aperture's set to, what aperture it's to use, since the body sends the signal that says how far the lens needs to stop down. Frankly, for something that would be used by 0.00001% of SLR users, I don't see any company wanting to waste the development money. With EVIL cameras, it'd be different - they don't need to be wide open to get a usable VF. But Canon's decisions back in the '80s about what they needed to get a flexible AF mounting system pretty much limits what can be added to lenses at anything remotely approaching a reasonable cost.

Possibly a simpler solution would be to put the shutter control at the base of the lens mount (like the OM series with the speeds plus an A(uto) position on one end) and have the aperture control at the right finger tip as it is now. The shutter speed could be marked on the ring as they remain the same with any lens while the aperture control would not have markings but just be on the display since each lens has a different set of numbers.

I used an Olympus OM-1 for several years and frankly I can't think of a worse place for the shutter speed control than where they put it, especially when combined with the aperture control on the front of the lens. I'm just glad I didn't have to use it with a two-touch zoom! Canon's Quick Dial and Main Dial are easy to reach and separate shutter and aperture controls quite nicely.

The OM-1 controls were necessarily mechanical--they couldn't be located "just anywhere" on the camera as an electronic control can be.

I disagree that they were in poor loctions. For someone doing match-needle metering, they were in ideal locations because both controls could be manipulated easily while the camera was at eye level and without substantially loosing the "shooting grip." All other cameras required completely lowering the camera to adjust the shutter speed, or at the very least, completely removing the right hand from shooting position.

Learning "shutter speed is the ring at the rear of the lens, aperture is the ring at the front of the lens" was child's play.

You must have very small hands then. I had less trouble spinning the shutter speed knob on my FTb, and watching the setting change in the viewfinder. And using a grip (which so many are fascinated with) would only make the peri-mount position for shutter speed controls still worse.

For others who may care, here is what the OM-1 looked like. The shutter speed ring is at the rear of the lens (actually attached to the camera) with the aperture ring at the front of the lens. On longer lenses, the aperture ring was mid-lens, so it was roughly the same distance from the front of the camera on all lenses.

http://farm5.static.fl​ickr.com …5014189766_b1e9​18f8fd.jpg

The right hand basically stayed put at the shutter release and film lever while the left hand did the manipulation.

Notice also that the rings are designed so that turning each ring the same number of clicks in the same direction maintains the same exposure...very neat.

I used an OM-1 for a while after my F-1 and FTbN were stolen. All I can say is I was never so happy as I was the day they recovered my cameras. The Olympus was designed by an idiot.

Ain't that the truth! "Small is Beautiful" NOT!

This has been an interesting conversation -- I myself never shot with that type of gear so I don't "miss" it.

I gess if there was a lot of interest, a third party operation could come up with something that worked with an EOS body...? I seriously wouldn't expect anything from Canon...

Jon wrote in post #12304001
Ain't that the truth! "Small is Beautiful" NOT!

One of my friends had a pair of them.....he graciously loaned me one to use until my stuff could be recovered or replaced. It wasn't long after that he sold them and got a Nikon F2.

The one I used came from the (then) in-laws. They later came around to A-series Canons.