10-years ago I bought into the EF-S/EF platform. Thrifted a lot of film era EF lenses, bought used EF-s Lenses for cheap ($20 for that 28mm one)

camera body got upgraded twice over the years, lived on a tripod and took hundreds of product photos for ebay....

---------

what is the modern day future proof camera mount?

Is it the Arri PL mount? I heard even RED moved over to those as well over the years?

Probably Sony E Mount. If you pick up a A7IV, A7C2, or A6600/6700 you can run Nikon F, Canon EF, and Minolta A all on the same camera with native autofocus capability if you get the right adapters.

>>4443918 (OP)
Sony E if you dont use leica lenses, nikon Z if you do

Z or E mount.
everything else is either proprietary or not popular enough

Sony and Nikon make the only lens mounts, and the only cameras, worth caring about as an independent photographer.

Canon has sadly gone all in on hard separation between closet-bound walmart cameras and high end professional cameras that are intended to be bought new, in great volumes, with a canon pro services subscription. This is why they have so many issues but you never hear about them, ie err 20, r5s disintegrating. The people who complain when their cameras break (hobbyists) either dont own a canon or spent the bare minimum and weren't surprised. Their intended customers just send that shit back and grab a fresh one out of the box.

>>4443918 (OP)
If you have no interest in adapting other mounts, E is probably it, because Sony had a running start with third party lenses. Unless something changes over the next ~5 years they will most likely continue to have the largest range of native options.

If you are willing to use adapters then it is Z mount, because you can adapt E, EF, M, F, and XF lenses with AF. There's a few other mounts that could adapt with AF if a manufacturer ever decides to make them.

>>4443949
>if you have no interest in adapting
Sony has the only working screw-drive adapters for nikon F, minolta A, and pentax K

>>4443918 (OP)
>what is the modern day future proof camera mount?
Nikon Z mount by far. Its specifically designed for FF and doesn't have the physical constraints that E-Mount has. It can also adapt e-mount lenses because that mount is so small.

>>4443951
I wasn't suggesting that Sony isn't good for adapting, just that Nikon has more options. Hence why Sony if only native and Nikon if adapting. Those examples are all covered under my "if a manufacturer ever decides to make them" point. Theoretically you could even do it right now by going x->E->Z.

You can literally use those lens on the newest canon bodies

>>4443963
stacking af adapters causes hella bugs. nikon has no plans to support af-d either.

>>4443918 (OP)
Don't listen to other anons. They're e-waste copelets. Just stick with EF. PL is good for studio stuff but it's expensive an a good portion of PL lenses on the market are rehoused rather than native. They're also huge, not a huge deal for studio work but could be limiting otherwise.

>>4443918 (OP)
EF is still relatively future proof by virtue of the fact there is such a large catalog and 150+ million units made. Even if you break or lose anything in the next 10-20 years you could very likely get an exact replacement for fuck-all. Only exception would be the crazy lenses like 400mm f/2.8 etc. that only produced a few hundred units. Considering EF is also adaptable to basically anything is bonus points. Nothing really comes close to replacing EF.

In truth I wouldn't invest heavily into RF unless you saw a real benefit. Z-mount has all sorts of fucky adaptation concerns when using F-mount. E-mount is Snoy lol. I honestly don't think there is a modern future proof camera mount quite yet.

Besides what others have said, L mount. I don't think it's going anywhere since they've been pushing this whole L mount alliance for so long

>>4444016
l mount has no value outside of adapting ef

>>4444016
there's no ecosystem in l mount land and even the affordable glass there made by sigma is more expensive than their snoy equivalents.

Hasselblad
You will NEVER need more than 100MP for photography. Never.

>>4444051
The question is how future proof is it. Not about how much lenses cost. Also the lumix primes are not really that much money

>>4444052
I only need 24

>>4443951
>>4443963
Sony is complete dogshit for adapting in terms of actual results. The sensor cover glass is so thick it even erodes SLR lens quality, not just Leica.
The best systems for adapting old lenses are Nikon Z (particularly the Z7 series as they lack an AA filter like the SL) and Leica SL, due to the thin sensor glass.

>>4444098
Are there any other bodies that skip the AA filter?

>>4444098
This seems like something is up with the adapter, especially considering how offset the vignette is. I'm assuming that's with an F mount lens so there's no reason it should perform any worse on a Sony.

>>4444103
>no reason it should perform any worse on a Sony
Sony's 3mm thick sensor cover glass causes induced field curvature, corner smearing, and vignetting. All of these are visible in the comparison. Sony's native lenses take it into account and work perfectly fine, but if you're adapting SLR and rangefinder lenses, especially those designed for film, Sony is absolutely the worst choice. The only reason Sony was once the top pick for adapting is because E mount was the literal only mirrorless full frame system on the market that could even adapt at all, but nowadays there are much better options.

>>4444105
That's why I just use APS-C lenses on my full frame in crop mode so the entire image is sharp clear and free of distortions.

>>4444105
Rangefinder lenses sure, but you shouldn't be seeing those sort of issues with a tele SLR lens.

>>4444103
It's called baby mount, E mount is an APS-C mount they shoehorned a full frame sensor into.

>>4444126
It's larger than Nikon F, M42, Pentax K, and some other full frame mounts, not far off others, and despite what others will parrot it does not obscure the imaging area. Yes a tiny bit of the plastic interior does cover the very corners of the sensor (not where the actual pixels are) but light does not come in at a right angle at the extreme corners. If it was really an issue then Sony would simply shave away this plastic which serves no purpose.

>>4444105
>>4444126
Its the chink adapter not being straight

Just more brainless sony hate ONLY heard on /p/!

>>4444140
>hundreds of forum discussions, reviews, side-by-side tests
>all unequivocally find that Sony sensor cover glass ruins the IQ of virtually all rangefinder lenses and even affects many SLR lens' drawing in negative ways
>noooo it's just a shitty adapter bro Sony is actually good bro please trust me or I'll get buyer's remorse bro please
Listen, your Sony is great, just not for adapting. Why would you even buy a Sony to adapt? You have the among the best AF and good IQ with the compact Zeiss E lenses and a huge variety of manual focus classic rendering lenses specifically for E mount that are designes with the fuckhuge cover glass in mind, so what the fuck is the point of adapting?

>>4444138
>Nikon F, M42, Pentax K
These are all film mounts that were too small for digital FF and thus caused the downfall of their respective brands (besides M42, which was just outdated even back then), who didn't want to take the same leap of faith as Canon in fucking over people invested in their SLR system by introducing a new, incompatible mount. Saying that E is comparable to these mounts is not the W you think it is.
Why do you think Nikon swung the pendulum so hard towards making the Z mount enormous?

>>4444173
And now, Nikon cant make a small camera. They can make a shitty pancake by splitting the lens in half (focus groups go INSIDE, and filter threads are meant to be attached to the lens). But the ZFC and ZF are 1.5x scale clown cameras.

>>4444173
So fine for 35mm film, but too small for full frame digital. Right.

>>4444176
good luck using facts and logic on a delusional sony hater

they literally hate sony because sony literally killed the 3 favorite brands of camera nerds.

pentax was essentially out of the market with the release of the a7 and a7r, since all they did was repackage sony's sensors (also used on nikon) and add shitty 3 stop (realistically, not rated) ibis, super shit autofocus below the chops of a nikon d300s, and some of the worst lenses ever made. like, 2lb, forearm sized primes that are still soft as balls and cost $2k worst lenses ever made. i'm pretty sure they ran out of money and dredged up aborted medium format designs, and the K-1 might have actually been salvaged from plans for a 645z successor because they were getting wrecked, as a business, by sony simply offering a better tool and value proposition.

olympus had to exit the camera market due to the sony a7c's release and improvements made to sony a6### bodies essentially killing their niche outside of some hyper-niche shit barely anyone gives a shit about. the few people that gave a shit about the hyper niche shit only wanted the om1 and g9ii type sportswildlifemacro bodies, which weren't exactly propping mft up in raw sales numbers.

nikon can't really blame sony for their suicide, but nikon fanboys like to blame sony anyways. their first two generations of mirrorless cameras had worse autofocus than sony's first and second generation mirrorless cameras, and felt unusable compared to sony's third generation. by the time nikons third generation came out (z8 zf etc) it was behind the autofocus performance of a canon r8, but still priced like any other 3rd gen mirrorless, so nikons market share tanked and everyone bought sony instead because it's the same sensor manufacturer.

>>4444179
Noooo pentax didn't fail by making shit cameras they're uh, devoted to reflex (after failing to enter mirrorless)
Noooo olympus didn't get outcompeted its uh, a yakuza conspiracy!
Nooo nikon didn't fail that's a skill issue no one cares about autofocus that's not why people upgrade to mirrorless at all nikons market share is poor because uhhhh, snoy markting conspiracy!

>>4444176
>So fine for 35mm film, but too small for full frame digital. Right.
Correct.
For example, Nikon's engineers were incapable of creating an electrochipped 58/1.4 lens on the F mount. It took years for Cosina to figure it out decades later, and as such the Voigtlander 58/1.4 is hailed as a marvel of working around engineering constraints.
Why do you think there were no F mount lenses faster than f/1.4 after Nikon introduced autofocus and electronic communication? And the same for Pentax? These mounts are fine for film, but too small for digital. They just couldn't put any electronic communication pins on the back of the lens at speeds faster than f/1.4. It physically did not fit.
Sony's engineers had to (to their credit - a great feat of engineering) do some black magic to make everything fit. That includes optical fuckery that allows them to make fast lenses to the GM standard. However, the downside is that the lens-to-sensor relationship is tighter than other mounts, meaning that going outside of the system (adapting) reveals the compromises that had to be made.
Simple as. I'm not a Sony hater (actually I wish all manufacturers would be as open with their mount licensing as Sony), I just hate to see braindead fucks coping about their purchase with unequivocally false statements. Sony has merits, adapting is just not one of them.

>>4444179
>the Sony user is so whipped that he perceives even a good faith, with credit given where due, criticism of Sony as delusional hate
>reddit spacing
Like pottery

>>4444186
>58/1.4
Correction: it's the 55/1.2 I'm thinking of

>>4444187
Ah reminds me of the poopcam from a few months back. Is Fe2fucker dead?

>>4444186
What a load of bullshit. The electrical contacts don't protrude into the light path of the sensor, just like the aperture levers didn't. AF was also introduced before digital sensors. There is absolutely no reason why any of those mounts would be fine for film but not digital.

>>4444187
It is, however, not a good faith criticism. It is asymmetrical vignetting and a moderate tilt/shift effect from a shitty adapter that's not 100% true.

>>4444186
Sony has the smallest 28-70 f2 and this is a plain demonstration of how little mms of mount actually matter. Whatever black magic cope you want to make up, it's not real. Canon has a "superior" mount but keeps making inferior fast lenses, including a fuckhuge $1500 24mm f1.4 that doesn't actually cover full frame before digital distortion correction? Sorry, that's not how "le superior" mounts work.

The most "superiority" excessive mount size can cop you is image space telecentricity, which requires a mount that is significantly larger than the sensor all of the light coming off the rear element (which must be about the same size as the sensor) has a straight shot to the sensor. This eliminates most focus breathing, optically. Which does not matter outside of video.

Otherwise it doesn't really matter.

>>4444194
It has nothing to do with protrusion but physical room BESIDE the back element. Explain why else Nikon and Pentax never made lenses faster than 1.4 when Canon had no problem doing so with their larger mount designed from the beginning for digital FF.
You are simply uninformed and incapable of integrating new information into your mental system.

>>4444199
And yet sony keeps making better, smaller fast lenses than canon. The maximum aperture E mount an support is f0.7, and RF can support f0.68, that's what you get from 1mm of mount lmao.

At some point you are going to have to admit that this has nothing to do with mounts and everything to do with the competence of the engineers and the capital on hand to take risks and invest in tricky shit like making fast glass that is also sharp. NIKON didn't make those fast primes because NIKON's engineers were neither the highest paid or the ones with the access to the most capital, and they are STILL a third rate company. Z mount is perpetually 3 gens behind in everything.

There's no technical reason pic related couldn't be autofocus. The mount bayonet is always the same size. There isn't glass in the way for a screwdrive interface. They could bloat up the barrel to fit a built in motor. Nikon was just incompetent and short on cash like they always have been and continue to be. The actual reason is nikon lacked the talent and funds to develop a sharp autofocus version of this lens that would sell well.

You are just another photographer larping as an engineer because he read some basement chart shooters blog once.

>>4444198
PS: Canon's engineering flops are happening for a good business reason.

They are investing, massively, in fully automating domestic production and getting their semiconductors caught up (it's slow going, but they finally went from multiple stops and lots of pattern noise behind sony semicon at all ISOs to a stop behind for the first gain stage, only 3 compromised/specialist models are still as bad as they used to be to achieve faster readouts). Canon is banking on consoomers buying into their brand reputation and professional image for long enough for sony to get fucked by foreign policy, because sony depends on china for manufacturing and canon does not.

>nikon used slow as fuck focus motors and developed retarded ass firmware because uhhhh, the lens mount -dunning kruger
maybe its because nikon goes broke by being honorable about their mistakes and doing recalls, while canon lets massive batches of defective cameras float around and expects the users to send them back to CPS as needed
>5div green lines (yes, it was a defect, they could fix it)
>eos r err 20, falling apart, etc
>rf lenses snapping in half

>>4444198
>>4444201
>>4444202
You can't prove anything until you demonstrate that Sony doesn't actually vignette and color shift and field curve and edge smear with rangefinder lenses and many SLR lenses. Which is impossible, because it does, as a simple "Sony adapted lens smearing" google search will reveal.
My arguments are in good faith because I have repeatedly given credit to Sony in areas where they are actually good such as AF and lenses with high IQ and compactness compared to competitors as has been rightfully pointed out. The premise of everything I have been saying is simply that Sony is not the ideal system for adapting lenses. This cannot be refuted and you haven't even tried, instead building strawmen and going on rants about irrelevant bullshit (why are you bringing up Canon? They're piss poor for adapting too, and I only mentioned *EF* in relation to F and K, nothing about RF, you fucking schizo)
>50 1.2
All those lenses could indeed get screwdriver AF. But not electronic contacts at a reasonable price point/R&D load at the time because the small size of the mount complicated this past the point of feasibility. I don't get why this is so hard for you to accept. It's common knowledge admitted by Nikon themselves and already discussed to death for decades.

>>4444208
People have been adapting SLR lenses to sony forever and if you search "sony adapted lens smearing" you find out it ONLY applies to wide angles with an entrance pupil that is not a certain distance away from the sensor.
>All those lenses could indeed get screwdriver AF. But not electronic contacts at a reasonable price point/R&D load at the time
>because the small size of the mount complicated this past the point of feasibility
No, you fucking idiot.
>I don't get why this is so hard for you to accept
Because it has NOTHING to do with the mount. Electronic contacts do not interfere with the bayonet or optical path. It's just that making a fast lens sharp copy to copy, with accurate autofocus, was beyond nikon's engineering capabilities. It's not the mount. It's the people, their money, and their equipment. Case in point, sony's 28-70 f2 is half the size of canon's and vastly superior because sony invests more in lens development.

Mount size puts a distant limit on maximum aperture. Distant. It doesn't affect half the shit you think it does.
Cover glass matters somewhat if the lenses exit pupil is too close. This is why leica had to use curved microlenses on their sensors. The exit pupil is not too close for SLR lenses. If your SLR lens is smearing, asymmetrical vignetting and scheimpflug'd DOF are sure tells that your adapter isn't true because it's a $5 chinese tube.

Mount sized obsessed shill boy doesn't mention canon has the same issue (short exit pupil distance + ANY, LITERALLY ANY sensor stack less efficient than the m10/m11's = smearing)
https://reduser.net/threads/adapting-leica-m-mount-lenses-to-canon-rf.3830479/

This is a pretty well understood optical issue. There are even front-end fixes.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/0

>>4444221
>shill boy doesn't mention canon has the same issue
>>4444208
>why are you bringing up Canon? They're piss poor for adapting too
At least fucking read, man.

>>4444225
Mount size is not why nikon didn't release a good autofocus f1.2. Engineering/manufacturing tech at nikon is generally just behind. Making thousands of PROFITABLE fast primes with fast, accurate autofocus that remain sharp at every reasonable focusing distance is actually difficult, especially for a small riflescope company.
Mount size does not interfere with lens electronics. The contacts do not interfere with the rear element or bayonet.
Mount size is not limiting sony until they start trying to develop lenses in f0.7 territory.
Mount size is essentially irrelevant unless pursuing better focus breathing correction and certain machine vision applications.

Sony is a vastly wealthier company than all of the others, and they employ people who are significantly more intelligent and educated than you. E mount is more than sufficient as long as you do not intend to use a wide angle lens with an exit pupil that's closer than 50mm or so that have not been redesigned to correct for the filter stack. These are typically film era rangefinder designs, and they do poorly on any camera with a sensor less efficient than the leica m10/m11 have.

The vast majority of FF DSLR lenses have exit pupils further from the sensor than 70mm. The effect is negligible.
If the effect is present it can be corrected with a single filter in front of the lens.

I hope you come to understand this some day

>>4444220
>>4444230
>ONLY applies to wide angles with an entrance pupil that is not a certain distance away from the sensor
Yes, and that makes Sony less than ideal for adapting lenses. The issue is evident with fast 50mm lenses down. The same goes for (just a hair better, but still shit) Canon RF and Sigma/Panasonic.
The issue is not nearly as pronounced on Nikon Z or Leica SL and is mostly nonexistent on digital M. I'm sure we agree.
>Because it has NOTHING to do with the mount. Electronic contacts do not interfere with the bayonet or optical path.
Why did Cosina need to cut out a part of the mount on the CV55/1.2?
You can very clearly see that the contacts occupy the same plane as the rear element. They create a bottleneck. This means the rear element can hardly be any larger in the presence of electronic contacts.
What you're saying about Nikon's lack of capabilities may be perfectly fine and I have never claimed otherwise. It is only compounded by the fact that the dimensions of their mount were more difficult to design for in the digital era. If this were NOT true, Canon would have never abandoned FD themselves.
I am still completely perplexed about your obsession with dying on this hill. Nothing I am saying is controversial.

>>4444230
The broken english of my eastern european upbringing shows through when I am checking le facts

It's funny how the question is mount longevity and retards bring up literally everything else

>>4444232
>Why did Cosina need to cut out a part of the mount on the CV55/1.2?
Because cosina is fucking incompetent and even today voigtlander lenses are overpriced, poorly made junk. CVs are some of the worst lenses you can buy. Already, their focus distance encoders are wearing out failing to transmit accurate enough signals for cameras capable of 1/3 and smaller stop adjustments, and they could never add something as simple as rubber gaskets. Or autofocus.

Again, E mount can support f0.7, and f1.2 primes and f2 zooms aren't even a challenge. It's just a matter of shitty companies like nikon not being able to afford to make these well.

In the odd case you use a lens designed for film that sucks on anything but a nikan't, there's a simple and universal front of lens fix that sharpens up the corners. This is well documented, well understood, and largely irrelevant.

>>4444237
>even today voigtlander lenses are overpriced, poorly made junk.
>shoots sony

>>4444238
>even today voigtlander lenses are overpriced, poorly made junk.
Yes. Cosina makes actual shit. Sub-viltrox.
>shoots sony
I usually rent sony and slip the rental fee into the bill because owning a pro camera is for suckers.

>>4444240
Oh, you're rentalfag, everything makes sense now. Please start using a tripcode.

>>4444237

>>4444241
I always feel like the voigtlander hate is meant to trigger me specifically as the resident voigt shooter

>>4444257
>nikon: half a lens, marketing lie. doubles in length when fully assembled.
>canon: almost 10mm of focus breathing, 3 stop vignetting, loud focus motor.
>panasonic: fixed f8 aperture, manual focus only
>sony: a real lens, but you could have chosen the zeiss 35mm f2.8 or samyang 35mm f2.8 because they’re smaller and dont waste space on the unergonomic aperture ring meme
wow, so sony makes the only small lenses that are actually good. ok. great.

its not like any of these would fit in a pocket.

>>4444266
He's a redditor and probably a tranny too.

>>4444270
impressive cope

>>4444266
>Voigtlander keeps releasing non weather sealed soft manual focus lenses with busted electronics that make cameras glitch out and selling them for absurd prices
>I am being attacked
If you're offended complain to voigtlander. Their shit is poorly made. At first it was just sony because they added sub-1/3rd stop aperture settings first (for aperture pulls in video) but now even nikons are being affected now as that cosina junk wears down and the lack of weather sealing does nothing to slow the damage
https://www.reddit.com/r/nikon_Zseries/comments/1gu9isy/zf_auto_changes_aperture_on_voigtlander_lens/

>>4444270
Sony doesn't keep getting huge contracts for no reason, sony isn't #1 in FF market share for no reason... their stuff is better.

>>4444138
Those have a proper flange focal distance so light rays don't hit so obliquely, on top of that film is as thin as it gets.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/monster-adapter-la-ke1/autofocus.html

i still think im gonna get a k1ii until a7c2/a74 prices drop to $1000-1200, but how bad of a idea is this

don't want a a73/a7c since i cant use la-ea5 on them sorry

>>4444291
None of my voigt glass has electronics to begin with and I still use it all in the rain too lol

>>4444388
And the discussion was about adapting those very same lenses. If we're talking about native lenses that take advantage of the shorter flange distance then making the rear element even larger (not that the current size is a limitation) then that would just result in light rays coming in at an even shallower angle. Make up your damn minds, is it the mount diameter that's the issue, the sensor glass, the lens design, the piece of plastic inside the mount that people imagine blocks the sensor, "colour science", or is it all just made up excuses grasping at straws because it's cool to hate on the popular brand.

>>4443918 (OP)
>future proof camera mount?
okay faggy gear thread... but this ... your question...
Nothing is future proof. I'm quite new to photography (1-2 years) currently in the Canon eco system. My 90D can also use EF and EF-S. I made sure to buy really good glass because I am planing to go to mirrorless. Will I sell my glass... no why? I'll just get an adapter. The adapters will get better in quality. I neednt be afraid of losing image quality. Dude... the Tamron G2 70-200mm is still the best 70-200mm out there. You think im gonna sell that for faggot 3x the price R glass?

>>4444052
inb4 the next generation of sony medium format sensors that Hasselblad uses will be 2mm bigger and the whole XCD mount is obsolete and the publish their next mount

>>4443918 (OP)
My view of longevity of mounts:

- Canon: RF will probably last until 2040s. The EF mount did hold up for 30 years as well.
- Nikon: You might get rug pulled soon. They bought RED and might try to push a new mount to unify their new lineup
- Snoy: You will get rugpulled soon. They will introduce something with a more insane digital protocol. Like pushing huge XML files from body to lens or something like that
- Fuji GFX: You will get rugpulled as soon as the next sensor is bigger and the current image circle not big enough
- Hassy XCD: You will get rugpulled as soon as the next sensor is bigger and the current image circle not big enough
- L-Mount alliance: well engineered and the small companies depend on it. Might last until 2040s
- Leica M mount: Will last forever. Snobs that want to continue using the M6 forever. The M11 will last forever. Leica will milk the customer base forever. Thus the mount will last forever.
- m42: might become more niche adapting this but still has a long lifetime in front of it
- EF: People have so much of this junk at home. Adapters will be made for a long time. After the RF mount you will probably have to stack 2 adapters which will suck ass and then this is e-waste
- PL mount: Shorter than you might imagine. When AI autofocus will be good in 10 years, the old&excellent lenses will get rehoused. The old&shitty lenses will be e-waste
- LPL mount: the LPL-to-GFX adapter is the last one. After that e-waste. You don't want to stack 2 adapters here, trust me

>>4444721
>RF
No third party = slow death.
>Nikon
They're putting Z mount on RED cameras. Total opposite of your doom posting. Z mount can support DX medium format. Idiot gearfags sleep on this because admitting it would also mean admitting E mount isn't too small.
>Sony
E mount is robust and well designed. it can support that shit. Any extra tech is going to be added outside the mount. Electronics do not have to be inside. Sony has a mount flange that can host an extra interface and maintain backwards compatibility. There is no reason to replace E mount unless the market demands lenses faster than f0.7 on FF.
>Fuji X
Will persist as the only budget system worth buying, essentially what micro four thirds wanted to be but wasnt competently ran enough to accomplish
>GFX
Only normal person friendly MF system. Fuji would be dumb not to milk this forever.
>hasselblad X system
This Hasselblad has always been kind of scammy. Short lived.
>L mount
Essentially dying. Might have a future in... chinese made camera drones, and nothing else. Panasonic keeps making unusably shit, non competitive cameras that are basically a nikon mirrorless from 5 years ago with every possible video codec enabled. Any other company using sony sensors could slaughter panasonic with one decisive move: enable every video mode every sensor supports on every camera. Leica SL isn't even worth mentioning because basically no one uses it.

The brightest future is canon gets over themselves and licenses to viltrox/tamron/sigma, and RF/Z/E persist for 20+ years.

here is what will actually happen:
Canon will widen the pro/nonpro gulf in their product lines. You can buy the low DR 240fps sports FF or the m43 vlogging camera.
Sony and Nikon will continue being the only traditional "real" camera companies like we're used to.
Fuji will continue being the budget hobbyist version of sonikon.
Panasonic will die like olympus and pentax already did.

>>4444727
>Any other company using sony sensors could slaughter panasonic with one decisive move: enable every video mode every sensor supports on every camera
japan is ran by the yakuza. there are doubtlessly backroom deals preventing this from happening for the same reason fuji gets to use sony's next gen APS-C sensors before sony does. they didnt cripple their cameras with xtrans and make autofocus improvements a bottom of the list priority because "lol fuji is dumb".

fuji crippled their cameras with xtrans and shit autofocus because that is the deal the yakuza gave them if they wanted to have a market niche with the most advanced aps-c sensors, instead of having to directly compete with the a6 line. if fuji makes autofocus too good or abandons xtrans and goes back to bayers better sharpness and color accuracy sony will cut them off per the spoken contracts from their yakuza dealings.

>>4444727
>>GFX
>Only normal person friendly MF system. Fuji would be dumb not to milk this forever.
>>hasselblad X system
>This Hasselblad has always been kind of scammy. Short lived.
The thing is, they have very little control over what sensor Sony produces. Also, right now the medium format sensor is barely bigger than FF. The incentive to grow it until it's 645 sized is big. And both mounts are barely big enough. They should have given it another centimeter in image circle diameter from the beginning to futureproof it. But they didn't. And are happy to collect another round of prosumer money here.

>>4444737
>The mounts aren't big enough
If sony can make this with an aps-c mount, 53x40 can be crammed into fuji G mount. The corners of the 43mm sensor are not even close to the edges of the bayonet and it's a fairly deep mount.

The yakuza don't fuck people over unless they fuck up first, and fujifilm has apparently been respectful of the loose lead sony-dono has them on. Unlike olympus, who got fucked hard for trying to be better than sony would let them.
>whats this, you've developed a micro four thirds camera... that is as good for wildlife as our a1?
>then, you dont get better sensors even though we have them.
>you dont. because you don't. we won't sell these to you.
>oh look, suddenly you have a money laundering scandal.
>sell your camera division to our holding company and leave, gozaimasu.
>oh look, now "OM system" gets better sensors. funny how that works, isn't it?
The idiotic decisions jap camera designers make all make perfect sense when you realize sony is the yakuza, and any company using their sensors only exists because sony allows them to.

>>4444727
>RF
>No third party = slow death.
I sincerely hope Canon pulls their head out of their ass and opens the mount up. They literally only have it locked down because they know their consumer offerings are shit and they'll be obsolete the moment Sigma pushes out an f/4 general purpose zoom that's cheaper than native's bullshit f/7.1

>>4444713
>inb4 the next generation of sony medium format sensors that Hasselblad uses will be 2mm bigger
they could just not use the edge pixels

>>4444727
>>Fuji X
>Will persist as the only budget system
baka, the lenses are more expensive than E's.
>Short lived
In DJI we trust.
>>4444733
>>4444744
not the first time I see this conspiracy theory mentioned

>>4444811
>the company that supplies the hardware that is 50% of the camera controls what cameras other companies can make
how is this a conspiracy
>sony can i make a better camera than you?
>no.
thats all they have to do. canon makes their own sensors for a good reason. nikon technically went broke buying RED.
RED has non-sony sensor suppliers and in house sensor r&d.

>>4444823
>> >sony can i make a better camera than you?
>>no.
>thats all they have to do. canon makes their own sensors for a good reason

And then Canon proceeds to make cameras that are not better either. Maybe on the margins slightly better than a snoy.

>>4444721
All of them will be more shortlived than that. There is just too much money in selling a new mount every 15 years.

>>4444721
>L-Mount alliance: well engineered
explain please

>>4445025
Nope, canon cameras arent better at all. They're actually less reliable than sony now. But they are going to survive long term because they aren't dependent on sony, and so is nikon, because they are breaking their dependence on sony.

Panasonic, Fujifilm, and Pentax may die if they can not get sensors elsewhere (pentax could probably switch to dalsa CCDs honestly)

>>4445980
It's a board meme to shill panasonic with doubleplusuntruths because gerald undone probably posts here and gets mad because panasonic forced him to lie or something i forget

>4446016
>doubleplusuntruths
the *what*
>>4446016
>gerald undone
whomst've

>>4446019
i see you dont speak art major

>>4446022
no, I fuck them, talking is reserved for my peers.