>>3873945Sure.
>In case of RF vs. EF, the only significant difference is flange distance.If that's the case, i.e. no difference in size mount, then the only improvements will be in wider lenses.
Also about telecentricity, I don't see how a different flange distance would help.
And telecentric lenses are longer focal lengths usually, to begin with.
Olympus embarked quickly on such designs for their 4/3 dSLRs, but even then it was half-telecentric (on the sensor side) iirc, not bi-telecentric. So it seems they were mostly interested on sending parallel rays to the sensor, not accepting exclusively parallel lines from the object side.
Maybe that was due to early digital sensors that were kinda shit at accepting rays at an angle, which is to a big degree solved now, with microlenses, for normal and long focal lengths.
>The light doesn't care if it's a screw-mount, bayonett or a press fit.Obviously.
But usually when manufacturers "update" a mount, they also incorporate other features, unrelated to optical performance.
Maybe the new mount is easier to weather seal to a higher degree, maybe it's more sturdy, or has more electrical contacts to pass on information, etc etc. .
I don't know or particularly care what Canon and Nikon did in practice, I'm only saying what's possible.
I don't buy that new mounts are the second coming of Jesus, neither do I buy though that they're completely useless and a regression from the old ones.
