DSLR sales are up, and as a result it is Sony much more than Panasonic or Olympus that is gaining share.

In terms of size segmentation, while men have three sizes in mind (“pants-pocketable”, “jacket-pocketable”, and “not-pocketable”), women also consider “pursable”.

The “pursable” segment is what the 1000D and 500D with the EF-S kit lens are aimed squarely at. I don’t think the size benefit of going to a mirrorless APS-C setup is worth what you get in this case for most women.

Fundamentally, you can’t get enough performance in man-pocketable optics to outperform a G11 – which trades photo quality for flexibility at the same size when compared to a MFT camera. (Smaller sensor allows smaller zoom lens.)

this seems to make sense and canon will probably call this the Powershot Pro2 or Pro-whatever (more likely than a G-whatever). and while Leica and sigma chose primes for their fixed lens APS-C cameras, Canon won’t be the first to opt for a zoom, the very first non-SLR non-RF digital camera was… the Sony R1 which had a very nice 24-120 zoom, that cam was not compact at all, maybe canon will be the first to have a compact large sensor camera with a fixed-zoom lens (you have to say too many things in order to be able to say “canon is the first” rightfully here). as usual the camera will get some glowing reviews and publicity although it will be somehow crippled as usual with canon, announcement will be on a moonless gloomy day next autumn

However, at this point in the game I have no desire to purchase one. I think they’re too new and the drawbacks vs. cost just plain aren’t worth it to me. In a year or two when there’s more options out there, then I’ll consider it.

I’d like to see a model with no a LCD and a viewfinder, if that’s make it super-compact.

Canon using the 4/3 system would be nice, but I don’t see that happening.

If you stress size over quality, get a point-n-shoot.
If you stress quality over size, get a DSLR and do it right.

When you compromise, no one wins….

1) removing the mirror and the associated systems (leaving the flange focal depth the same) could reduce camera size hight and width wise, but not really depth wise. And I think it is mainly the depth of the camera and the lenses that make our dslr systems so bulky.

2) If they indeed reduce the flange focal depth, very simple adapters could, sure enough, make the old lenses work (micro 4/3 lenses are of course using these adapters), but the adapter would do nothing but adding the missing focal depth, so, again, the overall depth of the system would remain the same. But it they went through the fuss of reducing the flange focal depth it would certainly be because they would design new lenses, and that, again, would be designing a new system.
Else, what would be the point of reducing the focal depth only to have to increase it again with the adapters?

So while I give you guys you could reduce the size of the camera in every dimension and corner except for the depth, I don’t really see the point. I bet you guys, when Canon, Nikon, Sony, and every player in the market begins making (and they will) mirrorless cameras, they will all have the flange distance reduced, and they will all be released with new lenses. They will all be new systems with backwards compatibility via the aforementioned adapters.

Or so I think, anyway

Have a nice day

Well, the empty space I was talking about is that of the movable part of the mirror system, i.e. the piece between the lens and the sensor. So if you don’t reduce the flange focal depth to take advantage of that space, the resulting camera will be exactly as thick as it was with the mirror. And then, the lenses will be the same ones, therefore making the overal depth of the system exactly the same.

Now, I take it that, in your second sentence, you meant that it is the pentaprism on top of the camera that you can indeed remove making the camera smaller, at least height-wise. I take your point, one of the factors that make both the Oly EP-1 and the Panasonic GF1 smaller than the G1 and reflex cameras is their absence of a viewfinder.

However, in my view, it is the depth of the camera the number one factor that can make the overall system significantly smaller, both the depth of the camera itself and the depth of the lenses.

Actually, I’d much rather buy a panasonic G1 in combination with the 20mm pancake, than the GF1 or the EP-1. I just need the viewfinder. When pana or oly (or even Fuji, as rumors say they are joining the M4/3 platform) release a sort of GF1 with a good integrated viewfinder, I’ll be willing to pay a good sum of money to get it.

By the way, if it wasn’t my intention to come off as a know-it-all. I just thought I for once knew a bit about this one, and I think this rumor is really far-fetched.

Peace

That is not strictly correct, just removing the pentaprism, the mirror and the associated systems will make the camera smaller. You get a lot of space that can be used to electronic components since the back of the camera would be presumably occupied by a large screen.

“And if, indeed, you reduce the flange focal depth reducing the size of the camera, all Canon lenses would become unusable, and you would have to design new lenses adapted to the shorter flange focal length, thus, creating a new system.”

Again, not quiet true. If you decided to make the camera MUCH smaller by making a thinner body and changing the focal length you can still use the old lenses with very simple adapters.

No prism immediately takes bulge off the top. Who says the viewfinder has to be centered on the camera? You could put an EVF in the same sort of place like a rangefinder.

Can’t stand people that think they know everything.

BIG, HEAVY lenses SUCK. Big, heavy cameras also SUCK.

“All is not lost in the quest for a small camera body. You can expect a smaller Rebel down the line with an electronic viewfinder. It won’t be as small as the EP1 or GF1, but taking out the mirror box will shrink the size”
——————————————
This is a contradiction in terms.

Removing the mirror from a Canon Rebel to make it smaller would be effectively creating a new system. If you want to make the camera smaller not only do you have to remove the mirror but you also need to reduce the flange focal depth. Otherwise, removing the mirror would only leave an unused empty space inside the camera.

And if, indeed, you reduce the flange focal depth reducing the size of the camera, all Canon lenses would become unusable, and you would have to design new lenses adapted to the shorter flange focal length, thus, creating a new system.

This rumor has zero credibility

Yeah, and medium format sensor, price under $100. Honestly, do you have any idea what you are asking for? Even for a P&S with a tiny sensor this lens would be HUGE and the glass expensive if even feasible to design.