« on: April 04, 2013, 03:18:15 PM »
There can only be one flagship in a fleet and it's the 1DX
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
To all those stating that Canon couldn't possibly make the "Rebel" series any smaller:The OM-D is micro4/3. With dedicated lenses. I don't think Canon will go micro 4/3 in a DSLR for now.
[scroll down to "Olympus E-M5 versus OM-1" heading]
That would be a "full-frame" 35mm film camera with an enormous pentaprism viewfinder and all the film transport gubbins (albeit, without the need for an LCD screen).
You're all trying to tell me that it's not possible to make a DSLR smaller than a Rebel? Pardon me if I don't believe you.
[P.S. OM mount flange back distance = 46mm; EF mount flange back distance = 44mm]
Nobody's trying to tell it's not possible to make a DSLR smaller than a Rebel, in fact this thread is about a new Canon DSLR smaller than a Rebel. On a side note, the original Rebel/300D from a decade ago was roughly as large as the current FF 6D... For sentimental reasons I still have the 300D, the "black limited edition", which was offered with the grip in bundle. It was my first digital reflex camera.
Did you take a look at the OM-1? I think you'll find that it isn't micro-4/3rds , yet it isn't a whole lot bigger than the OM-D EM5. My point was, if you can make a 35mm film SLR similar in size to the OM-D EM5, you can certainly make an APS-C DSLR smaller than the Rebel. Furthermore, it should be possible to make it without crippling the viewfinder or the handling (the OM-1 was no slouch in either regard).
I said the OM-D is micro 4/3.
I've owned an OM 2n since 1980, then I added an OM 1n and an OM 3, many many Zuiko lenses and, over time, an insane number of accessories for the Olympus system. I've been shooting with them for 30+ years. I went for the Olympus system primarily because of the size and weight. I still have all of them, all in perfect order, I occasionally use them (actually the OM 2n, my preferred one), and I think I know them quite well. Still, I think you can't squeeze all the stuff needed for digital in an OM-sized body currently. Just as an example, an LP-E6 batt alone is about as thick as the OM 1 body itself. But, again, for sure I agree that you can certainly make an APS-C DSLR smaller than today's Rebel, though not as small as the OM 1 or the OM-D.
Auric Goldfinger had his painted in 24 carat gold
You forgot to stencil "AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II" on your black lens.