Show Posts
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.
This is good stuff, if canon would be more daring like it used to be, it could make a compact system with super speed primes and a large sensor for general photography. Who want to lug the DSLR around all the time when just a small mirror less and a 35mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor would be better.
A lot of people seems to be disappointed that the Canon Mirrorless will be a G1 X sized sensor , not the FF or APS-C that they are expecting. For me it may be a little bit over reacted. In order to make it "smaller and lighter" canon have no choice but not to use FF. As for G1 X sized sensor, the multiplication factor for the focal length is 1.85 ( based on width) or 1.7 (based on height). Is is necessary to get disappointed because it is not 1.6 multiplication factor??? For me, if Canon gives us FAST AF(or good MF, like the Leica M) and smaller lenses, I will be happy with a smaller sensor.
And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.
May be you are thinking about SLR lens. For range finder ( or mirrorless)lenses, it is different. The wide angle lenses can be made smaller (not necessarily lighter). Summicron 35mm is only 1 1/4 inches outside of the camera body. Skopar 25mm f4.0 is also 1 1/4 inches outside of the cameras body. A M4 body can be pant pocketable with either lens.
Since wide angles and middle-focal-length lenses are the smallest lenses in the kit, generally, who cares?
Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.
This is another point that the peanut gallery is generally missing.
A small, lightweight camera is pointless without small, lightweight lenses.
And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.
So, if you want small and light, you'll either have to go with something slower or that doesn't have as large an image circle. And probably both.
YES. small wide-angle to standard lenses are important. This is EXACTLY why I would love to get a small Canon FF mirrorless body (size like Minolta CLE) with an electrified Leica M mount, call it Canon EM. :-)
You surely know, how really small many of those M-mount fixed focals are? All of them built for 135 image circle. Available all the way to f/0.95 not just f/2.8. I am sure, it is possible to build a 40/1.8 lens for a FF mirrorless cam which is still smaller than the EF 40/2.8 pancake.
Zooms are a bit tougher, but some constant f/4 "kit-zoom", say a Canon "EM" 24-70/f 4.0 IS for FF mirrorless could for sure be quite small. I would even skip manual focusing gear and ring, since i never use it anyways. And 90% of users do neither. And those video guys shall go buy proper Canon camcorders rather than trying to cheapskate on our stills cameras. :-)
...
Now in certain cases the downgrade in viewfinder quality might be worth it for the size saving it offers but for FF DSLR's with zoom or long tele lenses I'm not seeing it in the near future given how unbalanced a system it creates.
A Leica like FF system based on wide/normal primes has more ponteital but really thats a relatively small market and I think the prefference will remain for a Fuji like system that retains a rangefinder like OVF.
Yes, for users of long-teles or other large optical lenses, size of camera body is virtually irrelevant. Although this group is very vocal on tghis and aother photography-related forums, in reality it is a very tiny percentage of the market. I bet, 99% of all pictures made - are or could have just as well been made with lenses of 200mm or even less focal length. This probably holds true for "photo enthusiasts and pros" as well.
Personally, I would accept an EVIL if one explicit limitation was, that I can only use it with lenses to max. 200mm angle-of-view (FF equivalent). I would not accept a system however, that limits me to max. 135mm (like Leica M).
I also like the Fuji X-Pro1 hybrid viewfinder concept "in principle", although I do not find it well enough implemented yet on that very camera. But if Canon did it "really right" ... heck, YES!
Speaking of viewfinders .. on EVILS I love the viefinder position on the side of the camera, rather than smack in the middle as in all DSLRs ... and the rubbing of nose on the back of the camera/main LCD.
And if the photo industry were really customer-oriented, they would even offer the cam in a "right-eye and left-eye version", in order to reach 100% of market with as perfect a product as possible. After all, most cars are avaliable in left/right steering wheel configuration. And many car models have sigbnificantly smaller production runs than successful digital camera models!
They are also noisy and cause vibration
Which is largely irrelevant, and what MLU is for.
...
Again, the problem that mirrorless solves is size and weight. If you're doing the types of photography today where a real viewfinder is the right tool for the job, you probably don't care much about size or weight.
Oh yeah of little faith - it's coming. The flipping mirror is the ancient technology that will go! The electronic viewfinder doesn't have to be anywhere near as good [resolution, noise, etc] as you suggest - as long as you can verify composition and focus - all good. And it will only get better.
Exactly. "Mirrorless" means: finally all-digital, all-electronic cameras. 100% mechanics free ... mechanical shutters will go soon as well. That means less noise and less vibration on top of less size & weight.
Mirrorless is the concept that brings an end to the early days of photography - based on optical components, mechanical components and chemistry. n-degrees of digital freedom from capture to picture. oh yes, baby! :-)
I've heard the same story about how airplane cockpits won't have windows, cars won't have windows, we'll have flat panel displays instead of windows in our homes, rear-view mirrors will be replaced with cameras and displays all for years and years and look what's happened - virtually nothing. That's for a very good reason. A camera and a display just isn't as good as a mirror or a window. A mirror uses zero power, has zero lag and has infinite dynamic range and color gamut. You will NEVER get that good with an EVF. Never. Ever. Maybe you can get close, and maybe you can get close enough for some purposes, but what's the point? What we have now and have had for years and years is BETTER that the EVF endgame so why spend money and time trying to make something that can never get as good as what we already have? Do you want to walk around with a camera on your head wearing glasses with microdisplays in them? Why not just use your eyes?
QuoteI repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and
I couldn't disagree more - ALL cameras will eventually be mirrorless, including 5- or 1- series equivalents. Mirrorless cameras with EVF have many potential advantages. Increased fps, weight, reliability, etc. EVFs [with current AF technology] aren't quite there yet, but I can certainly see the day when they replace OVF - the ability to zoom and control brightness alone should settle the issue. How nice would it be to be able shoot your 85 1.2 wide open in a dark room and be able to confidently manual focus on someones nose!! How many times have people complained that they love the results of the 65 mp-e, but the viewfinder is dark and DOF is shallow making focusing difficult. If you can get the zoom functionality of live view with brightness control in an eye level viewfinder - that'd be the end of OVF.
Sure, and someday we'll all have flying cars.
Electronic viewfinders have a looooooooooooooong way to go before they can be a suitable replacement for a good SLR viewfinder. The resolution will have to get into the several-megapickle range at the least, and we can't cram that much into the LCD on the back. And then there's the lag...basically, the refresh and response rate will have to be in the 100 Hz range or better, and now we're into crazy talk with today's technology even on a large computer display, let alone something miniaturized to the size of an eye-level viewfinder. The computers can't push that many pixels around that fast, for starters. And now you want to add light amplification into the mix? With active noise reduction, I presume?
Yeah, right. Don't hold your breath.
In the mean time, the optical viewfinder works brilliantly for what it's designed to do, and the LCD with quick view satisfies the needs of virtually all of the remaining cases. Those few remaining cases involve available-light photography of black cats at the bottom of a coal mine, and pardon me if I can't be bothered to worried about the people trying to use a camera like that.
Again, the problem that mirrorless solves is size and weight. If you're doing the types of photography today where a real viewfinder is the right tool for the job, you probably don't care much about size or weight.
b&
I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and