Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?

[goodmane]

Another feature request if anyone from Canon is reading: how many of you would like an option to merge all your video files on SD card to one large video file sorted by time /date e.g. one merged h264 video and aac stereo audio, within an mkv container for easy storage?

This would be a dream for me, as I'm fed up of having my family videos in a million files in the video folder, making them difficult to watch passively in succession.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Another feature request if anyone from Canon is reading: how many of you would like an option to merge all your video files on SD card to one large video file sorted by time /date e.g. one merged h264 video and aac stereo audio, within an mkv container for easy storage?

This would be a dream for me, as I'm fed up of having my family videos in a million files in the video folder, making them difficult to watch passively in succession.

Your SD card is going to have a file size limit of 4GB, same as the camera.  Its a limitation of the Fat 32 format, not the camera.  You cannot have one large file on your sd card and still use it in your camera.

We may see cameras go to the NTFS, but Macs can only read it, so that becomes a issue.

[Rocky]

although APS-C is possible, it's just as likely to share a sensor with the G series, which would have the advantage of not needing as large a lenses to feed the sensor, which makes the lenses cheaper to make thus creating a greater profit margin.  I suspect also that the lens range will be large, but also EF/EF-S compatable using an expensive adaptor.

I doubt that canon  will use the sensor from the G series for the upcoming mirrorless. The name of the game is to have a"larger" sensor than its competitators. So APS-C will be a good candidate.  Until Canon can solve the shutter lag issue, all bets are off.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I doubt that canon  will use the sensor from the G series for the upcoming mirrorless. The name of the game is to have a"larger" sensor than its competitators. So APS-C will be a good candidate.  Until Canon can solve the shutter lag issue, all bets are off.

The shutter lag in point and shoots is a function of the time it takes to AF using contrast detect.  A phase detect solution would have no shutter lag.

Canon has patented a small format lens to EF mount adapter for use on a small format or mirrorless camera, so they are definitely think about a small format sensor, and a set of new lenses for interchangable lens cameras.  The patent was posted on CR several weeks ago.

The fact that they actually developed and patented a adapter design says they are serious even though it may never come to pass.

[lol]

I think there are two questions here, with two possible partial answers:

1 - how small could they make a DSLR? I have a film EOS that's much smaller than any digital, so could they shrink one down further? I think the film camera size comes down to only needing space for a thin strip of film before the back of the camera. Now we have a sensor with filter assembly on top of it, and typically a LCD display behind that. Let's say the rear LCD was ditched, and they just relied on the viewfinder for everything (possibly X100 style electronic-hybrid?). How small could that get? Would it be interesting to people? With a small prime on I think it wouldn't be that dissimilar in size to current bigger mirrorless models.

2 - if they go mirrorless, where in the range would they target? The m4/3 and APS-C sensor size is pretty much covered by existing players for example. Could Canon bring something new to that space and not come out with a "me too" product? The tiny sensor like Q I find hard to take off, as you're competing directly with compacts there, and to me I can't see why I would want one over a compact unless the price is slashed right down, but then what's the point? The rumoured small-ish sensor Nikon is more interesting, as you can get smaller lenses than current APS-C models (assuming you're not after strict DoF equivalence) without compromising too much on image quality. That would be a more logical positioning keeping both compacts and SLRs out of the way of self competition. As a wild card, could they go high end only? Go full frame, and make a Leica for the 21st century. I don't think they would have any trouble undercutting Leica pricing anyway...

[Rocky]

I think there are two questions here, with two possible partial answers:

1 - how small could they make a DSLR? I have a film EOS that's much smaller than any digital, so could they shrink one down further? I think the film camera size comes down to only needing space for a thin strip of film before the back of the camera. Now we have a sensor with filter assembly on top of it, and typically a LCD display behind that. Let's say the rear LCD was ditched, and they just relied on the viewfinder for everything....

2 - if they go mirrorless, where in the range would they target? The m4/3 and APS-C sensor size is pretty much covered by existing players for example. Could Canon bring something new to that space and not come out with a "me too" product? The tiny sensor like Q I find hard to take off, as you're competing directly with compacts there, and to me I can't see why I would want one over a compact unless the price is slashed right down, but then what's the point? The rumoured small-ish sensor Nikon is more interesting, as you can get smaller lenses than current APS-C models (assuming you're not after strict DoF equivalence) without compromising too much on image quality. That would be a more logical positioning keeping both compacts and SLRs out of the way of self competition. As a wild card, could they go high end only? Go full frame, and make a Leica for the 21st century. I don't think they would have any trouble undercutting Leica pricing anyway...

The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.
As for the size of sensor,I think Canon need to make it big to be attractive. Otherwise we can just buy a S95 and we will have anything that a mirrorless has got except the interchangable lens.
Personally, I would like to see Canon to make something that will be a M9 competitator With a M mount. ( Canon has been making Leica competitator with Leica mount up to the late 60's)

[lol]

The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.

Look at compact digital cameras, they also have a ton of electronics in them. I can imagine the "stuff" would easily sit in place of where the film rolls would otherwise go. The mechanics between a SLR and DSLR I think would be near enough the same. I do think the LCD on the back is one of the biggest consumers of volume, so removing that would allow bodies to get much smaller. That also removes the need for the power so batteries could be smaller too.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.

Look at compact digital cameras, they also have a ton of electronics in them. I can imagine the "stuff" would easily sit in place of where the film rolls would otherwise go. The mechanics between a SLR and DSLR I think would be near enough the same. I do think the LCD on the back is one of the biggest consumers of volume, so removing that would allow bodies to get much smaller. That also removes the need for the power so batteries could be smaller too.

I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera.  It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo, and many carry their cameras with them to use as a display gallery to show photos they took.

The big user of space is the mirror.  EF Lenses are designed with a focus distance to account for a FF mirror.  Remove the mirror, design new lenses with a short distance to the sensor, and a huge reduction in size occurs.  Thats why the 35mm film point and shoot cameras were much smaller.

Once you remove the mirror and design a new set of lenses, the size of the sensor doesn't have much effect, its the lens design.

Canon could design a new set of lenses with short back focus distance that covered full frame, and make a small FF point and shoot, or interchangable lens camera.  So could the others, but Canon does have a jump in FF technology.  Fast and accurate autofocus is the hurdle.

[neuroanatomist]

So could the others, but Canon does have a jump in FF technology.  Fast and accurate autofocus is the hurdle.

And so far, Canon seems to have consistently tripped and fallen flat when trying to jump that contrast-detect AF hurdle, at least in some product lines.  Perhaps they would import their 'instant AF' technology from the camcorder lineup, which uses an external emitter/detector system to measure subject distance (essentially a 'coarse focus' that is then refined by the contrast AF system) and thus substantially increase AF speed. 

[lol]

I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera.  It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo, and many carry their cameras with them to use as a display gallery to show photos they took.

It could be radical and still be mainstream. I'm not saying remove the ability to playback images on the body, I'm just saying remove it from the back. If they can come up with some kind of hybrid EVF like on the X100 for example, you could review that way.

The big user of space is the mirror.  EF Lenses are designed with a focus distance to account for a FF mirror.  Remove the mirror, design new lenses with a short distance to the sensor, and a huge reduction in size occurs.  Thats why the 35mm film point and shoot cameras were much smaller.

As before I was thinking in two parts, one of which was how small could you make a DSLR? Specifically one that would be compatible with existing accessories. As such, the mirror box stays in that case. I was looking at other areas where size optimisation could occur.

Once you remove the mirror and design a new set of lenses, the size of the sensor doesn't have much effect, its the lens design.

Not entirely true... only shorter focal length lenses could get some benefit. A longer zoom or prime wouldn't get smaller just because you move the mount slightly closer to the sensor. Big sensor still means big lenses (for a given quality, FoV, equivalent f number, ignoring DoF). Look at m4/3 using various compromises to help make lenses simpler. Distortion is less corrected and they rely on software to fix it. Olympus claim a small 75-300, but that's in part because it is slower than anyone else's similar zoom.

[UncleFester]

I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera.  It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo,

Histogram. And to check for burnouts the histogram doesn't always reveal. 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera.  It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo,

Histogram. And to check for burnouts the histogram doesn't always reveal. 

I took photos for 40 years before digital cameras came along in the 1990's without histograms, and I often still do.  Like I said, the LCD isn't going away. its something that too many have come to depend on.  I don't hate it, but with a rangefinder type camera, I would be willing to forgo it.

[ronderick]

I took photos for 40 years before digital cameras came along in the 1990's without histograms, and I often still do.  Like I said, the LCD isn't going away. its something that too many have come to depend on.  I don't hate it, but with a rangefinder type camera, I would be willing to forgo it.

I think an alternative to LCD display screen would be displaying the photos and menus through the EVF. That's how my x100 does it - though having to peek into the viewfinder to check photos and menu can become painful for the eyes at times.

[douflag]

I wonder how my 70-200 f/2.8 would look on this body. Will probably just look like I'm holding the lens.

[hutjeflut]

frankly if it doesnt give better iso preformance and superfast autofocus preformance i cant care less as i fail to see what the advanrtages would be im already willing to trade up in body as my massive hands start getting anoyed by my 450D's small grip and im considering L lenses with USM in the future as micromotor anoyes the *BEEEP* out of me