April 17, 2014, 07:25:54 AM

Author Topic: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?  (Read 7967 times)

akiskev

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
    • View Profile
    • My flickr gallery
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2011, 05:09:45 AM »
Mirrorless is a must these days. Almost every brand has one, so I will be VERY SURPRISED if Canon won't create one sooner or later..
Flickr | Canon EOS 3 | Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
EF 17-40mm f/4L | EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS | EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS | EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L
Zeiss 35mm f/2.4 | Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 | Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 | Zeiss 200mm f/2.8 | Zeiss 80-200 f/4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2011, 05:09:45 AM »

ronderick

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2011, 10:33:27 PM »
but how many people with a lot already invested in EF glass might buy one just for a small carry-around with a niftyfifty or 35/2 attached?
or as a low-cost lightweight spare? if your 1D4 breaks, card fills up, battery runs flat, whatever, after you've hiked 3km through a swamp, at least you can whip out your EVIL and stick it on your 800mm and still catch that bird (if you don't take 2 eos bodies with you, of course).

Yes, I agree with you that the EVIL with EF-lens adapter would be useful at desperate moments. However, I'd also argue that in the case u've mentioned, I think a second EOS body (600D perhaps) would be more trustworthy than EVIL cameras.

This might not be a fair comparison, but after trying out a Sony lens with the NEX-5 attached at one of the recent trade shows, I seriously wonder about carrying a EVIL body as a backup compared to bringing a smaller DSLR.

Unless Canon really has a way of resolving that AF issue, I think with current AF technology for existing bodies (I can't comment on the E-P3's new capabilities because I haven't had a chance to play with one) obtaining a keeper shot for the bird with EVIL camera would be a lot lower than with another EOS body.

Again, the above statement is assuming that Canon's EVIL is somewhat like Sony's NEX series. Of course, maybe Canon has a better idea on how to approach the EVIL issue; that's up to anybody's guess.
Canon EOS 1D MKIV, EF 24-105mm F/4L, EF 70-200mm F/2.8L, TS-E 17mm F/4L, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
FujiFilm FinePix X100

Rocky

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2011, 01:48:24 AM »
Mirrorless is a must these days. Almost every brand has one, so I will be VERY SURPRISED if Canon won't create one sooner or later..

I think Canon is SMART not to have a EVIL until they can make the AF as fast as the DSLR. As it is now, there is no tested EVIL can match the AF speed of DSLR. In fact they are all around 0.4 to 0.5 second. Which is the same speed of the Point and shoot. If people like to  have a small camera and travel light, S95 or G11 or G12 will be perfect for the usage. Just imagine that with evil body, 2 or three lenses, you will never  travel light and with SLOW AF speed. Is it worth to have EVIL????
Do not get me wrong. I would like to have an EVIL system with the following conditions:
1. AF speed is as fast as the DSLR (0.14 second or less)
2. A set of dedicated lenses from wide angle to medium tele lens .I do not  want to use the large EF or EF-S lens in these focal length. That will defeat the concept of smaller EVIl system.
3. It may be just a dream and will never happen: The EVIL will take Leica M mount lenses
« Last Edit: July 18, 2011, 02:02:30 AM by Rocky »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 7703
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2011, 10:33:38 AM »
Mirrorless is a must these days. Almost every brand has one, so I will be VERY SURPRISED if Canon won't create one sooner or later..

I think Canon is SMART not to have a EVIL until they can make the AF as fast as the DSLR. As it is now, there is no tested EVIL can match the AF speed of DSLR. In fact they are all around 0.4 to 0.5 second. Which is the same speed of the Point and shoot. If people like to  have a small camera and travel light, S95 or G11 or G12 will be perfect for the usage. Just imagine that with evil body, 2 or three lenses, you will never  travel light and with SLOW AF speed. Is it worth to have EVIL????
Do not get me wrong. I would like to have an EVIL system with the following conditions:
1. AF speed is as fast as the DSLR (0.14 second or less)
2. A set of dedicated lenses from wide angle to medium tele lens .I do not  want to use the large EF or EF-S lens in these focal length. That will defeat the concept of smaller EVIl system.
3. It may be just a dream and will never happen: The EVIL will take Leica M mount lenses

Rocky, I think your wish list will happen.  at first, there might only be one or two lenses, but an adapter will be available until a whole family exists.

I think canon dropped a big hint when the patent for the EF to new small lens adapter was published.  They had probably hoped to have the system released by then, but the earthquake stopped all unnecessary production.  They have said that there will be a interesting body next year.

racgordon

  • Guest
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2011, 06:25:09 PM »
This is quite an ingenious device when you consider what it could let you do......

Mount EF lenses on another body with a smaller back focus and retain all the AF and other cool functionality.

This could imply an EVIL which would not shut out existing EF lens owners (If Canon were to price the adapter reasonably, and few manufacturers have ever priced any life extending adapter cheaply - even Pentax charged an arm and a leg for the M42 to K-Mount Adapter originally - but I date myself).

The problem with most of the EVILs out there is that whilst small and even pocketable with a pancake lens, the quickly become ungainly when a kit lens is attached.

The assumption seams to be that EVIL makes DSLRs more approachable for the budding enthusiast.  But that is someone who likely has always had a zoom lens on their point and shoot camera.  Add a zoom lens and the cut small body becomes ungainly, add another lens as well and the economics do not stack up well to the entry level or intermediate level DSLR.
Even the most gadget minded amongst us realize that if it is ungainly, it is not going to get used much.

For EVIL to really take off their has to be a step change in the quality of image sensors, so that you can either get APC-Like quality from a SUB APC imager (and probably something smaller than Micro 4/3)  or alternatively a step change in imager sensitivity and noise processing so that smaller lenses (with greatly reduced maximum F Stops) are viable.

With the exception of Micro 4/3 there is not a lot of glass around for EVILs.  Even if you include Micro 4/3 good lenses appear to be more expensive for anything that is not mainstream (Canon/Nikon and maybe one or two others).

That is just supply and demand economics.

I have a feeling that until there is this dramatic revolutionary (rather than evolutionary) improvement in Image Sensors EVIL will remain a much smaller market than pundits and product managers would like!

__________________________
Art is in the Brain of the beholder!

Rocky

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2011, 07:04:44 PM »
The problem with most of the EVILs out there is that whilst small and even pocketable with a pancake lens, the quickly become ungainly when a kit lens is attached.

For EVIL to really take off their has to be a step change in the quality of image sensors, so that you can either get APC-Like quality from a SUB APC imager (and probably something smaller than Micro 4/3)  or alternatively a step change in imager sensitivity and noise processing so that smaller lenses (with greatly reduced maximum F Stops) are viable.

I have a feeling that until there is this dramatic revolutionary (rather than evolutionary) improvement in Image Sensors EVIL will remain a much smaller market than pundits and product managers would like!


The EVIL sysytem is not intended to be a cheaper DSLR system. It is just  a "smaller" system with picture quality comparable to DSLR.  Therefore if they can make the small sensor (smaller than 4/3) with image as good as the APS-C, I am sure that they will also apply the same technolgy on the APS-C sensor the make the APS-C sensor even better.  So If we want the EVIL to be as good as the APS-C DSLR, The EVIL sensor must be the same size as APS_C.
As for the lens, It is harder to design a lens to have total line pair resolution of APS-C for a small sensor. The lens will need 2 to 3 times more resolutin per mm.
We should try to look at EVIL and DSLR just like the range finder (with interchangeable lens , like Leica and Canon) and DSLR (like Exakta, Canon, Pantacon, Pentax... etc) in the old film days. It is two seperate system to fit the different need of user. Either system may be more expensive than the other. So EVIL should not be in the cost saving path. It should be on the quality path.

ronderick

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2011, 09:55:02 PM »
We should try to look at EVIL and DSLR just like the range finder (with interchangeable lens , like Leica and Canon) and DSLR (like Exakta, Canon, Pantacon, Pentax... etc) in the old film days. It is two seperate system to fit the different need of user. Either system may be more expensive than the other. So EVIL should not be in the cost saving path. It should be on the quality path.

This is the part which I always have a question about: if the m43 evolves along the lines of rangefinders, will there be a difference between the eventual product and the current Leica digital rangefinder? Granted, price-wise there might be a significant difference, but the M-9 already comes with a FF sensor; even better it has a comfortable-looking optical viewfinder.

Is it fair to say that eventually the m43 route would just yield a cheaper M9 with an electronic viewfinder? Even though giiven the size of the 43 sensor and lenses designed specifically for it, I doubt the m43 companies can replace the 43 sensor with a FF sensor.
Canon EOS 1D MKIV, EF 24-105mm F/4L, EF 70-200mm F/2.8L, TS-E 17mm F/4L, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
FujiFilm FinePix X100

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2011, 09:55:02 PM »

Rocky

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2011, 12:24:38 AM »
Is it fair to say that eventually the m43 route would just yield a cheaper M9 with an electronic viewfinder? Even though giiven the size of the 43 sensor and lenses designed specifically for it, I doubt the m43 companies can replace the 43 sensor with a FF sensor.
If there is another EVIL FF, the existing M4/3 EVIL player may be out of the picture. My reasoning is: 1. They got too much investment in M4/3. 2. If they replace theM4/3 with FF, that is almost admitted that they have made a BIG mistake. On the other hand, It is hard to have anybody to do a FF EVIL  from ground up due to the huge capital outlay and the patent right held by Leica for the offset micro lens to minimize the uneven explosure at the corner and the edge of the frame. Even Leica did not start the FF digital from ground up. It uses its existing rangefinder lens that is for M6 onward (Even lenses from M2 to M5 are usable in M9,  ALL Leica lens since day one of Lieca (since 1930??)are usable via a screw mount to M mount adapter). The wonderful view finder and range finder are move over from M7 also.


« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 01:46:28 AM by Rocky »

bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2011, 05:00:17 AM »
when we gonna get mirrorless? just don't the thing in there....

racgordon

  • Guest
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2011, 09:03:21 AM »
The problem with most of the EVILs out there is that whilst small and even pocketable with a pancake lens, the quickly become ungainly when a kit lens is attached.

For EVIL to really take off their has to be a step change in the quality of image sensors, so that you can either get APC-Like quality from a SUB APC imager (and probably something smaller than Micro 4/3)  or alternatively a step change in imager sensitivity and noise processing so that smaller lenses (with greatly reduced maximum F Stops) are viable.

I have a feeling that until there is this dramatic revolutionary (rather than evolutionary) improvement in Image Sensors EVIL will remain a much smaller market than pundits and product managers would like!


The EVIL sysytem is not intended to be a cheaper DSLR system. It is just  a "smaller" system with picture quality comparable to DSLR.  Therefore if they can make the small sensor (smaller than 4/3) with image as good as the APS-C, I am sure that they will also apply the same technolgy on the APS-C sensor the make the APS-C sensor even better.  So If we want the EVIL to be as good as the APS-C DSLR, The EVIL sensor must be the same size as APS_C.
As for the lens, It is harder to design a lens to have total line pair resolution of APS-C for a small sensor. The lens will need 2 to 3 times more resolutin per mm.
We should try to look at EVIL and DSLR just like the range finder (with interchangeable lens , like Leica and Canon) and DSLR (like Exakta, Canon, Pantacon, Pentax... etc) in the old film days. It is two seperate system to fit the different need of user. Either system may be more expensive than the other. So EVIL should not be in the cost saving path. It should be on the quality path.

My point is ergonomic rather than economic although ultimately economics come into it.   Most EVILs with any zoom are not as ergonomically ideal as DSLRs.  The major selling point from the manufacturers pint of view ids that they are more "approachable" by the average user looking for greater quality, thus (the thought goes) we will create demand for another product.  My observation is that in reality they are less approachable as they are less ergonomic when configured as most would like to use them, and in fact are no cheaper in reality.

With a fixed focal length lens they become very akin to a pocketable Rangefinder.

Going off at a tangent for a moment, we also need to think about how retake pictures.  Since for an EVIL to be really compact the viewfinder paradigm needs to be ditched.  Looking at the latest crop (Olympus PEN 3 family. Panasonic 3 etc)  they are getting there by using touch screens but the interfaces are still too slow and the displays not of sufficiently high resolution.  When we can get a high resolution LCD at around 300ppi (Apple "Retina" style) and a generations faster processor then all sorts of interface improvements are possible and I am sure will come. (This technology is probably a year or so away looking at developments in Sartphones and Tablets)

Imaging a fast touch display that let you zoom with a multi-touch movement (a la Apple iPad/iPhone) and then let you pick hyper focal point or let you choose the depth of field by touching a beginning and ending position or conversely let you swipe the area you wanted out of focus etc.  This type of interface makes the EVIL a compelling tool.  It is not there yet but it is coming.

One thing is sure the speed of development of fast low power processors )Moores "Law") is greater than developments in either optical Imaging or optical design.  So (and some will cringe) we will see the ability for the camera to compensate for the inherent limitations in Optical Design and Imager Technology in real time (today we like to pull a raw image and make the adjustments ourselves, but this is a counter intuitive workflow, especially if one wants to capture the essential moment in time a la Cartier Bresson). 

If one looks closer at current Imager Technology and the Bayer Mask it becomes apparent that this is a highly developed "Kludge".  Something more like the Foveon idea makes more sense as it will produce less noise per color channel. I think that the only reason that it has not taken off is that more engineers are focussed of creating workarounds for the limitations of the Bayer Mask.   

This harks back to the old school fight between Leica and Zeiss, of contrast vs. resolution.  For the mass market the Zeiss school of thought won because with the technology of the time higher resolution (compensating for loss due to dispersion)  won out over higher contrast (compensating for loss due to diffraction).

Ultimately change is inevitable just as the bulk of the Canon AE-1P + 35-135 Zoom customers of 25 years ago is now likely to by a $200-#250 Digicam.  It is the mid market that drives oct technology improvements - economies of scale.

__________________________
Art is in the Brain of the Beholder!

Rocky

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #25 on: July 21, 2011, 12:11:53 PM »
Racgordon,  You are asking for a brand new system with technology that does not exist yet, with all the bells and whistles and still want it in midprice range ($200??).Good Luck. Let us face it. as it it now, nobody even has made an EVIL or point and shoot with AF as fast as DSLR. The claim of fast AF of EP-3 has been shot down by a few people in the internet. Your dream EVIL may have to wait a LONG time. I suggest you get a S95 now. It have everything you want (pocketable, good image, zoom lens full control etc,)except the touch screen.

racgordon

  • Guest
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2011, 02:35:03 PM »
No, I am quite happy with my G10 for when I don't want to crack around a couple of bodies and lots of glass.

I think that if you look at the rate at which Panasonic (especially) has advanced the usability of their EVILs what I describe will be here in two years.

Yes all of these EVILs have new lens systems, even Micro 4/3 was an update to the original 4/3 format.  If canon were to do an EVIL then their lenses might be cheaper as the Canon Brand is worth something in the market place and they stand a good chance of selling better than other EVILs just because of Brand recognition.  The positive thing I see is that this patent application appears to deal with using existing lenses with dull functionality on a new system.

As to quality............

Well there is objective quality (no pun intended) but most people tend to argue about subjective quality.  I wonder how often photographers (Amateur and Pro - and lets remember the Amateur market is far larger than the pro market) ever really push their equipment to the very edge of performance.

The only instance that comes to mind easily is low light shooting.........

The point I am making is that all of us (Pros and Amateurs) tend to buy above our needs. (There are lots of valid reasons for doing so).  But a Canon Evil of 2012 may well give the same quality (maybe lower resolution and fewer fps) as a 7D of 2010 simple because of the improvements in imager technology and especially in camera processing.

I recently looked at some image files I shot with a Kodak DCS-420 using Nikon ED glass in the mid 90s and compared it to some image files shot with a Panasonic Pocket (2010 bottom of the line).

Their is a night and day difference in quality.  The Imagers have maybe gone through 5 or 6 generations but still use the same basic technology the ASICs and DSPs that do the in camera post processing (noise removal, compensating for bayer mask etc) etc etc have developed at a far greater rate.  Look at the power of the typical PC mid 90s and look today.

moreorless

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2011, 10:09:48 AM »
With a fixed focal length lens they become very akin to a pocketable Rangefinder.

If comsumer awareness of the advantages of a large sensor increases I'm wondering if fix focal lenght might not become rather more acceptable?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2011, 10:09:48 AM »