A New DSLR Line from Canon? [CR1]

[traveller]

To all those stating that Canon couldn't possibly make the "Rebel" series any smaller:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/omd-em5A.HTM

[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). 

Now compare:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#333,289

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]

[EchoLocation]

why does this have to be entry level? why cant Canon make a full frame interchangeable lens camera with a form smaller than a DSLR.
I know some of you out there cant hold tiny cameras, but for me, walking or carrying a backpack for 8 or 12 hours in a day around town, or walking to work, traveling, size and quality is everything... along with quick and accurate AF.
Canon, please make this dream of mine come true.

[pierlux]

To all those stating that Canon couldn't possibly make the "Rebel" series any smaller:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/omd-em5A.HTM

[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). 

Now compare:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#333,289

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]

The OM-D is micro4/3. With dedicated lenses. I don't think Canon will go micro 4/3 in a DSLR for now.

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.

[RTPVid]

If it is much smaller than a Rebel then how will you hold it?

...but back then we didn't know different.

Maybe you didn't...




In fact, the Olympus OM-1 was introduced with one of its major selling points being that it was smaller than the typical SLR.

It seems to be a DSLR enthusiast thing that small is bad.

[traveller]

To all those stating that Canon couldn't possibly make the "Rebel" series any smaller:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/omd-em5A.HTM

[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). 

Now compare:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#333,289

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]

The OM-D is micro4/3. With dedicated lenses. I don't think Canon will go micro 4/3 in a DSLR for now.

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). 

[pierlux]

To all those stating that Canon couldn't possibly make the "Rebel" series any smaller:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/omd-em5A.HTM

[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). 

Now compare:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#333,289

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]

The OM-D is micro4/3. With dedicated lenses. I don't think Canon will go micro 4/3 in a DSLR for now.

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.

[Dimson]

i'm not sure i understand this completely...
on one hand you say "make a smaller DSLR with EVF"
on another hand making a camera with EVF will eliminate the need in mirror box and prism, effectively moving this camera out of DSLR category and closer to large ILC

i can understand the will to make the rebel line even smaller and appeal to those looking to advance from the compact P&S but fearing the size of an entry DSLR. but then, they can just do it and not introduce a whole new line

making an eos-m and rebel hybrid that would be placed in the middle is pointless imho and would only confuse people who have to make a choice

[moreorless]

why does this have to be entry level? why cant Canon make a full frame interchangeable lens camera with a form smaller than a DSLR.
I know some of you out there cant hold tiny cameras, but for me, walking or carrying a backpack for 8 or 12 hours in a day around town, or walking to work, traveling, size and quality is everything... along with quick and accurate AF.
Canon, please make this dream of mine come true.

The 6D does seem to be looking to cater for a smaller FF body so I'm not sure we'll see something similar released in the next couple of years.

To me the most obvious gap in Canon's DSLR lineup seems to a be a high end but compact ASPC body akin to say the K-5, perhaps taken even further. Canon still seems to hold to the "bigger = better" line of marketing but I think were starting to see a change there with the likes of the NEX 7 and the XE-1. Of course bigger does equal better within those lineups but the higher end mirrorless bodies are I'd guess taking more of there market share from DSLR's than entry level mirrorless.

A Rebel sized(but nicer styled) body with say the latest sensor, 7D AF/FPS and metal/sealed build would IMHO do alot to combat this.

[Don Haines]

Along with last week’s 7D spec list, we also received what is said to be the next EOS-M camera. A lot of people haven’t jumped on the EOS-M system yet, whether it’s the bad rap the AF gets, or the lack of lenses in the system, sales are quite weak for the little EOS camera. Most people seem to want something a little bit higher end, or at least be able to add accessories to improve the usability of the camera.
Specifcations


24mp APS-C Sensor
New generation AF system
DIGIC V
Removable Electronic Viewfinder (Very high resolution)
Optional grip attachment
5fps
Slightly larger than the current EOS M
Introduced with 3 more lenses
$999 USD

Now, all of that sounds like pretty much everyones wish list, so take this CR1 rumor with a grain of salt. I will say that the next EOS M camera is definitely pointing to being higher end from other information we’ve received. An entry level EOS M system camera could be coming in early 2014 and sit in the sub $500 category.

Remember this from a month ago.......don't the two rumors seem a bit to close to not be talking about the same thing?

[traveller]

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 body itself.

We're talking at cross purposes here, so I'm not going to continue down this road (I've culled the reply-counter reply chain, as it was getting ridiculous!).  You know better than most how small a 35mm camera can be made; do you not feel that the OM series feel more compact than the "Digital Rebels"? I can't see any reason why it would not be possible to make a DSLR this small (i.e. roughly comparible in size to the micro 4/3rds OMD EM-5).  I can understand your concern about the battery size, but I can't see that this would be any more of a problem with a DSLR than with a mirrorless body.  In fact, DSLRs tend to be less power hungry because they're not constantly running the sensor - LCD/EVF to provide viewfinding capabilities. 

[mrsfotografie]

Yes, I DO mean native eos-M mount. Just to get the size down.

I agree, seems logical with an EVF.

On that, I just got my NEX-6 today and am impressed with the EVF-aside from a little lag when panning and a little refresh flicker it looks surprisingly much like an optical viewfinder.

Yes, Canon you're too late with a good compact system camera, I just bought a Sony  .

[bseitz234]

i'm not sure i understand this completely...
on one hand you say "make a smaller DSLR with EVF"
on another hand making a camera with EVF will eliminate the need in mirror box and prism, effectively moving this camera out of DSLR category and closer to large ILC

Not quite- prism, maybe, but you'd still need a mirror for PDAF. And while I'd be open to the idea of an EVF if the right one came along, you'd have to really sell me an SLR that only had CDAF.

[pierlux]

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 body itself.

We're talking at cross purposes here, so I'm not going to continue down this road (I've culled the reply-counter reply chain, as it was getting ridiculous!).  You know better than most how small a 35mm camera can be made; do you not feel that the OM series feel more compact than the "Digital Rebels"? I can't see any reason why it would not be possible to make a DSLR this small (i.e. roughly comparible in size to the micro 4/3rds OMD EM-5).  I can understand your concern about the battery size, but I can't see that this would be any more of a problem with a DSLR than with a mirrorless body.  In fact, DSLRs tend to be less power hungry because they're not constantly running the sensor - LCD/EVF to provide viewfinding capabilities.

Traveller, maybe we're talking at cross purposes, in fact I've always ended agreeing that it is likely possible to further shrink a Rebel body, I've even edited the last post while you were typing to make this as clear as possible. But maybe not.  I do feel the OM series is more compact than rebels, that's doubtless, it's a fact. But, at present, an APS-C DSLR can't be as compact as a film OM or the OM-D, no way. You provided correct measurements for the flange-focal plane distances of the old OM system (46 mm)  and for EF/ EF-S (44 mm, in fact you can mount Zuiko lenses on EOS cameras with a cheap adapter 2mm thick), but you don't provide the distance for the OM-D, which is 20 mm, if I remember well. Therefore, in any case, at present the answer is that unfortunately it's NOT possible to engineer an EF/EF-S DSLR to make it as compact as, or comparable to, the OM-D. 24mm difference is roughly 1 inch, you can't put aside this fact. Don't feel offended, I insisted to make this clear, not to hurt you in any way. 

[c.d.embrey]

... to make the rebel line even smaller and appeal to those looking to advance from the compact P&S but fearing the size of an entry DSLR. ...

UK Fashion Shooter Jonathan Posner has stepped-up from Canon's Full Frame 5D2 to the M4/3 Olympus OM-D http://jonathanposner.tumblr.com/post/40780795719/my-olympus-challenge-10 To quote Jonathan Posner "Good enough for Vogue Italia, good enough for me."

There are a lot of seasoned professionals who are tired of lugging-around un-necessarly large/heavy cameras and their large/heavy lenses.

I'd be interested in a smaller EF mount APS-C camera with an EVF. Canon really needs to introduce some EF-S primes for use with this camera. A 22mm f/1.8 (=36mm FF) would be a good start followed by a 15mm f/1.8 (=24mm FF). I already have the EF 85mm f/1.8

[iaind]

To all those stating that Canon couldn't possibly make the "Rebel" series any smaller:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/omd-em5A.HTM

[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). 

Now compare:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#333,289

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]

The OM-D is micro4/3. With dedicated lenses. I don't think Canon will go micro 4/3 in a DSLR for now.

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.

I still have OM 1,2 and 3 bodies and winders and a few Zuiko lenses. With a few mods it could be possible to
reconfigure the winder to a battery pack and incorporate a sensor FF or APSC.

Zuiko 50 1.4 is still in use with an EOS adaptor