September 02, 2014, 08:43:01 PM

Author Topic: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]  (Read 8272 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4158
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2013, 08:51:22 PM »
Another Retro Camera (A-1) to copy Nikon?  I really doubt if Canon would cripple a camera to the extent that Nikon did.
 
Canon did have a Hybrid viewfinder patent, as I recall.  Its been a couple of years back.  Now with the dual pixel system, it mike make sense.

I seriously hope not. I have no problem with a retro look, and a stills-dedicated camera...but the Df probably has the worst thought out control system on the planet. Stacked dials?

I don't suspect Canon will, either. I've been digging around the net looking up Nikon history. One thing Nikon does, that Canon doesn't (or at least, not nearly as much of) is release unique and interesting camera models. Nikon has done this for years, probably even decades. They even have a 24karat gold plated camera with real lizard skin grip...it LOOKS truly amazing, it's worth around $20 grand, and there are only like 2000. It's intriguing, it's interesting, it certainly makes the fans rave...

...but, I have to ask: If Nikon did not expend so much time, effort, and money developing frivolous one-off camera models that intrigue the mind and senses, but otherwise don't actually offer any truly compelling advances, and instead invested all that time, effort, and money being a more financially and competitively stable company...would Nikon be Canon's greatest threat today?
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2013, 08:51:22 PM »

mkabi

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2013, 09:44:45 PM »
What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?


That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason.  There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?
Canon 7D - EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L, EF - 20mm f/2.8, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 100mm f/2.0, Custom Cine 50mm & Custom Cine 35mm

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1468
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2013, 09:45:03 PM »
Bring it on!

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4158
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2013, 09:57:16 PM »
What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?


That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason.  There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?

You do realize that "taking pictures of photons" isn't really what the femtocamera does, right? It actually takes millions of frames through a microscopic slit, basically time-slicing the movement of millions of separate pulses of light. It can't actually record the motion of light waves in a single  "frame"...it has to take hundreds of millions to billions of frames, which are then processed via very specialized software, in order to make an actual video clip. The device is rather large, bulky, power hungry, and is unlikely to ever look anything like a normal camera. I suspect it will eventually be shrunk in size, and probably packaged into scientific grade devices where such high speed "photography" could be immensely useful for scientific purposes. But there isn't going to be a million fps digital camera capable of actually taking anything that even remotely resembles a "picture" one millionth of a second long on the market any time soon...  :P ::)
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

mkabi

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2013, 10:17:56 PM »
What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?


That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason.  There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?

You do realize that "taking pictures of photons" isn't really what the femtocamera does, right? It actually takes millions of frames through a microscopic slit, basically time-slicing the movement of millions of separate pulses of light. It can't actually record the motion of light waves in a single  "frame"...it has to take hundreds of millions to billions of frames, which are then processed via very specialized software, in order to make an actual video clip. The device is rather large, bulky, power hungry, and is unlikely to ever look anything like a normal camera. I suspect it will eventually be shrunk in size, and probably packaged into scientific grade devices where such high speed "photography" could be immensely useful for scientific purposes. But there isn't going to be a million fps digital camera capable of actually taking anything that even remotely resembles a "picture" one millionth of a second long on the market any time soon...  :P ::)

What would I do with a million fps camera? Nothing.
But I'm talking about the possibility that some day there will be a camera both stills and motion based that we won't care that it does both.
Canon 7D - EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L, EF - 20mm f/2.8, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 100mm f/2.0, Custom Cine 50mm & Custom Cine 35mm

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4158
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2013, 12:07:54 AM »
What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?


That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason.  There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?

You do realize that "taking pictures of photons" isn't really what the femtocamera does, right? It actually takes millions of frames through a microscopic slit, basically time-slicing the movement of millions of separate pulses of light. It can't actually record the motion of light waves in a single  "frame"...it has to take hundreds of millions to billions of frames, which are then processed via very specialized software, in order to make an actual video clip. The device is rather large, bulky, power hungry, and is unlikely to ever look anything like a normal camera. I suspect it will eventually be shrunk in size, and probably packaged into scientific grade devices where such high speed "photography" could be immensely useful for scientific purposes. But there isn't going to be a million fps digital camera capable of actually taking anything that even remotely resembles a "picture" one millionth of a second long on the market any time soon...  :P ::)

What would I do with a million fps camera? Nothing.
But I'm talking about the possibility that some day there will be a camera both stills and motion based that we won't care that it does both.

The needs of motion based photography are different than the needs of stills based photography. You can always have a better stills camera if you focus on making a better stills camera. Just because you can capture a thousand frames per second at high resolution doesn't mean that any one of those "frames" will be acceptable as a still photograph.

Sure, we can have both, but you can have better of each if you dedicate research to both independently.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

mkabi

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2013, 01:01:49 AM »
What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?


That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason.  There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?

You do realize that "taking pictures of photons" isn't really what the femtocamera does, right? It actually takes millions of frames through a microscopic slit, basically time-slicing the movement of millions of separate pulses of light. It can't actually record the motion of light waves in a single  "frame"...it has to take hundreds of millions to billions of frames, which are then processed via very specialized software, in order to make an actual video clip. The device is rather large, bulky, power hungry, and is unlikely to ever look anything like a normal camera. I suspect it will eventually be shrunk in size, and probably packaged into scientific grade devices where such high speed "photography" could be immensely useful for scientific purposes. But there isn't going to be a million fps digital camera capable of actually taking anything that even remotely resembles a "picture" one millionth of a second long on the market any time soon...  :P ::)

What would I do with a million fps camera? Nothing.
But I'm talking about the possibility that some day there will be a camera both stills and motion based that we won't care that it does both.

The needs of motion based photography are different than the needs of stills based photography. You can always have a better stills camera if you focus on making a better stills camera. Just because you can capture a thousand frames per second at high resolution doesn't mean that any one of those "frames" will be acceptable as a still photograph.

Sure, we can have both, but you can have better of each if you dedicate research to both independently.

I beg to differ...
Have you heard of the saying that it takes 10,000 pictures to get 1 good shot?

I'm sure that they are independently researched, but they come together so well...

How many of us complain that our cell phones can play music, surf the net and host a bunch of applications?
How many of us complain that a phone should be a phone and all the others should be separate?

Why is it that you hate video so much? Do you not watch any movies, home made and otherwise?
People here in this forum say that if they want video, they would get a camcorder or a video camera....
So if you go on vacation, you would rather carry 2 different bodies and shoot stills with one and video with another?

Also, how many camcorders allow us to change lenses? As I said before, video is in every way like stills... I want wide angle, medium and close ups, even macro shots. I want shallow depth of field, creamy bokeh in my video. Can a regular camcorder provide that for me?

They say that the AA filter is giving them a softer image, so give me a shot that you are proud of... and tell me why the AA filter got in the way of your shot.
Canon 7D - EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L, EF - 20mm f/2.8, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 100mm f/2.0, Custom Cine 50mm & Custom Cine 35mm

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2013, 01:01:49 AM »

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2013, 08:42:52 AM »
@mkabi: all you and your video buddies need are better videocams/camcorders. So please go and ask manufacturers for better videocams. If you think Canon's C-### videocams are grossly overpriced or lacking in performance and features then ask Canon to make better ones and cheaper ones Or get yourself  a full-frame sensored Sony Camcorder with interchangeable lens mount for less than 3k. Unlike any DSLR it is perfectly suited to capture videos.

But please do not try to force ever more video-optimized crap upon stills photgraphers who may occasionally like to WATCH a film or video but have no desire whatsoever to MAKE videos/films with their cameras.

I have been unwantingly using "video-enabled" cameras for more than 10 years now. I had to pay for those video features that was forced upon me with no option to leave it out. And in all those years I have never ever captured anything other than a 15 second test clips with them, just to see if a new camera is fully functional.

I am also NOT interested in a video-optimized hybrid-EVF camera. What I want is a Sony A7R-killer from Canon: a very compact,  "stills-optimized" mirrorless camera with the best possible-IQ FF sensor (hi res, high DR, low noise up to very high ISO), an excellent AF-system [5D 3 or better], contemporary connectivity features [WiFi, GPS, Radio flash controller] and a highly efficient, easy to use "stills-oriented" user interface. Video? Well, yes - as a LiveView feed.

And instead of Hybrid EVF/OVF I want a truly hi-end EVF only. 4k resolution, no discernible lag, no black-out. :-)
« Last Edit: December 22, 2013, 08:44:32 AM by AvTvM »

Orangutan

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2013, 10:22:49 AM »
I have been unwantingly using "video-enabled" cameras for more than 10 years now. I had to pay for those video features that was forced upon me with no option to leave it out.

For the benefit of any new readers, this myth has been debunked in several other threads.

And we now have empirical evidence against the myth: the Nikon Df costs around $1000 more than the comparable D610, a video-enabled DSLR.

So video enthusiasts, please subsidize my next DSLR!

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2040
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2013, 11:12:58 AM »
I have been unwantingly using "video-enabled" cameras for more than 10 years now. I had to pay for those video features that was forced upon me with no option to leave it out.

For the benefit of any new readers, this myth has been debunked in several other threads.

And we now have empirical evidence against the myth: the Nikon Df costs around $1000 more than the comparable D610, a video-enabled DSLR.

So video enthusiasts, please subsidize my next DSLR!

You beat me to it. I am so tired of threads devolving into the same basic arguments over and over again. I am even more tired of people repeating myths that are contrary to the facts.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4158
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2013, 12:35:13 PM »
What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?


That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason.  There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?

You do realize that "taking pictures of photons" isn't really what the femtocamera does, right? It actually takes millions of frames through a microscopic slit, basically time-slicing the movement of millions of separate pulses of light. It can't actually record the motion of light waves in a single  "frame"...it has to take hundreds of millions to billions of frames, which are then processed via very specialized software, in order to make an actual video clip. The device is rather large, bulky, power hungry, and is unlikely to ever look anything like a normal camera. I suspect it will eventually be shrunk in size, and probably packaged into scientific grade devices where such high speed "photography" could be immensely useful for scientific purposes. But there isn't going to be a million fps digital camera capable of actually taking anything that even remotely resembles a "picture" one millionth of a second long on the market any time soon...  :P ::)

What would I do with a million fps camera? Nothing.
But I'm talking about the possibility that some day there will be a camera both stills and motion based that we won't care that it does both.

The needs of motion based photography are different than the needs of stills based photography. You can always have a better stills camera if you focus on making a better stills camera. Just because you can capture a thousand frames per second at high resolution doesn't mean that any one of those "frames" will be acceptable as a still photograph.

Sure, we can have both, but you can have better of each if you dedicate research to both independently.

I beg to differ...
Have you heard of the saying that it takes 10,000 pictures to get 1 good shot?

I'm sure that they are independently researched, but they come together so well...

How many of us complain that our cell phones can play music, surf the net and host a bunch of applications?
How many of us complain that a phone should be a phone and all the others should be separate?

Why is it that you hate video so much? Do you not watch any movies, home made and otherwise?
People here in this forum say that if they want video, they would get a camcorder or a video camera....
So if you go on vacation, you would rather carry 2 different bodies and shoot stills with one and video with another?

Also, how many camcorders allow us to change lenses? As I said before, video is in every way like stills... I want wide angle, medium and close ups, even macro shots. I want shallow depth of field, creamy bokeh in my video. Can a regular camcorder provide that for me?

They say that the AA filter is giving them a softer image, so give me a shot that you are proud of... and tell me why the AA filter got in the way of your shot.

Well, first off, I disagree that it takes 10,000 photos to get 1 good one. I would say the ratio is more along the lines of 100 to 1 for an average photographer, and considerably less than that for a skilled photographer. That argument generally implies that the photographer doesn't matter, and that if you capture enough frames, a good photo will happen by chance. Possibly, but that is most certainly NOT what having a good stills camera is all about.

The opposite, actually. A good stills photography camera is all about making it easier to get a good shot EVERY time, not once every ten thousand shots! I could probably rest my argument on that alone...but...

Cell phones are not artists tools (not by design.) By design, a cell phone, or as they are more appropriately called these days smartphones and phablets, are multipurpose devices. Of course we don't complain that they can do a lot of things...that is what they are designed to do. They aren't meant to be the best still photography camera money can buy, nor will they ever be. They are meant to be general purpose devices that allow you to augment their functionality in a wide variety of ways via apps so you can COMPUTE ON THE RUN. Sorry, but I don't see any analogy between a smartphone and a camera. One is designed for computing, the other is designed for art.

Regarding me "hating" video, don't put words in my mouth! I really dislike that! I have in no way said I hate video! On the contrary, I would love to make videos of the nature I photograph. It is just impractical to try and do both stills photography and cinematography at the same time, and do both well. As I said before, the two have different core goals, and therefor need equipment tuned for different purposes. I mean, I CAN take photographs with my Lumia 920, and they are pretty nice...but they are always lacking, even when I put in all the effort I have into making them as good as possible. Sure, my Lumia 920 can take video as well, but movies aren't about video...movies are about storytelling, and using the facets of optics to portray that story in a beautiful way. I WANT to do video...but to achieve the kind of storytelling through motion picture that I want, I need to dedicate time and equipment to it. To that end, if/when I get into it, I'll buy a camera actually designed for cinematography.

As for vacation...I wouldn't bring along high end equipment. I'd bring along something like an EOS-M instead. Vacations aren't professional photography or cinematography outings, they are vacations...time to spend with the family, sightsee but not necessarily spend hours photographing each sight, etc. I could take family videos and decent photography with that one tiny little camera, and still have the option to change lenses for different needs. But the needs of a vacation are radically different from the needs I have for my photography, or the needs I would have if I truly wanted to put together a quality movie of the natural world I photograph. I would indeed lug along both separate stills and cinema cameras if I intended to do both, however I'd keep such trips separate from "vacations."

To be quite frank, I feel, as a photographer, that my explicit needs HAVE been glossed over by Canon in some ways. I feel as though if they dedicated some more effort to making a better stills camera, they would, and it would be on the market faster. The simple fact of the matter is I KNOW they are sharing resources, developing some stills technology but even more cinematography technology, and that as a stills photographer, I'm not getting as much from Canon as I used to. Your lofty vision of video cameras that can be ideal for both stills photography and cinematography, assuming it is possible, is a VERY LONG, LONG way off. Decade or two at least. Sorry. but I'm not willing to wait that long for the mere possibility that something like a 10,000fps "camera" that can produce video or stills, might eventually appear.

Sorry, but there could be immediate value to Canon investing a few more resources into stills specific photography research, the results of which could be seen soon, rather than decades down the road. I don't hate video, but I would rather it not be the primary focus of research for stills photography devices. I would rather we not have this endless march towards hybrid devices. I think Canon could produce both better stills cameras AND better cinema cameras by dedicating research teams to both, keeping the two separate. The Cinema EOS line, while not a bad start, still lags far behind the competition, just like their stills cameras are. Companies like Red are already pushing 20 stops of dynamic range...Cinema EOS is still stuck at less than 12. They have to deal with extra crap to blend the two technologies together, and I think that is sapping energy from both as individual technologies.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4158
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2013, 12:38:35 PM »
I have been unwantingly using "video-enabled" cameras for more than 10 years now. I had to pay for those video features that was forced upon me with no option to leave it out.

For the benefit of any new readers, this myth has been debunked in several other threads.

And we now have empirical evidence against the myth: the Nikon Df costs around $1000 more than the comparable D610, a video-enabled DSLR.

So video enthusiasts, please subsidize my next DSLR!

The extra cost of the Df is probably 90% artificial, simply tacked on because of the cameras "prestige" as a retro-styled, completely manual device. From an actual cost standpoint, I would be surprised if the Df actually cost more to make than the D610.

So sorry, but I don't think that argument really holds any water, at least from the standpoint of demonstrating that video enthusiasts are subsidizing still photography advances. That would be speculation, at best.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Orangutan

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2013, 01:23:39 PM »
I have been unwantingly using "video-enabled" cameras for more than 10 years now. I had to pay for those video features that was forced upon me with no option to leave it out.

For the benefit of any new readers, this myth has been debunked in several other threads.

And we now have empirical evidence against the myth: the Nikon Df costs around $1000 more than the comparable D610, a video-enabled DSLR.

So video enthusiasts, please subsidize my next DSLR!

The extra cost of the Df is probably 90% artificial, simply tacked on because of the cameras "prestige" as a retro-styled, completely manual device. From an actual cost standpoint, I would be surprised if the Df actually cost more to make than the D610.

Why do you dismiss the importance of this?  There is strong demand, but from a very small market.  As Father Guido Sarducci taught us decades ago, it all boils down to "supply and demand."  Add to this the cost of distributing marginal R&D across the total sales volume, and you can't help but have a higher-priced device.

Again, I urge you not to think of this as an engineering problem, that's the wrong approach; pricing is a business problem, not an engineering problem.

And yet one more thing: imagine the support costs for any manufacturer when the flood of calls come in from n00bs who inadvertently bought the cheaper, stills-only model, and are wondering where the !@#$% the video button is.  A niche camera must be higher-priced to keep the n00bs from buying it.  As an example, why is the D800E more expensive than the D800?  This is not generated by engineering; if it were, the D800E would be cheaper.  It's driven by business/marketing/support decisions.

BTW, I do 99% stills, and often forget I have video on my body.  I really should play with video more.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2013, 01:23:39 PM »

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2013, 02:08:47 PM »
Again, I urge you not to think of this as an engineering problem, that's the wrong approach; pricing is a business problem, not an engineering problem.

Even if all the video crap in DSLSr would really be "for free" (which it is not) I still would like to have a choice. And no, I am not interested in agrossly overpriced, useless UI retro Nikon DSLR (Df) but much more so in a a 5D IVs ... "video-free" in a Sony A7 sized body. :-)

dgatwood

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 678
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2013, 02:43:25 PM »
But please do not try to force ever more video-optimized crap upon stills photgraphers who may occasionally like to WATCH a film or video but have no desire whatsoever to MAKE videos/films with their cameras.

The thing is, though, the statistical majority of photographers who buy DSLRs are not pros.  They're people who just want a great camera to take pictures of their kids, take pictures of their trips, etc.  Those folks want video functionality, not because they want something that's great for video, but because they know they'll occasionally want to be able to capture video and won't want to carry a separate device.

I am also NOT interested in a video-optimized hybrid-EVF camera. What I want is a Sony A7R-killer from Canon: a very compact,  "stills-optimized" mirrorless camera with the best possible-IQ FF sensor (hi res, high DR, low noise up to very high ISO), an excellent AF-system [5D 3 or better], contemporary connectivity features [WiFi, GPS, Radio flash controller] and a highly efficient, easy to use "stills-oriented" user interface. Video? Well, yes - as a LiveView feed.

IMO, putting a full-frame sensor in a mirrorless camera makes little sense, because none of the mirrorless lenses are capable of providing coverage for a full-size sensor.  So unless they add yet another incompatible lens form factor, you're only going to get to use that extra surface area if you're using a full-size EF lens, and even then, only with an adapter that inherently degrades IQ compared with a standard body.

And the only advantages a mirrorless body would have over a traditional FF body would be the thickness and the ability to use it with EF-M lenses, but if you actually tried to use EF-M lenses, you'd have to settle for lower resolution unless they make an insanely high-resolution FF chip (and if they do, I'd place bets that you'll see it in a 1D body long before you see it in a mirrorless).

BTW, if the camera has to support video for live view mode anyway, the extra effort needed to record that video is basically zero.  So it's a real benefit for most folks, and costs you nothing.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2013, 02:43:25 PM »