Thoughts From Canon on a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera

[Hesbehindyou]

If we discount misinformation for competitors, then he's asking these rhetorical questions to hint at what's coming.  My take:

<li>Does a mirrorless camera really need interchangeable lenses?</li>

Their mirrorless contender will have a fixed zoom not interchangeable lenses.  Faster in-camera processing of lens aberrations means it'll be easier to cram in that zoom lens and maintain picture quality.

Can we make a compact or DSLR that can beat the mirrorless cameras? (they believe they have it)

They're attacking from both sides - DSLR for the interchangeable lens fans, compact with a zoom for everyone else.

Higher sensitivity rather than high resolution (probably refers to quality over megapixels)

It'll have relatively low resolution sensor and will be larger than the Nikon.

Keeping the camera small, with a zoom of around 24-70 at around f2.8 will mean no APS-C sensor; the lens will be bigger than they want.  If Nikon and Pentax's small-sensored offerings do not do well then we can at least expect a larger sensor than these.  Taking the hint of relatively low MP, the sensor will be based on a DSLR sensor but will be 'cropped'.  How much will it be cropped?  To a size that lets the camera & lens fit into a large pocket.

[Lee Jay]

once you've removed the need for the reflex system with ultra high resolution EVFs and on-sensor phase detect AF, why bother with a mirror - flappy or transluscent ? 

So your viewfinder has no lag, doesn't suck your battery dry, works in extremely low light, and doesn't ruin your dark adaptation while doing it.

[Edwin Herdman]

They're attacking from both sides - DSLR for the interchangeable lens fans, compact with a zoom for everyone else.

Keeping the status quo is not "attacking."

[Bengt Nyman]

Once you've replaced the reflex system with a high resolution EVF and on-sensor phase detect AF, why bother with a mirror.

I agree 100%.
I would add Sony to your list of companies showing the way.
The next revolution will come in form of light and compact nano glass.

[Viggo]

Why bother with a mirror? Wow....

If you try burst mode and af between frames on a A77 and 7D, that will answer your question. The day I can't by a camera with optical VF, it's the day I find another hobby. The EVF suck.... Plus, the way Sony have done it is by reducing the amount of light in by 30%, yeah, that's what we need for photo, LESS light....

Why are we so desperate to get rid of the mirror? You don't buy a 1-series Canon despite of it's size and weight and mirror and af and FF, you buy it because of all those things. The hybrids are glorified lens-caps.

For those who just don't get the advantage of a mirror and Phase-AF, there's always a NEX or a GF3, but to claim we should loose the mirror-system all together is a completely two-cans-short-of a six-pack-statement...

[Hesbehindyou]

They're attacking from both sides - DSLR for the interchangeable lens fans, compact with a zoom for everyone else.

Keeping the status quo is not "attacking."

Meh, thought the context made it obvious what I meant.  I should have made it explicit I was talking about the new camera from Canon, the one designed to take on the mirrorless cameras.

[briansquibb]

They wouldn't have to make it compatible with the EF mount, because I doubt someone is going to attach a 70-200L II to something so small.

... they might want to attach the 17-40 or 24-105.

[traveller]

Why bother with a mirror? Wow....

If you try burst mode and af between frames on a A77 and 7D, that will answer your question. The day I can't by a camera with optical VF, it's the day I find another hobby. The EVF suck.... Plus, the way Sony have done it is by reducing the amount of light in by 30%, yeah, that's what we need for photo, LESS light....

Why are we so desperate to get rid of the mirror? You don't buy a 1-series Canon despite of it's size and weight and mirror and af and FF, you buy it because of all those things. The hybrids are glorified lens-caps.

For those who just don't get the advantage of a mirror and Phase-AF, there's always a NEX or a GF3, but to claim we should loose the mirror-system all together is a completely two-cans-short-of a six-pack-statement...

You're talking about current technology; at the current state-of-the-art, I agree with you.  Let's not forget that plenty of these arguments were used in the film to digital transition.  EVFs are only just reaching the stage where they can be considered as viable alternatives to OVFs on low to mid-range DSLR type cameras and on chip phase detect AF is currently in its first generation.  As time goes on these technologies will progress until (I believe) their advantages will outweigh the benefits of current systems for the majority of users.  I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, or even in the next few years, but I think that day will eventually come. 

[pulpok]

I own a G11 and a Sx230 as backup and for HD video clips.

What annoys me with the G11 is

.) the whole AF system (compared to Nikon-V1)
.) Distortion at wide angle (can be undone with adobe LR)
.) IQ @ low light (eg Sensor too small)
.) the lack of a B/Bulb mode
.) video AF (don't take many vids)

What I like with my G11:

.) metallic tripod screw thread
.) speedlight flashmount (for using DSLR grade flashes)
.) plug for external trigger (combined with bean bag or tripod)
.) IQ @ daylight (satisfies for non-professional pictures)
.) RAW (for using "extra stuff" with LR)
.) solid accu (as compared to a SX230 eg)
.) dial for EV+/-2 (menu just too tricky)
.) ISO dial (same reason)

So if Canon decides to rig the current G serie to state-of-the-art AF and improve IQ in terms of noise and distortion then that would perfectly make sense and could be sold up to 100-200 $ more then the actual G12.

[ecka]

I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.
I do like the idea of mirrorless cameras, but I'm against compromising the IQ and ergonomics while making them pocketable. I like to use LiveView for landscapes, portraits and macro (I'm not an action shooter really). Make it FF in a decent size body with all the buttons and wheels + nice vari-angle LCD + big and powerful battery + wireless flash control + some lens adapters - and I'll buy it.

[Hesbehindyou]

I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" ... Photography is not about putting things in your pockets.

"DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" is another way of saying  "high IQ camera in a pocket".

Don't worry if you don't see the attraction; most people don't see the attraction of a full frame body and massive lenses just to take snaps of each other at parties, nights out etc that'll be displayed on a computer monitor.  It's a horses for courses thing.

[Lee Jay]

I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.

If it's not in my pocket, it doesn't go everywhere with me.  Period.

If it has to be in a bag, it makes no difference to me if it's small or big - might as well take my 5D and L-glass.

[ecka]

I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" ... Photography is not about putting things in your pockets.

"DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" is another way of saying  "high IQ camera in a pocket".

Don't worry if you don't see the attraction; most people don't see the attraction of a full frame body and massive lenses just to take snaps of each other at parties, nights out etc that'll be displayed on a computer monitor.  It's a horses for courses thing.

I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.

If it's not in my pocket, it doesn't go everywhere with me.  Period.

If it has to be in a bag, it makes no difference to me if it's small or big - might as well take my 5D and L-glass.

I'm sure that if it was possible to make a small mirrorless camera with a large sensor (APS-C) and smal f/2.8 zoom which could fit in a pocket, then it would have been done already. Don't you think? You can always make a pinhole in your DSLR body cap and call it pocketable .

[mb66energy]

I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice).

I don't see any caveat of "small lens with high IQ" - a camera without mirror box allow more variability for the lens designer: Modern (D)SLRs lenses need to shift the image behind the last lens element to allow the mirror to flip up without colliding with some parts of the lens. This means a lot more lenses and a lot more special features of glasses and shapes.

Think about the good compact cams with a 2.8 35mm which had a better quality compared to some expensive lenses and the advantage of just 4 lens groups: Great contralight capabilities and great contrast. With single layer coatings! Think about a 6 lens 4 group double gaussian lens with 30 mm focal length, 2.8 max aperture and an optimized multilayer coating, perhaps with special glass or one aspheric surface - this would outperform the best lenses today for SLRs, I am shure.

So a mirrorless would need a special bayonet, e.g. EF-XS. But if Canon adds an EF converter you will have the freedom of choice between an old style compact APS-C cam or a mirrorless cam with a 2.8 100 MACRO lens to do some table top work. And Canon should add the EF to EF-XS converter to the body for let's say 100 EUR/$.

[ecka]

I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice).

I don't see any caveat of "small lens with high IQ" - a camera without mirror box allow more variability for the lens designer: Modern (D)SLRs lenses need to shift the image behind the last lens element to allow the mirror to flip up without colliding with some parts of the lens. This means a lot more lenses and a lot more special features of glasses and shapes.

Think about the good compact cams with a 2.8 35mm which had a better quality compared to some expensive lenses and the advantage of just 4 lens groups: Great contralight capabilities and great contrast. With single layer coatings! Think about a 6 lens 4 group double gaussian lens with 30 mm focal length, 2.8 max aperture and an optimized multilayer coating, perhaps with special glass or one aspheric surface - this would outperform the best lenses today for SLRs, I am shure.

It' not like I don't believe you (my 50/1.8II has only 6 elements in 5 groups and it's fine), but how do you compare? How do you know that it would outperform the best lenses today? I'm sure it's more complicated than that. Digital imaging sensors are different from film. Small distance between lens and sensor results in IQ degradation of image corners, because the light is falling at a bigger angle.
I like small fast (f/2 at least) primes, but those are not small enough to be called pocketable when mounted on camera. IMHO f/2.8+ primes are not that fast (not talking about UWA or tele, just 24mm - 85mm), but if the IQ/price ratio is good, then I would buy some (while the reason of purchase would be price, not size).

So a mirrorless would need a special bayonet, e.g. EF-XS. But if Canon adds an EF converter you will have the freedom of choice between an old style compact APS-C cam or a mirrorless cam with a 2.8 100 MACRO lens to do some table top work. And Canon should add the EF to EF-XS converter to the body for let's say 100 EUR/$.

Adapting lenses is one of the major features I like about mirrorless cameras.