Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]

[pharp]

...
Now in certain cases the downgrade in viewfinder quality might be worth it for the size saving it offers but for FF DSLR's with zoom or long tele lenses I'm not seeing it in the near future given how unbalanced a system it creates.

A Leica like FF system based on wide/normal primes has more ponteital but really thats a relatively small market and I think the prefference will remain for a Fuji like system that retains a rangefinder like OVF.

Yes, for users of long-teles or other large optical lenses, size of camera body is virtually irrelevant. Although this group is very vocal on tghis and aother photography-related forums, in reality it is a very tiny percentage of the market. I bet, 99% of all pictures made - are or could have just as well been made with lenses of 200mm or even less focal length. This probably holds true for "photo enthusiasts and pros" as well.

Personally, I would accept an EVIL if one explicit limitation was, that I can only use it with lenses to max. 200mm angle-of-view (FF equivalent). I would not accept a system however, that limits me to max. 135mm (like Leica M).   

I also like the Fuji X-Pro1 hybrid viewfinder concept "in principle", although I do not find it well enough implemented yet on that very camera. But if Canon did it "really right" ... heck, YES!

Speaking of viewfinders .. on EVILS I love the viefinder position on the side  of the camera, rather than smack in the middle as in all DSLRs ... and the rubbing of nose on the back of the camera/main LCD. 

And if the photo industry were really customer-oriented, they would even offer the cam in a "right-eye and left-eye version", in order to reach 100% of market with as perfect a product as possible. After all, most cars are avaliable in left/right steering wheel configuration. And many car models have sigbnificantly smaller production runs than successful digital camera  models!

Various companies have played with alternate SLR forms in the past, with little [no] acceptance, but to get the best EVF [biggest, etc] will probably require a rethink of the standard DSLR shape.  Seems redundant to have an large LCD on the back and a small one in the viewfinder - how about one big eye level one?  Maybe more video camera like - more in parallel with lens. Now that would take some real courage!

[moreorless]

...
Now in certain cases the downgrade in viewfinder quality might be worth it for the size saving it offers but for FF DSLR's with zoom or long tele lenses I'm not seeing it in the near future given how unbalanced a system it creates.

A Leica like FF system based on wide/normal primes has more ponteital but really thats a relatively small market and I think the prefference will remain for a Fuji like system that retains a rangefinder like OVF.

Yes, for users of long-teles or other large optical lenses, size of camera body is virtually irrelevant. Although this group is very vocal on tghis and aother photography-related forums, in reality it is a very tiny percentage of the market. I bet, 99% of all pictures made - are or could have just as well been made with lenses of 200mm or even less focal length. This probably holds true for "photo enthusiasts and pros" as well.

Personally, I would accept an EVIL if one explicit limitation was, that I can only use it with lenses to max. 200mm angle-of-view (FF equivalent). I would not accept a system however, that limits me to max. 135mm (like Leica M).   

I also like the Fuji X-Pro1 hybrid viewfinder concept "in principle", although I do not find it well enough implemented yet on that very camera. But if Canon did it "really right" ... heck, YES!

Speaking of viewfinders .. on EVILS I love the viefinder position on the side  of the camera, rather than smack in the middle as in all DSLRs ... and the rubbing of nose on the back of the camera/main LCD. 

And if the photo industry were really customer-oriented, they would even offer the cam in a "right-eye and left-eye version", in order to reach 100% of market with as perfect a product as possible. After all, most cars are avaliable in left/right steering wheel configuration. And many car models have sigbnificantly smaller production runs than successful digital camera  models!

Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.

[TrumpetPower!]

Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.

This is another point that the peanut gallery is generally missing.

A small, lightweight camera is pointless without small, lightweight lenses.

And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.

So, if you want small and light, you'll either have to go with something slower or that doesn't have as large an image circle. And probably both.

Surprise! That's exactly what I've been describing: something that bridges the upper end of the P&S range and the Rebels.

Cheers,

b&

[Rocky]

And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.

May be you are thinking about SLR lens. For range finder ( or mirrorless)lenses, it is different. The wide angle lenses can be made smaller (not necessarily lighter).  Summicron 35mm is only 1 1/4 inches outside of the camera body. Skopar 25mm f4.0 is also 1 1/4 inches outside of the cameras body. A M4 body can be pant pocketable with either lens.

[AvTvM]

Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.

This is another point that the peanut gallery is generally missing.
A small, lightweight camera is pointless without small, lightweight lenses.
And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.
So, if you want small and light, you'll either have to go with something slower or that doesn't have as large an image circle. And probably both.

YES. small wide-angle to standard lenses are important. This is EXACTLY why I would love to get a small Canon FF mirrorless body (size like Minolta CLE) with an electrified Leica M mount, call it Canon EM. :-)

You surely know, how really small many of those M-mount fixed focals are? All of them built for 135 image circle. Available all the way to f/0.95 not just f/2.8. I am sure, it is possible to build a 40/1.8 lens for a FF mirrorless cam which is still smaller than the EF 40/2.8 pancake.

Zooms are a bit tougher, but some constant f/4 "kit-zoom", say a Canon "EM" 24-70/f 4.0 IS for FF mirrorless  could for sure be quite small. I would even skip manual focusing gear and ring, since i never use it anyways. And 90% of users do neither. And those video guys shall go buy proper Canon camcorders rather than trying to cheapskate on our stills cameras. :-)       

[Rocky]

That is a small fast 40mm f 1.4 for range finder only.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt4014.htm

[AvTvM]

That is a small fast 40mm f 1.4 for range finder only.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt4014.htm

Right! And for a mirrorless a version 2.0 of such a lens would be even smaller and lighter. No rangefinder coupling stuff, no f-stop ring, as far as I am concerned, no MF gear/ring, but a hi-speed Ring-USM AF drive. :-)

I would love to use such a beast natively not on an anachronistic Leica M rangefinder but on a hi-end Canon FF mirrorless camera equipped with a modified 5D3 sensor [with in-sensor phase AF] with a non-Leica pricetag.

Wouldn't that be something? Canon would sell 'em by the millions. :-) 

[pharp]

Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.

This is another point that the peanut gallery is generally missing.
A small, lightweight camera is pointless without small, lightweight lenses.
And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.
So, if you want small and light, you'll either have to go with something slower or that doesn't have as large an image circle. And probably both.

YES. small wide-angle to standard lenses are important. This is EXACTLY why I would love to get a small Canon FF mirrorless body (size like Minolta CLE) with an electrified Leica M mount, call it Canon EM. :-)

You surely know, how really small many of those M-mount fixed focals are? All of them built for 135 image circle. Available all the way to f/0.95 not just f/2.8. I am sure, it is possible to build a 40/1.8 lens for a FF mirrorless cam which is still smaller than the EF 40/2.8 pancake.

Zooms are a bit tougher, but some constant f/4 "kit-zoom", say a Canon "EM" 24-70/f 4.0 IS for FF mirrorless  could for sure be quite small. I would even skip manual focusing gear and ring, since i never use it anyways. And 90% of users do neither. And those video guys shall go buy proper Canon camcorders rather than trying to cheapskate on our stills cameras. :-)     

Agree, but I would actually forgo AF on most lenses! Never had much value in AF on wide angle or macro lenses - half my kit is MF lenses.

[Lee Jay]

And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.

May be you are thinking about SLR lens. For range finder ( or mirrorless)lenses, it is different. The wide angle lenses can be made smaller (not necessarily lighter).  Summicron 35mm is only 1 1/4 inches outside of the camera body. Skopar 25mm f4.0 is also 1 1/4 inches outside of the cameras body. A M4 body can be pant pocketable with either lens.

Since wide angles and middle-focal-length lenses are the smallest lenses in the kit, generally, who cares?  A 70-200/2.8 isn't going to get smaller because of closer back-focus distance, and that's the one that's sizing my kit.

[Rocky]

And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.

May be you are thinking about SLR lens. For range finder ( or mirrorless)lenses, it is different. The wide angle lenses can be made smaller (not necessarily lighter).  Summicron 35mm is only 1 1/4 inches outside of the camera body. Skopar 25mm f4.0 is also 1 1/4 inches outside of the cameras body. A M4 body can be pant pocketable with either lens.

Since wide angles and middle-focal-length lenses are the smallest lenses in the kit, generally, who cares?  A 70-200/2.8 isn't going to get smaller because of closer back-focus distance, and that's the one that's sizing my kit.

You should care if you want it to be pant pocketable. None of the existing normal or wide angle lens will make the camera to be pant pocketable ( not even the 40 f2.8 on a Rebel).

[pharp]

And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.

May be you are thinking about SLR lens. For range finder ( or mirrorless)lenses, it is different. The wide angle lenses can be made smaller (not necessarily lighter).  Summicron 35mm is only 1 1/4 inches outside of the camera body. Skopar 25mm f4.0 is also 1 1/4 inches outside of the cameras body. A M4 body can be pant pocketable with either lens.

Since wide angles and middle-focal-length lenses are the smallest lenses in the kit, generally, who cares? 

I agree to a point. Based on SLR sales and the fact that Canon felt compelled to make such a camera - ALOT of people evidently do! I would be happy with a digital version of my old Nikon F2 kit - I had a 70-200 zoom, but rarely carried it.  I think many folks would go for a more compact [not NEX sized, but smaller] APS-C or FF travel kit. I think Canon/Nikon is missing the ball - P&S or most rebel users probably don't care about interchangeable lenses.  The fact that conrus/metabones sold out immediately of their NEX to Canon EF adapters should be telling to anyone willing to look. Whether you want to believe it or not, there is [I believe] a large market for a more compact [probably mirrorless] prosumer 7D or 5D camera. THATS the market they should be going after, but seems unlikely since it'd cannabalze existing line. Smaller/lighter is usually better. Nikon still lists their old style MF lenses on their website - I've always wondered how well they sell. I would really go for some FD build MF only lenses.

[Rocky]

A lot of people seems to be disappointed that the Canon Mirrorless will be a G1 X sized sensor , not the FF or APS-C that they are expecting. For me it may be a little bit over reacted. In order to make it "smaller and lighter" canon have no choice but not to use FF. As for G1 X sized sensor, the multiplication factor for the focal length is 1.85 ( based on width) or 1.7 (based on height).  Is is necessary to get disappointed because it is not 1.6 multiplication factor??? For me, if Canon gives us FAST AF(or good MF, like the Leica M) and smaller lenses, I will be happy with  a smaller sensor.

[pharp]

A lot of people seems to be disappointed that the Canon Mirrorless will be a G1 X sized sensor , not the FF or APS-C that they are expecting. For me it may be a little bit over reacted. In order to make it "smaller and lighter" canon have no choice but not to use FF. As for G1 X sized sensor, the multiplication factor for the focal length is 1.85 ( based on width) or 1.7 (based on height).  Is is necessary to get disappointed because it is not 1.6 multiplication factor??? For me, if Canon gives us FAST AF(or good MF, like the Leica M) and smaller lenses, I will be happy with  a smaller sensor.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but it strikes many that Canon is just late to the party, isn't offering anything really new - just a Canon branded m4/3? If thats it - OK, obviously a market for that and I suspect they'll sell many, but from the thread - I can see that absolute small size isn't the 'only' driver for many.  There aren't even any public announcements of a mirrorless pro camera - but just speculation of such sure has gotten some folks riled up! They need to take a pill - it'll come if it makes sense.

[RLPhoto]

This is good stuff, if canon would be more daring like it used to be, it could make a compact system with super speed primes and a large sensor for general photography. Who want to lug the DSLR around all the time when just a small mirror less and a 35mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor would be better.

[pharp]

This is good stuff, if canon would be more daring like it used to be, it could make a compact system with super speed primes and a large sensor for general photography. Who want to lug the DSLR around all the time when just a small mirror less and a 35mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor would be better.

+1