first pic of canon mirrorless?

[Fiya]

I already have an X Pro 1, as a backup...  But would love something that made my L lenses useful on a smaller body, and just something small and powerful for those times you don't want to lug around the 5D mk2.

Since its all electrical.. I'm wondering why they wouldn't (At least for the next 'Pro' model) make an EOS adapter that has an aperture ring on it. So that they could reduce the controls on the camera and still be usable. Since it looks like that is what they are trying to do.  They could even go all out and (I doubt this from Canon) have an EOS-EF adapter that has both the aperture AND the shutterspeed on the adapter.  Hasselblad has been doing this on their V system for around 50 years. (Both on the lens.) Its a beautiful system, and while its not as fast as the shutter/aperture wheels on canons full sized DSLR...  I think it could work well on a very small body.  Much better than no controls or touchscreen controls.


I feel the general idea is a good one.  Noone like to carry around a 5D Mk2 with 24-70 for 15 hours a day.  This plus a 16-35 is a pretty good set.  Another would be the 22mm EF-M, and the 40mm EF with adapter on it.  I guess we will see how the EF-M glass is.

I'm not sure about this version... If I buy a Canon Mirrorless it better be damn good because it will replace my Fuji X Pro 1.  I've heard many of mixed thoughts about the Fuji, but I love it.  I've shot some landscapes to live shows in very low light with it.  All the places I would prefer to not bring the 5D mk2.


Also, EVFs and LCDs will never replace optical.  For me its so unbelievably different viewing through an EVF compared to an Optical one.  I bought my Fuji X100 and X Pro 1 for this reason.  Compared to the other offerings, these gave me more of everything I wanted in a small package.  Its the same reason shooting with a Hasselblad V series (501 CM) is so 'magical'.

[c.d.embrey]

The DSLR won't be around forever, it will eventually be replaced by some other new technology and I believe that the mirrorless camera is the direction this is all heading.

D

Very true. Technology is rapidly changing. First the OVF will be replaced by EVF. Then Full Frame will be replaced by APS-C. APS-C won't stick around too long before it is replaced by ... Time marches on, it's been a long time since PJs shot news and sports with 4x5 cameras.

[lol]

Nothing lasts forever, but they can sure stick around a long time. Look at Leica... they carved out a niche and are doing ok out of it. Even *if* mirrorless takes over the market served by lower level DSLRs, I think there's enough niche for higher end DSLRs to survive for the foreseeable future. If you need digital full frame, there's only 3 real choices at the moment, Canon, Nikon and Leica. I'm leaving out Sony for now as I believe their full frame models are discontinued pending replacement. Canon and Nikon are both rumoured to be bringing out cheaper full frame bodies so that will help too. Maybe, some day in the very distant future, there'll be more mirrorless full frame systems too. But it might be too little too late as "good enough" of smaller sensors will do for the masses, leaving full frame as another Leica-like niche.

Then there's also the chance that a future technology renders what we know as photography right now obsolete.

[paul13walnut5]

@Bob Howland

EVF perhaps? There is also one extra contact in the lens mount, for power zoom perhaps?

Canon made a power zoom lens ages back (for the film 750 / 800's as I recall) pretty crap range (35-80) pretty crap aperture (mid max apertures) and no MF ring etc.

The interesting thing is that it worked on the exsisting EF mount as the servo and controls were integrated into the lens.  Whilst I don;t think Canon will have (m)any legacy users this lens demanding compatability, I think it's evidence enough that a new mount needn't be considered to accomadate zoom lenses.

Of course if they were to move the servo controls to the body then it would be a different story.  Personally, as a serious and frequent video user I would prefer the servo controls on the lens body (also restricts extra costs to those who specifically want video friendly kit) but above that I would also like zoom lenses that hold back focus through the zoom range, as many of the EF lenses do not (In this respect the push pull tele designs such as the 100-400 and older 80-200 f2.8 etc are actually brilliant for video)

I suppose the other issue is that if there is on body control then there can be off body control perhaps using something like the established LANC control (which gives prosumer camcorders rec start/stop, focus and zoom controls off camera, manfrotto and a few others make excellent integrated pan bar controllers) however this would require extra contacts between the camera body and lens, which would kind of pith off exsisting EF body and lens users.

Difficult one to call.


However I do like the compact form of this mirrorless.  No sign of IS markings or switches on the lens... could they be in the body, or (unlikely) not there at all?

[Blaze]

The DSLR won't be around forever, it will eventually be replaced by some other new technology and I believe that the mirrorless camera is the direction this is all heading.

D

Very true. Technology is rapidly changing. First the OVF will be replaced by EVF. Then Full Frame will be replaced by APS-C. APS-C won't stick around too long before it is replaced by ... Time marches on, it's been a long time since PJs shot news and sports with 4x5 cameras.

I can definitely see mirrored cameras disappearing, but I don't think FF is going anywhere. For fast action low light situations even a theoretical APS-C sensor with perfect quantum efficiency is going to be limited by physics. Photon shot noise is an inherent limitation and the only way to combat it is to gather more light (use faster glass, bigger sensors, or longer exposure times).

[paul13walnut5]

@lol

Then there's also the chance that a future technology renders what we know as photography right now obsolete.

I am most interested in what Lytro are up to.  Not viable today.  But today never lasts forever.

[paul13walnut5]

@Blaze

Photon shot noise is an inherent limitation and the only way to combat it is to gather more light (use faster glass, bigger sensors, or longer exposure times).

True, but think of this... 10 years ago I would use Fuji 1600 film at a very long push, usually after some deliberation.

Until even around 6 years ago on a DSLR something like ISO 800 would be dicing a bit with quality.

Now it's barely an afterthough to shoot at 3200 or even higher if you are using RAW and are prepared to do a bit of work with DPP.

With ISO's in the 100s of 1000's then the question is how much higher can it go?

Canon seem to be looking more at the reduced pixel count for bigger photosites.

Would it be commercial suicide to launch an 8MP full frame with a usable ISO 512'000 or even 1'024'000?   With another 5 years tech progress could these even be offered at 18MP or 22MP?

[moreorless]

Nothing lasts forever, but they can sure stick around a long time. Look at Leica... they carved out a niche and are doing ok out of it. Even *if* mirrorless takes over the market served by lower level DSLRs, I think there's enough niche for higher end DSLRs to survive for the foreseeable future. If you need digital full frame, there's only 3 real choices at the moment, Canon, Nikon and Leica. I'm leaving out Sony for now as I believe their full frame models are discontinued pending replacement. Canon and Nikon are both rumoured to be bringing out cheaper full frame bodies so that will help too. Maybe, some day in the very distant future, there'll be more mirrorless full frame systems too. But it might be too little too late as "good enough" of smaller sensors will do for the masses, leaving full frame as another Leica-like niche.

Then there's also the chance that a future technology renders what we know as photography right now obsolete.

My guess is that if a mirrorless FF system does appear it will be more in the image of Leica(mostly primes and maybe a few smaller slow zooms with limated range), theres no way high quality zoom lenses would ever balance well on it.

Also as far as sensor design goes my guess is that optics are going to increasingly become a barrier, the most recent 24MP ASPC sensors can't produce maximum boarder to boarder sharpness on anything but a handful of lenses. Optics arent advacing at anything close to the same rate that sensors are those advances come at the cost of ever higher prices.

If you want boarder to boarder sharp 40 MP images my guess is that your going to need to go FF for the foreseeble future. I think theres a significant market for that kind of resolution aswell as the D800 has showed when the price is at a reasonable level.

Canon seem to be looking more at the reduced pixel count for bigger photosites.

My guess is that this is partly linked to optics, if you go much beyond 18 MP I think you'll see flaws in alot of there current lens lineup start to stand out much more clearly.

[paul13walnut5]

@moreorless

My guess is that this is partly linked to optics, if you go much beyond 18 MP I think you'll see flaws in alot of there current lens lineup start to stand out much more clearly.

If the answer is the frankly disgusting prices canon are charging for their redesigned lenses (24-70 II, 24IS and 28IS) then they can keep the megapixels.  Don't need em.  And nikon having them doesn't make me want them.

Canon need more lenses in the style of the recent Nikon AF-s G prime lenses.  Cheapish. Cheerfulish.

The 40mm f2.8 is more about what Canon should be about.

I gave up pixel peeping a few years ago, as I realised it's not how 'real people' look at images. 

[moreorless]

Also, EVFs and LCDs will never replace optical.  For me its so unbelievably different viewing through an EVF compared to an Optical one.  I bought my Fuji X100 and X Pro 1 for this reason.  Compared to the other offerings, these gave me more of everything I wanted in a small package.  Its the same reason shooting with a Hasselblad V series (501 CM) is so 'magical'.

To me this has always seemed like trying to reinvent the wheel, granted I can see that for some people there maybe worthwhile reason to give up the mirror but I find it hard to see an EVF ever offering the same resolution, update and contrast that an OVF can.

[assessora]

correct msowsun that´s how i measured it too.

I tend to agree - the sensor looks "slimmer" i.e. closer to 3:2 than images I have seen of the G1X sensor.  Also, the rear LCD seems to have a 3:2 aspect ratio.  I have never seen a camera which leaves blank edges on the left and/or right sides when displaying an image in landscape orientation.  That would seem to suggest a sensor with a 3:2 aspect ratio.

The Canon SX210 for example has a 16:9 LCD so you get black bars on the side when taking photos. The upside is that you don't get black bars when shooting video.

Anyway, I still think everything points for it to be a 3:2 sensor.

[AvTvM]

Also, EVFs and LCDs will never replace optical.  For me its so unbelievably different viewing through an EVF compared to an Optical one.  I bought my Fuji X100 and X Pro 1 for this reason.  Compared to the other offerings, these gave me more of everything I wanted in a small package.  Its the same reason shooting with a Hasselblad V series (501 CM) is so 'magical'.

To me this has always seemed like trying to reinvent the wheel, granted I can see that for some people there maybe worthwhile reason to give up the mirror but I find it hard to see an EVF ever offering the same resolution, update and contrast that an OVF can.

we would not have to give up anything, if only Canopn would give us what we really want:
* compact hi-end mirrorless with improved 5d3 FF sensor - with ultrafast in-plane-phase-detect AF
* highest end hybrid viewfinder - like in Fuji X-Pro1, but "really right"!
* electrified Leica-M mount, backwards compatible with all M-mount lenses
* range of hi-quality but compact AF-fixed focals plus 2 decent standard zooms
* all of it at Leica minus 50% prices
 

[paul13walnut5]

@AvTvM

we would not have to give up anything, if only Canopn would give us what we really want:

That'll be the royal 'we' then. 

An M mirrorless already exsists.

Given canons recent pricing policy for new lenses I think the Leica may be the cheaper option.

My 2 cents: if you want FF, then use a conventional DSLR.  The 5D shell is a good size, compact enough for sunny day photographers, grippy enough for pros working in inclement conditions.

If you want a compact camera (surely the whole point of going mirrorless - ditching the reflex box to make it smaller) it seems counter productive to put in a larger sensor that then requires larger image circles and thus larger lenses.

Yeah the shorty 40 would be great on a full frame mirrorless, anything faster or anything with a zoom, and you are back to DSLR sized lenses.   I really do think this is a wind up.

[AvTvM]

@AvTvM

we would not have to give up anything, if only Canopn would give us what we really want:

That'll be the royal 'we' then. 

An M mirrorless already exsists.

Given canons recent pricing policy for new lenses I think the Leica may be the cheaper option.

My 2 cents: if you want FF, then use a conventional DSLR.  The 5D shell is a good size, compact enough for sunny day photographers, grippy enough for pros working in inclement conditions.

If you want a compact camera (surely the whole point of going mirrorless - ditching the reflex box to make it smaller) it seems counter productive to put in a larger sensor that then requires larger image circles and thus larger lenses.

Yeah the shorty 40 would be great on a full frame mirrorless, anything faster or anything with a zoom, and you are back to DSLR sized lenses.   I really do think this is a wind up.

we = all Canonians interested. We are many.   

I want a compact, modern, fully digital hi-end mirrorless sans any mechanical parts ... not an overpriced, completely outdaten 1950s rangefinder camera like the  Leica M9.

[tron]

joke?

To have both 1.6X and 1.85X crop factor sensors is indeed a joke! (and a bad one)
If the sensor was 1.6X they could have used the EF series (or at least the EF-S series...)