Canon APS-H 1.3x mirrorless
Various reports have come in about a mirrorless camera from Canon that will use an APS-H (1.3x crop) sensor.
The plan within Canon is to keep the APS-H sensor size alive, as it won’t be appearing in the next 1D.
Why APS-H?
1) They think that APS-C in general and their 1.6x (versus others’ 1.5x) in particular is becoming increasingly difficult to improve on, update after update.
2) Sensor production costs have fallen and there isn’t much difference betw 1.6x and 1.3x for Canon.
3) Canon develop a new 1.3x sensor for the 1D series every few years and no other camera shared the R&D cost with the 1D before, but this time round the 16MP sensor of 1D4 will have a new use.
4) Weight and size can be taken care of by design. So a larger sensor does not necessarily mean a heavier and bulkier package than the competition.
CR’s Take
This all seems a little bit crazy to me. I’ll reserve real judgement for the time being. I’ll be paying close attention to the comments section to see what the tech folks think about this.
NL posted about this today as well.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Sounds good but lenes will seem very large on the mirrorless body
Eh?
I’m a big fan of APS-H sensors, but this rumor doesn’t make a lot of sense.
It will require lenes with a full frame image circle unless Canon develop a new range of lenes specificaly of mirrorless bodies
Yea, this seems crazy to me in the EVIL package. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a 7D mark II/similar ~$1800-2000 body with this technology though. It’s reasonable to share the R&D with a 1 series and strip out a few of the ‘pro’ functions and knock the price in half 18 months later. The 1D bodies will still sell to the pros that need the durability and latest and greatest but the semi-pros and advanced hobbyists will likely wait on the ‘value’ version. It also would give it a more manageable production schedule like the ‘tick-tock’ that intel has for their processors.
Wait a sec… a pro sensor (if they plan to reuse the 1D4-sensor), without the viewfinder? Why would one pay 2k+ for a camera without viewfinder, and swing with big lenses (unlikely that these will take EF-S lenses)?
EVIL is for compacter cameras, bridge-models, and perhaps the x000D line.
Besides, if they bring a top-end sensor in a cheap camera, i foresee modding guides, boosting tricks, and whatever more to get 1D-quality out of a cheap camera ;)
The idea sounds crazy. If APS-H won’t appear in the next 1D, then why make an EVIL camera using that size? An APS-C EVIL camera, capable of using EF-S lenses, makes much more sense.
No way (unless “mirrorless APS-H” means an ultrafast 1D Mk 4x).
In my opinion, Canon still uses the APS-H only out of “tradition” of the 1D camera line. APS-H has always been ailed with the lack of true ultra wide angle lenses, narrowing down its usefulness, especially as a mass product. To cure that, Canon would have to launch yet a new lens lineup tailored to APS-H, along the already existant EF and EF-S lineup.
If they do this, they definetely need to make an extra wide-angle special for APS-H, a 14-24 or something like that. And maybe a standard lens as well, 20-70 for example
What completely makes sense is that the 1.3x crop will not be in the next 1D.
While I don’t think the APS-H is dead, I highly doubt we’ll see it in an EVIL camera. Main reasons being its expensive and it’ll take some big glass to paint an image that covers that sensor. The whole point of EVIL is to get SLR ‘like’ features in a compact size.
Even APS-C is too big for EVIL, IMO. We’re more likely to see the S90/G11 sensor.
The APS-H sensor will stay in the 1D line as a way to continue to get high frame rates along with high quality. Most sports shooters like the little extra reach.
That’s the only part that cought my attention :)
There wouldn’t be any physical size advantage to an EVIL camera unless you do. If you use the same EF lenses, you need to maintain the same flange distance, which means even if you remove the mirror assembly you still need to maintain that space.
Wasting big time!
There is only way to do it.
EF mount.
Full Frame and it’s costs are droping down (Sony a850). In 2-3 years time owning FF will be in a reach of a amature. So there is no point in developing new mount with new lenses becouse it will be trash and that will be suicide.
Panasonic, Olympus, Sony have nothing to lose realy and canon have to do great to not let down professional arround who would like to have small fast camera.
If APS-H “won’t be appearing in the next 1D” then reason #3 is out the window. This rumor isn’t even internally consistent.
On the other hand, if the other reasons stated are to be believed, Canon should switch their entire DSLR lineup to APS-H (Anyone realistically think that? Anyone?)
Oh!!! Me not Shane Kua, wonder how this name and email address got into my browser!!!??? CR what the hack has happened to your website???
About time. I know people extol the virtues of APS-H, but I just don’t get it.
+1 Sounds like a made up story to me.
All those small point and shoot 35mm film cameras had a full size sensor (the film). It is certainly possible to make a FF camera the same size, just do away with the LCD and put in a EVF.
Agreed. I love shooting the ultra wide angle, so I’m not that interested in an APS-H camera, EVIL or not. And it’s a shame that you have to spend $8k to get high-end autofocus with a full-frame body (and compromise on speed due to the high resolution).
How about they relabel the next 1D as a 3D (keeping the APS-H sensor for the sports shooters), and turn the 1D into a faster, lower resolution version of the 1Ds (full frame, 10 fps, 16 MP, emphasis on DR/high ISO)? And if they absolutely must, thrown in an APS-C EVIL camera somewhere.
Wouldn’t Canon prefer to cannibalize some of its own sales rather than lose them to the competition due to holes in the lineup? Especially considering that the lost sale of a body also means losing the sale of several lenses. It makes sense, which is of course why it won’t happen. I suppose we can dream though.
this is what makes sense to me –
reading the article i somehow missed “mirrorless” until reading the first comments and I thought to myself
“this would be great – a way for canon to take the hi iso crown from everyone else – maintain a bit of advantage for birders – add dynamic range etc in lower MP bodies”
The main key would be making a way for the efs lenses to mount it without breaking mirrors..
I think a 60D with a 1.3 sensor at 1200 would sell like hotcakes – make it a bit smaller than the 7D/50D but maintain the top lcd and wheel (think D90 size) and it crushes the competition especially as soon as it gets down to the 1000 dollar range in a year….
Then the 7DII gets a 1.3 sensor and blows away (more then it already does) the D300s replacement
to me the virtues of 1.3 makes sense only if canon were to abandon 1.6 altogether and use that as a key selling point. better iso and dr vs. the competition and the economy of scale says it wouldn’t cost that much more than 1.6’s at this point.
Figure a way to get EFS to work on them and you would have a new killer line of rebels, XXD, and 7D cams
i made my comments above before getting down to here – if they could make EFS work on the cams then I think it would be a coup vs. all the competition…
The problem with making the 60D/7DII with 1.3x sensors is it relegates the EF-S lineup to Rebel-only status and makes upgrades from the X0D and 7D rather painful.
I’d say it’s more likely these cameras will remain APS-C and the 1D will keep its 1.3x sensor and become the 3D, making room for a full-frame 1D with moderate resolution and high speed.
Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
I don’t see Canon launching a new lens line, esp ro the niche market line of 1D cameras.
The EF line has plenty of old lens that need to be refreshed as it is, some examples would be the 20mm prime & the 28mm primes.
The EF-S line is rather small. It has a wide lens equivalent to 16-35, a long lens (roughly) equivalent to 100-400, a fast lens (the 17-55), and a few kits of varying quality. No normal prime, and no fisheyes.
With superzoom compacts like the SX10 IS having 35mm equivalents of 560mm lenses, why not have an EF-S lens ending with 350mm at the long end ? It’s not as if people buying APS-C bodies would fork the price of an EF 500mm prime anyway.
[Sigma has 30mm primes for APS-C bodies, as well as reasonably priced lenses ending at 400mm & 500mm.]
I probably sound like broken record, but personally there are plenty of lenses I would like Canon to create / upgrade before starting another line of lenses, e.g.
1. Circular fisheye lens for FF. My next purchase is going to be Sigma’s circular fisheye for my Canon 5D.
[Sigma has diagonal & circular fisheyes for Canon APS-C, while canon has neither.]
[Nikon has a diagonal fisheye for it’s DX cameras.]
2. A quality ultra-wide lens, starting wider than 16mm. I already bought the Sigma 12-24mm, but I would love to trade it in for a Canon wide lens.
[Sigma has recently announced a similar ultra-wide lens for APS-C sensors, IIRC it is 8-16mm.]
[Nikon has a good 14-24mm lens, I’ve heard Canon owners buy a photodiox adapter to use it on their cameras.]
3. An upgrade to the 100-400mm lens. I’d be happy to buy a 150-400mm f/5.6 twist-zoom lens, etc.
I would have thought that the 7D would have been an APS-H sensor to begin with. The thought that went into that camera has really only come up short on the sensor size.
The 7D is a great camera, and is located between the xxD and the 5D, which would have made sense to use the bigger sensor. I do not feel that the 7D should have a FF sensor, but I like the thought of the 1.3x sensor.
the next 1D is expected to be the 1Ds which is the FF version anyway.
However why would the 1DmkV not be APS-H when its eventually released?
Sounds quite logical to use APS-H in a 60D.
Sony is catching up fast by reusing the same sensor in lots of camera bodies – NEX5 and the new a290’s
This would be great to trump the compotition, 16,1M over Sony’s 14M.2 and a bigger higher quality sensor.
No development costs as it already exists, one Digic4 processor not 2 so 5fps.
The 7D repackaged in the 550D very well so this is a fast track to a great advanced amateur camera that get us all thinking about bigger sensors and leaves the APS-c for the new compacts. How often do you hear some one saying that a good EVIL aps-c might mean the SLR is not worth it any more.
The EFS lenses should still work if the 60D went EVIL it would just produce a aps-c size image; i think the bigger aps-h mirror may foul an ef-s lens.
+2 I agree
reduced sensor form factor is totally relevent for sport pro / photo journalism segment according to me.
It would allow the comfortable use of smaller and lighter lenses (look at olympus lense lineup) for any sport/ news / people / photojournalism work.
The sensors resolution limitation is not a problem for these targets : they are already working mainly with 12Mp nikons anyway, and are ok with that. more than that it is easier to achieve higher fps with 12MP than with 18MP…
Another point is the feasibility to build a quicker system since the mirror is smaller, the inner space smaller as well, and the shutter is smaller as well. Hence the enhanced possibilities to create and design a more reliable and quick system (less material to move, reduced probability of material defect in a smaller part than a bigger and more complex one).
The catch is the high iso performance. You can say what you want, but Nikon really defined a new standard with D3 and D3s. Now a lot of sport pro commonly use 4000 to 6400 iso for their work. A smaller system for a pro use should be able to achieve a usable 6400 iso for press (ie max 12800 for example). you can counter that with wider aperture lenses.
The more I cross my thoughts with discussions with pros I know, the more I realize that the manufacturer that could win this target is nor Canon, neither Nilon…but Olympus…
They have an impressive lense lineup with f2 zooms (f2 !!) this crazy aperture is even more possible with their small 4/3 sensor. They have impressive telezoom, half the size of their Canon/Nikon counterparts
For me, this could be a crazy move but very profitable one : Olympus should invest all the R&D they can in improving the Iso capabilities of the E30 12Mp sensor, put it in a light, but rugged body with killing processing capabilities and all the traditional bells and whistles of the brand (perfect metering and colorimetry, 100% vf…). From an engineering point of view, the small form factor of the 4/3 sensors and mirror enable the design of an 12+fps system (possibly 13-14). The three difficulties are sensors engineering / data processing, shutter engineering to ensure reliable pro spec, and designing a good AF system…I think Olympus is lacking resources for that (I would love to help them design that BTW!)…but I am sure Canon did the same analysis long ago…hence the rumor of F2 zooms…
To get back to the rumors…I don’t think an EVIL is relevant…remember Canon is not in a hurry, they have huge sale numbers, and the EVIL is not a big market. Canon can still enter it afterward, taking the benefit of all the engineering flaws other brands would have done then. But…I think the most credible part is that Canon could/should try to create a new line for sport/photojournalism/ in a small form factor and with a small sensor. Today the quality difference between APS-C, APS-H and FF is depending only on the High iso capabilities. Color, Accuracy, microcontrast…there are differences but no big ones. Don’t forget all pro sport shooters shoot in JPEG !
What do you think?
No one mentioned about heat/energy walls.
Even if Canon can release a set of lenses that are fully compatible with the so-claimed new EVIL, how could they deal with heat dissipation? 7D and T2i with APS-C sized sensor can only run at about half an hour in Live mode. Also, it will be energy consuming to stay in Live mode (EVIL doesn’t have a mirror, so Live mode is basically required because it doesn’t have a viewfinder).
just consider the fact that they never release a model that threats another model’s market
Here is what makes sense to me:
Single lens reflex cameras may be going the way of dinosaurs — why do you need a mechanical mirror when you can get the same image through an electronic viewfinder?
A mirrorless “rangefinder” style professional camera would have the same advantages that made Leica users so loyal: silent, slightly smaller, more durable with fewer mechanical parts to break. Also, I assume the frame rate could increase since you wouldn’t have to deal with a mirror going up and down. Battery life would be longer, because the battery doesn’t have to power the mirror mechanism. Manufacturing costs go down because you are replacing mechanics with electronics.
Canon could test the waters with a professional quality EVIL that would look a lot like traditional rangefinders.
Only part that doesn’t make sense to me is the whole image sensor size issue. No camera manufacturer is going to abandon or undercut the APS-C sensor. In fact, if you look at the trends, just the opposite — Canon and other manufacturers are starting to offer “pro-quality” lenses in the APS-C size.
Lenses are the only durable good any more — cameras get replaced every two years, but lenses last 10 years or more before new models come out.
In a few years we may all be using EVIL cameras with full frame, APS-C and maybe even the APS-H sensors.
BS…
D90, D5000, Pentax Kx all share the same Sony APS-C 12 Mp sensor…take a look at DXOMark ranking and you will see that they have superior sensor performance than D300s…doesn’t make D300s a less desirable camera.
The same with t2i / 550d and 7d…same sensor and processing quality. The sensor is just a tool, a component. The market segmentation is on the AF, the fps, the 100% vf, the ruggedized body…not in sensor anymore…and it’s all the best for poor customers :-) the 550d is really a super camera and if you don’t need the speed of the 7d, you have a winner. For the same price, I prefer buying t2i/550d and 17-55 f2.8 IS than 7d and 15-85 IS…
If my message hadn’t been eaten by CR website (it’s not the first time) I would have said the same thing !
A stealth High quality SLR ala Leica could be a winner in photojournalism
This definitely won’t happen for the next 20 years. It would render Canon’s EF-S lens lineup completely useless.
Sounds great ! larger sensor and use EFS lenses…I think I’m in. (if it’s made).
Am i wrong in thinking that EVIL cameras have no mirror?
Only MicroSoft can make EVIL cameras, the rest will make Mirrorless Interchangle Lens cameras.
BTW still waiting for the T3i with a 36×48 sensor able to shoot IMAX quality video :-D
why?
third party “efs” lenses all mount – they just produce a black circle if set too wide….
Only Canon makes these EFS lenses with teh deep socket in the back that slaps teh mirror – people have modified them successfully in the past – no reason Canon couldn’t make EFS work on a 1.3 – the mirror is smaller than FF
Well they might as well buy a 100-400L if they really want a zoom ending in a 350mm+ f/5.6 configuration that is able to AF.
I would like to see a EF-S 30mm prime from Canon as well – seems to me like there is a huge market there.
As to quality wides and ultra-wides, the 2 new Canon TS-Es are on par with the N14-24 as far as IQ goes.
I’d take a 1.3 over a 1.6 any day as I don’t mind losing UWA support.
I’d take FF over 1.3 any day, but unfortunately Canon doesn’t have any FF offerings which interest me.
EVIL body would, with sufficient batterylife and manual controls, would be ideal to carry in backbag for long trekking trips. Body weight would be minimized, but I would be able to select my preferred lenses to the field trip. As long as a body without optical viewfinder will have sufficient batterylife, as I would expect EVIL body to utilise LCD display quite a lot…
regarding the rumour, APS-H sound a bit unexpected, but if that would lead to better high ISO and dynamic range, that would be excellent…
I don’t know about high frame rates – since the 1D3 and 1Ds3 share the same mirror box – so the mirror in the 1Ds can move at 10fps as well – just that the DIGIC processors can’t keep up.
Right! For great justice!
Sony has made their MIL NEX-3/5 too small for anything except a P&S replacement. A Canon the same size as a Leica M9 but with a video viewfinder is a better form factor for a real (not P&S) camera.
NEW lenses will be NEEDED for any MIL (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens) camera, if you are trying to make the camera thinner/lighter. Just removing the mirror does nothing to accomplish this.
+1
APS-C makes more sense for EVIL, APS-H would be awesome in a 7D body.
It makes perfect sense to make more use of APS-H. APS-C is a little too cropped, whereas APS-H is just cropped enough to remove some of the weaker edges from FF lenses, without losing too much wide angle or shallow DOF options. Also, I think APS-H is unique to Canon, therefore a big differentiator.
Hmm… What if Canon tries to put a 1.3x sensor into the 60d, but makes it compatible with EF-S. I understand that many EF-S lenses have image circles slightly bigger than the 1.6x crop. Would it be possible to use a EF-S lens on a 1.3x? There will be minor vignetting and black spaces, but not decidedly as much as FF. In fact, it just might be barely useable….
Maybe some day, but this is still a long way off. You do not get the same image without a mirror. Mirrorless viewfinders are horrible to work with, image quality is awful, and the image response is slow. Battery life not likely improved because the LCDs take quite a lot of power.
I’d rather use FF lenses; 1.3 crop is just enough to cut out the weaker borders without losing too much wide angle or shallow DOF flexibility.
Sounds like a fanboi’s wishful fantasy. A little history lesson for the gadget-collecting techie poseurs/dilletantes who think MILCs would replace DSLRs when they have the same bulk if you attach non-pancake lenses to the former (it looks ridiculously unergonomic): The APS-H sensor size was made since, at that time, it was the largest sensor that can be made in one exposure pass of the photolithographic equipment. The 35FF sensor size needed three passes back then. But now, Canon has the fab equipment to make larger than 35FF sensors in one pass, so the costs should come down. The problem is the wafer size doesn’t increase, so there is still a choice to be made if a wafer is to be used for making APS-C, APS-H or 35FF-sized sensors. Let me quote from Canon’s own full-frame sensor white paper:
“An 8-inch silicon wafer can produce only 20 full-frame sensors, while the same wafer area can yield 46 APS-H-sized or 200 APS-C-sized sensors. Research, development, manufacturing and distribution costs are all independent of camera size, so a smaller camera will not cost appreciably less than a larger one for any of these reasons. The end cost difference between small mirrors, mirror boxes, chassis and so forth, and larger ones is not that great. The difference is the sensor.”
So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. APS-H cameras would still cost more to produce than APS-C ones, even if all other things are equal, and cameras using it would reflect that in their price. If this new Canon MILC has an APS-H sensor, how many are willing to pay north of $2K for one? Not me. It would still be as bulky as DSLRs if attached with more useful lenses anyway. :P
+3 Agree
It’s likely that they can’t pull the data off the imaging chip fast enough, much less the processor.
I can’t believe so many people have totally missed the point behind a mirrorless camera. No mirror, means you can have a much shorter lens mount to sensor distance, allowing smaller lenses. But this does mean you need a new set of lenses to make use of it. The current EVIL cams from the likes of Panasonic, Olympus and most recently Sony all have a different lens mount than their respective DSLRs.
So, if Canon went APS-H in their EVIL camera, they would need a new lens line up, and can optimise it for APS-H from the start.
What happens to EF and EF-S lenses are secondary to this. I can imagine both would still be usable with a dedicated adapter. Thanks to the all electronic interface they can still be fully controlled from the body.
Those complaining about the size need to take it in perspective. The Leica M9 will full frame sensor isn’t much bigger than the micro4/3 cameras. An APS-H might be on the bigger side of what’s available now.
Another possible reason for APS-H would be to stand out from the rest. If everyone else has 1.5x crop or smaller sensors, a bigger sensor could be a helpful selling point.
Lenses could be a bit bigger than if they went smaller sensor, particularly for telephotos, but I think for medium-wide to standard equivalent lengths they will be small enough.
My verdict – possible.
What are you talking about? I like 1.3 crop, but forget about UWA unless you want to either hack a lens or use a crappy third party lens.
Yep.
What is the best sensor size to make a high quality camera as compact as possible ? Not clear to me.
The following lenses have the same light gathering capability:
– f2 lens for m4/3
– f2.5 lens for aps-c
– f3.2 lens for aps-h
– f4 lens for 24×36
Which one is the smallest ? I don’t know, it may depend on the focal length.
And if your target is IL3 at 1/60s (IL3 is very common, and people tend to move a bit, so it’s not an unreasonable target), what is more compact:
-m4/3 + f1.4 wide-angle ?
-aps-h + f2.2 wide-angle ?
I still don’t believe this rumour but, depending on the ambitions of the camera, the “sweet spot” between sensor size and lens aperture isn’t clear to me.
BTW, Nikon is rumoured to do just the opposite, put wide-aperture lenses on a smaller sensor…
(PS : of course, dynamic range in good lighting conditions is better with the bigger sensor.)
Sure, but the lenses on those cameras were quite poor and would be totally unacceptable by today’s enthusiast (nevermind pro) standards.
You can always make a small lens throw a large image circle if you’re willing to sacrifice speed and IQ.
many people here seem to think that the rumored Canon mirrorless can simply be the 60D or 7DII…etc, this can’t be, if Canon ever do mirrorless, it’ll have new names to make it clear that these are different from the EOS DSLR’s, look at all the manufacturers who have mirrorless how they name the new class differently from their DSLRs (Panasonic: G versus L, Oly: EP versus E, …) .
A second point is that EF-S will not be as incompatible with a 1.3x mirrorless camera as they are with a 1.3x DSLR, because of the large mirror hitting the back. of the… but that doesn’t apply to a 1.3x mirrorless as it doesn’t have a mirror. They’ll still have smaller image circle than the 1.3x sensor, but you should be able to use them should there ever be a 1.3x EVIL.
reading the rumor and the replies, I find more craziness in the latter than in the former.
Not to mention the power consumption of the sensor that has to be constantly acquiring images. I would think that battery life is, for the foreseeable future, a con for EVIL. With a SLR, power is only consumed when pushing the shutter; battery drain is negligible at all other times (unless you’re using live view, of course, which is basically EVIL with a larger brighter LCD.)
So long as you don’t need UWA. I’d never go 1.3 unless they made an UWA lens for the format.
I didn’t find any craziness, just a amazing lack of knowledge about the technolgy. Some also presume to know what Canon’s mareting departement “have” to do – like claiming that Canon can’t use the EOS-name for an EVIL-camera.
I get your joke, but do you not know what EVIL stands for? At least don’t capitalize ‘EVIL’ cause then you’re suggesting that you’re using it as an acronym.
i didnt say they won’t use EOS, I just mentioned EOS as a collective name of the current DSLR’s, but I won’t be surprised if they call it EOS+something just like Sony call their new EVIL’s Alpha NEX ( the emphasis is much more on the latter name). What would be surprising, is if Canon use one of the known series naming pattern like xxD–>60D, 70D or 7D-mark-xx or even 3D …etc, such names would be confusingly suggestive of a DSLR. EOS could be used for both to mean a system or large-sensor camera.
Actually Leica M9 which is FF is exactly the same size as its APS predecessor, the M8 (if I remeber well, M8 has a largish APS sensor bigger than 1.5x and close to 1.3x). Also the new Sony NEX are smaller than all m4/3 cameras in spite of a considerably larger sensor.
However to keep the size of the camera and lenses small while increasing the sensor size, there has to be some design compromises and most like compromises in the optics of the system (like use a relatively short flange distance resulting in angle-of-incidence problems.
most ***likely*** compromises in……
One year ago exactly, CR posted this:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/aps-h-is-alive-cr2/
Maybe June 9th should become the APS-H day!
EVIL is an acronym used everyday by people on ALL rumor sites, not just canonrumors.com
MIL is the acronym used by Sony for their Mirrorless Interchangle Lens NEX-3/5 cameras. DPReview http://www.dpreview.com/news/1005/10051102sonynex.asp WIRED http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/05/sonys-nex-mirrorless-cameras-are-the-smallest-in-the-world/
No company is going to use the acronym EVIL, because normal citizens (not fanboys) Will NOT purchase an “Evil” camera. EVIL camera would be denounced by tech adverse know nothing “Religious Fundamentalists” all over the world. So when Canon/Nikon/Pentax make MIL cameras don’t expect the press releases to mention “EVIL”, ain’t gonna happen.
Maybe you should start calling MIL cameras MIL cameras, CNET has http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcameras/0,39001469,62200412,00.htm
I told you all this a long time ago under my previous silly name. It makes a huge amount of sense for Canon and the flange distance does not have to be the same. The flange distance will be less, this enables easy glassless converters for EOS, FD and a host of other lens lines, including a small dedicated range of small, light, medium speed primes. How does a 24mm (effective 32mm) f1.8 at 72mm long and only 12 oz’s sound?
Well, (i) zoom is more convenient than a prime, (ii) the Nikkor lens starts 3mm wider than the TS-E 17mm, and (iii) Amazon prices at the moment are U.S.$1,800 for the Nikkor lens, and >U.S.$2,000 for the TS-E lenses.
from what I read on another site, I gather the camera may have shensor sift.
To clarify – the TS-E lenses are >U.S.$2,000 *each*.
somehow i dont trust any rumor with too many explanations. they look like opinions to me. would be interesting to go back and compare if those rumors containing reasoning turned out to be more or less often true than others.
I wouldn’t get rid of my 5DII, but APS-H in a 7D body would be a killer second body.
BTW … 16-35 becomes about a 20-48 f2.8 on APS-H. Not bad.
So instead of giving it to a serious photographer with a 7d, you would give it to a Point and shoot lover ?
Hmmmm….
Like
Flagship 1Ds (Pro FF )-> 5D (Prosumer FF)
1D mark X (Pro APS-H)-> 7D (Prosumer APS-H)
I bet 7D with APS-H that’s 1.3 x is so appealing to serious DSLR market. At least they can introduce another model like 9D with APS-C.
At least in Canon DSLR line, 1D should not be alone with APS-H sensor, 1D needs little brother.
I think Canon should not join these EVIL market, Like Hasselblad,PhaseOne and many other medium and large format are focusing on what they are based on. So Canon and Nikon should get serious with their DSLR.
I don’t understand what APS-H got to do with EVIL. It’s not sensible. Anyway APS-C is more suitable in EVIL if canon ever makes it.
One thing is for sure, These EVIL cameras do not target pro, that means you know the quality, there is very fine line that distuguish it from pro models. If there is competition in the market for EVIL, companies look forward to add other features and component sacrificing quality component.
Thank You Admin for your hard work & willingness to “paying close attention to the comments section to see what the tech folks think about this.” Although you declare that this is a rumor site, your attitude puts a lot more credibility than just a rumor site. THANKS !!!
Think about a new EF-X mount for EVILs (“Extreme short backfocus” to create greate wide and ultrawide angles) and an adapter for EF/EF-S lenses: Compact body/lenses + compatibility with existing equipment.
APS-H sounds – as seen by many – odd. Why not a full frame sensor in an EVIL? If an EF-S lens is coupled, it uses APS-C area? And an option to cut out the APS-H area if a full frame capable lens is attached. The EVIL concept allows to use
* different lenses on one body (EF, EF-S)
* without sacrificing the potential of these lenses.
But: Universal compatibility might be a dream … such a camera stands between typical consumer market requirements (compact size) and the requirements of artistical photographers.
I´m sure, that the EOS EVIL will be the Video-Camera in the EOS-line-up. Why not with APS-H. So everything fit together with the EOS 3D.
A Canon SX10 IS for $450, or Canon 550D + Canon EF 100-400mm for $2500 ? Tough decision for those who can’t / won’t spend a lot of money.
I think the APS-C & EF-S line is for those who want something better than compacts and cheaper than FF bodies & L lenses.
Hence, the idea to make an EF-S lens that ends at 350mm, so Canon 550D + EF-S 150-350mm IS would cost $1400 and would stand somewhere between the SX10 IS and a deal which includes an L zoom glass.
And its right, the next 1D from then was the APS-h Mk4.
As we see with all other mirrorless cameras, a Canon mirrorless could use smaller lenses using a new mount with adapters for all current Canon lenses.
APS-H sensors are cheaper to manufacture than full-frame sensors, keeps them affordable and competitively priced.
APS-H uses lenses with the same image circle than full-frame, which would permit Canon to come out with FF mirrorless cameras later on.
do you think that all mirrorless users are P&S’ers?!
Not bad, but not UWA.
That’s only part of the truth.
There existed a lot of great compacts with a prime lens of highest quality – and we have now additional techniques to build lenses with less elements by the use of extraordinary dispersion, aspherical surfaces, etc.
This works for wide angles, standard lenses and light telephoto lenses because you don’t need retrofous constructions to avoid a “mirror – back element” crash. If you need a zooms or super tele photo … you are absolutely right: reduced size sacrifices quality.
But think about a compact APS-H (-C) camera which takes – via adapter – your EF and EF-S lenses as an “intelligent rear cap”. Decrease the number of lens changes by a secondary oder tertiary body – avoids time loss/photo loss and dust on sensors.
The TS-E 17mm is wider – to around 11mm FF if you stitch though. I do think a 14-24L will be nice in any case.
Seems a bit far fetched.
However APS-H is close to the perfect sensor size for video if the camera can be PL mounted.
A depth shorter than EOS mount would allow this.
Hope i would get a chance to try this out to see what it really is.
I would love a small high quality mirrorless camera, and I would even consider the Leica M9, but honestly it isn’t a Canon. I dream of getting EOS quality in a G type chassis.
For those of you you old enough to remember, how great was the Minolta CLE and then later on the Contax G2 system. The Panasonic and Olympus are both getting close, but I’m holding out for a Canon range like that for a few more months. By Christmas I’ll get one of those if Canon doesn’t have an answer.
How sweet would a Canon version of the M9 be, now that is something I’d really love, FF EOS chip – bring it on!!
There is a photo “seemingly” of the rumored camera that I can see at the bottom of the page, google seems to have the news in advance!
Your logic fails.
It was rather not unlikely since they have to redesign the lenses anyway so sensor being APS-H doesn’t provide a disadvantage for lenses (except APS-C lenses on an adapter might vignette).
Reason for not using FF would most likely be price. And as such if you look at price alone APS-C or smaller would make more sense but then the rumor had an explanation for why a bigger size may be better (not that much more expensive + easier to get better performance.)
Last point was a nice one.
Gene’s logic doesn’t fail at all.
The whole point of going “EVIL” is to remove the mirror assembly.
Canon’s lenses were designed to be a specific distance from the sensor plane.
Unless they release a new line of lenses – a THIRD line of lenses – there is no advantage to an EVIL camera with the same distance between the rear of a lens and the sensor plane.
Sigma 8-16?
Why do you comment if you know nothing?
Whatever they make I’m sure it will be able to use EF-S-lenses, by an adapter, but they aren’t the lenses you will want to use.
Neither of you people understand anything so I don’t see why you write something. You will have to design new lenses no matter what sensor anyway.
If they do this, or any compact with exchangeable lenses, they need to redo everything not mounted on an adapter. Sensor doesn’t matter.
I doubt it’s harder to make a wide lens for a compact EVIL with APS-H sensor than one with APS-C.
Yeah, all Leica lenses are quite poor.
And huge, definitely huge.
Anyone going into compact EVIL cameras with short flange distance will have to switch mount from the DSLRs.
If you go EVIL with an DSLR-styled house of similar dimensions and just drop the mirror, shutter and optical viewfinder than yes, sure you can keep EF.
But as of right now no “pros” would buy that until AF speed and EVF quality increase.
No, just crop away anything outside what would had ended up on an APS-C-sensor.
Sure you lose megapixels but you still get the same sensor area and hence most likely the same quality.
So if you mount EF-S lenses on the camera and where used to APS-C you lose nothing.
If you mount EF lenses you gain a lower crop factor and higher IQ.
But this rumor is about EVIL and not classic DSLRs so nothing of that matters.
Or well now I see the answer about regarding deep socket on Canons EF-S lenses, ok then they may not work on APS-H DSLR. However in an DSLR-styled APS-H EVIL they would most likely work anyway since there’s no mirror to be found.
Over at 43rumors there was a rumor that Olympus won’t make any more four-thirds lenses. (And hence most likely only focus on micro four-thirds or that + something bigger such as full-frame.)
“Battery life would be longer, because the battery doesn’t have to power the mirror mechanism.”
As someone else said running the sensor and LCD/EVF + contrast-detect AF will most likely use up more energy than flipping a mirror.
Yeah because a mirror is what makes photography serious and pro.
Of course Canon will have to design new lenses, the question is whether those lenses will be for an EVIL camera (= incompatible with existing DSLRs) or not (= for existing DSLRs).
If Canon wants photographers to keep on buying Canon equipments (say Canon lenses, instead of Sigma Lenses), then – IMESHO – it should not start a new line of lenses.
I think that would be a mistake for two reasons:
1. EF-S lenses have too small a covering power to work with APS-H sensors, so Canon would essentially screw the existing Canon APS-C body owners.
2. Canon currently enjoys the fact that third party lens manufacturors can design an APS-C lens once, and just change the adapter to make it work with bodies of differing camera manufacturors. If Canon replaces APS-C with APS-H, that market would dry up as APS-H is too small a market.
[How many APS-H lenses have you seen to date ? Even Canon doesn’t bother to manufacture such lenses.]
The 8-16 is APS-C only.
Obviously my reply was for the guy one step above.
Wrong reply link.
In that case they will miss out the compact/rangefinder style EVIL camera market totally since their equipment will be much bigger.
And the only thing if anything will be DSLR-styled cameras with mirror and optical viewfinder replaced by EVF.
The EVIL in APS-H size makes a lot of sense, assuming that it will have its own line of lens for anything shorter than 75mm focal length. Anything longer than that , a standard EF lens with adapter will do. It will not impact the over all size. So canon just need to make a few more lenses. It will be the best compromise in size and picture quality, hopefully in price also. It will be a good camera for people that likes the Leica M9 and does not want to pay for it, due to lack of auto focusing or it is just too expensive. If it is done right, It will make the 4/3 mirrorless camera looks like a toy. As for “the EVIL is not camera for the PRO”, I will respectfully disagree with that. It will have the picture quality of the 1D, the size smaller than the existing DSLR. It also can be faster that any DSLR in frame per second second, due to lack of mirror movement.
Picture quality of Leica M9 is better than any other full frame DSLR (refer to DPreview, Leica M9 review). However you need to know how to use a range finder camera. Even it does not have auto focusing, you can use zone focusing. By doing that you will not have focusing lack time and the shutter delay will only be 1/20 sec. So if you are considering M9 and you have the skill of using a range finder, you should get the M9.
It is the ability of the user and the capability of the camera that makes a pro. ALL Lieca M, F and G models do not have mirror. They are all pro cameras.
my calculation is as follows: For an 8 inch wafer, It will yield 14 FF sensor (60% yield), 36 APS-H sensor (75 % yield), 64 APS-C sensor (80% yield). Fro CMOS wafer in 8 inches diameter, the cost is about US$1000. so the cost for FF is $71, APS_H is $28 and APS_C is $15.6. Assuming the cost is quadral up due to micro lens, low pass filter etc. The still put the vcost of sensor as follow: $284 for FF, 112 for APS-H and $62.5 for APS-C. If Canon can Make the 5D II that sells $2300 and the Rebel that sells for $&00. Canon can make an EVIL with APS-H that sells for $1000 easily, assuming the volume is high enough.
John Swan, you contradict yourself, in the first para you say that things have evolved in sensor production that APS-H is no longer the largest size that can be made in 1 pass, then in 2nd para you quote an “ancient” white paper that dates back to the early days of 5D1, in the 3rd para you stick to the wrong conclusion (based on the old white paper). I think you were right only in 1st para that sensor production has changed.
sigma 12-24 is a full frame lens and gives an ultra WA equivalent of approx. 15.5mm on a 1.3x body (slightly wider than 16-35 on FF as well as the 16mm eq. of 10-22mm on 1.6x) . anyway DSLR lenses were designed to AF with PDAF not CDAF, so any EVIL system needs its new lenses. And since Canon have to design that line of lenses from scratch it can be for any sensor size, and EF-S will be usable with adapter and a crop mode on this 1.3x evil if it ever materialize (no mirror problem for EF-S on EVIL with a larger than APS-C sensor).
You can stitch Nikkor 14-24mm photos as well.
If a Canon DSLR owner switches to EVIL, said owner can switch to EVIL by any company whatsoever.
Considering Canon has problems keeping up with two lines of lenses, it might make sense switching to an EVIL camera by a company that doesn’t have such a problem.
Canon tend to care about having a very comprehensive lineup (the most comprehensive among all camera makers), from the simplest Elph or A-series to the 1D pro level, and just about anything inbeween.
Initially Canon abandoned bridge cameras (like G6 & Pro1, circa 2004) so that enthusiasts who are looking for a Canon would buy the newly introduced Rebels then, but few years later (2006) they re-introduced the G-series in the form of the G7.
The new class of EVIL/mirrorless has become just too important to be ignored by a company who cares about diversifying their products this much.
There is no contradiction, since that “ancient” white paper gives us the *proportional* number of sensors for the 3 sensor sizes that can be made for a given wafer size, which is 8 inches, and, more recently, 12 inches in diameter. My conclusion is simple, an MILC using an APS-H sensor would still be significantly higher-priced compared to the MILCs from competitor brands now, and that’s why I said it would be very unlikely to be made.
You said it by yourself “more recently, 12 inches”, so things have changed. And even for the 8″ wafer that was the way they used to divide it back in 2005, now they could do it differently, it is not an insurmountable limitation due to sensor areas, FYI APS-C= ~330mm2, APS-H= ~550mm2 & FF=864mm2. Another very important point suppose APS-H costs many times more than APS-C, but the price of both constitutes a very low % of the total camera cost, in that case sensor cost becomes a mute point.
see the reply in the bottom.
You are right. Read my previous post. My estimate is about $60 difference between the APS-C and APS-H sensor. That is based on *” wafers. If they move to 12″. this difference should be smaller.
John, the price between APS-C and APS-H sensor is about $60. If I strap the curve, The difference between APS_H sensor and 4/3 sensor is about $80. I will pay the extra $80 anytime to get a much better picture. The sensor is just a small part of the cost of digital camera. I thinks that Canon should make a reasonable priced EVIL camera to complete with Olympus, Panasonic and even Leica.
Hallelujah!
It would be like the second coming. Can you see it? FD lenses on an official adapter on a digital Canon camera…
The Balance would be restored.
i agree. Who said this rumor is about a stills only camera. For me this sounds like the most logical development after the succes of 5d and 7d… A wet dream of every cinematografer. Advantages of 5d s video by taking away the photocamera handling