A Little 1Ds Mark IV Info

[ELK]

This might sound like a stupid question, but does small size = EVIL bodies?

Are there other ways of making a camera smaller without removing that reflector? ???

Well Canon Japan’s Image Communication head Masaya Maeda certainly thinks it is possible. Following is a quote from Masaya:

"It’s not a question of whether or not you have a mirror. There is a consumer need for good-quality cameras to be made smaller … We will meet this need."

The following paragraph is from an article related with Masaya's interview with Reuters:

"Masaya Maeda said that Canon is working on a smaller version SLR to be released in the near future. In an interview with Reuters, Maeda said the idea behind the small SLR is that it could compete with Nikon’s future mirrorless system and other existing EVIL systems that are inherently more compact than most current mid-level DSLRs."

For the full article go to http://www.petapixel.com/2010/07/20/canon-imaging-head-says-future-slrs-will-be-smaller-but-not-necessarily-evil/

This size question is really interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the end isn't it the sensor size which mostly determines the size of body+lens combo, and not the availability/non-availability of that mirror? I mean, for example for a 35mm sensor, a 50mm lens glass should have 50mm distance from the sensor, shouldn't it? (Apart maybe only from diffractive optics (DO) lenses, which makes Canon). Sony NEX has smalles body in all EVILs, but their lenses just have to be long enough to provide same focusing distance as, say Sony Alpha SLRs with same sized sensor.

I think, Mr. Maedas point is that no matter if you use a mirror or not, you need to provide same distance from a sensor to lens glass for a given size of sensor. And since the real size of the camera is the size of the body + lens, so there is not much difference between an SLR, which is made as compact as possible, and a mirrorless camera.

 

[EYEONE]

I don't think that's the case with the Lecia M9. It has a full frame sensor and the certainly isn't as deep as a DSLR or the mirror box.

I could be wrong but I'm assuming that if you design a new lens system you can do whatever you want.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the end isn't it the sensor size which mostly determines the size of body+lens combo, and not the availability/non-availability of that mirror? I mean, for example for a 35mm sensor, a 50mm lens glass should have 50mm distance from the sensor, shouldn't it? (Apart maybe only from diffractive optics (DO) lenses, which makes Canon). Sony NEX has smalles body in all EVILs, but their lenses just have to be long enough to provide same focusing distance as, say Sony Alpha SLRs with same sized sensor.

I think, Mr. Maedas point is that no matter if you use a mirror or not, you need to provide same distance from a sensor to lens glass for a given size of sensor. And since the real size of the camera is the size of the body + lens, so there is not much difference between an SLR, which is made as compact as possible, and a mirrorless camera.

The rear element-to-sensor distance is determined by lens design and sensor size, but that's irrelevant for this discussion. Canon designed the EF-S mount for APS-C bodies, where the rear element of the lens is closer to the sensor (-S means short back focus) than on FF bodies - meaning a smaller image circle, which is fine for the smaller sensor). That works because with the smaller sensor, the mirror can be smaller. But regardless of the lens design, the body can't be any thinner since the mount-to-sensor needs to be able to accommodate the standard EF mount (and Canon's mount-to-sensor distance is already the among the shortest, which is why Nikon lenses can be mounted on Canon bodies via a non-optical adapter, whereas the reverse is not true).

A mirrorless design could be substantially thinner than current bodies, but would require a new series of lenses (or an adapter to work with existing EF lenses, which would obviate the reduction in thickness).