Canon 18-45 f/3.5-5.6 Kit Lens for APS-C Mirrorless Patent

[CarebbianTraveler]

My rebel camera with kit zoom is not much heavier than a mirrorless camera, and is already a bit too small for my hands. For me there are two types of cameras: Those who fit in my pocket, and those who don't.
The mirrorlss and the DSLR are both in the second category.
For the first category, I prefer cameras like the Lumix LX3.

my old 450d + 50 1.8 wouldn't fit where my nex now fits with spare room.

Sure not. But the difference is not big enough for me to buy a mirrorless. Especially not because all the EF(-S) lenses I have don't fit. If I wouldn't have a camera yet, I would probably also choose a NEX.

 

[cm71td]

Some advantages of mirrorless

Excuse me for coming off ignorant, but what is with all the hype over mirror-less cameras. I'm serious, what am I missing? I get the part of less mechanical, maybe higher shutter speeds (maybe not), but what about the loss of a "real" viewfinder?

Please, someone enlighten me. ???

It looks like it will be APS-C which is a great start. If Canon learned lessons from other manufacturers, this could be very useful. All of the following are possible with mirrorless:

1. Phase detection Autofocus from the Nikon 1 (some pixels on the image sensor dedicated to phase detection autofocus). This allows for SLR autofocus speed AND use of the full image sensor for face detection and intelligent metering. It also allows for fast autofocus during video.
2. Controls designed for DSLR users. Like the X100 or G1X.
3. Compact size and weight. Will fit in a coat pocket with a pancake prime.
4. Some sharp pancake primes + EF/EF-S adapter.
5. Fast frame rate like the Nikon 1 (no mirror to move). This combined with in-camera HDR could be very useful.

Nikon has some great technology in the Nikon 1, but the made a fundamental mistake in their target audience:
The person who says, "I don't want to learn photography", and "I'm happy with the image quality and DOF of a small sensor", is the last person who wants to buy more lenses for a camera.

Nikon would have a big hit if they gave the Nikon 1 controls like an X100, and an APS-C sensor. Hopefully Canon has learned from Nikon's mistakes.

 

[mkln]

Re: Some advantages of mirrorless

Excuse me for coming off ignorant, but what is with all the hype over mirror-less cameras. I'm serious, what am I missing? I get the part of less mechanical, maybe higher shutter speeds (maybe not), but what about the loss of a "real" viewfinder?

Please, someone enlighten me. ???

It looks like it will be APS-C which is a great start. If Canon learned lessons from other manufacturers, this could be very useful. All of the following are possible with mirrorless:

1. Phase detection Autofocus from the Nikon 1 (some pixels on the image sensor dedicated to phase detection autofocus). This allows for SLR autofocus speed AND use of the full image sensor for face detection and intelligent metering. It also allows for fast autofocus during video.
2. Controls designed for DSLR users. Like the X100 or G1X.
3. Compact size and weight. Will fit in a coat pocket with a pancake prime.
4. Some sharp pancake primes + EF/EF-S adapter.
5. Fast frame rate like the Nikon 1 (no mirror to move). This combined with in-camera HDR could be very useful.

Nikon has some great technology in the Nikon 1, but the made a fundamental mistake in their target audience:
The person who says, "I don't want to learn photography", and "I'm happy with the image quality and DOF of a small sensor", is the last person who wants to buy more lenses for a camera.

Nikon would have a big hit if they gave the Nikon 1 controls like an X100, and an APS-C sensor. Hopefully Canon has learned from Nikon's mistakes.

there's probably some limitation in the phase-detect AF on the nikons.
the small sensor (high DOF) helps to focus faster. but the concept is good. canon should improve on that and build a system with some potential.

 

[CarebbianTraveler]

, and is already a bit too small for my hands.

I am afraid my hands are too big for the P&S - the series 1 fit me perfectly. I use a 40D as my P&S ;D

I can get around with small cameras, no problem. And for landscape photography, I don't even need a viewfinder. But especially when I'm taking a lot of pictures, I also prefer a normal sized camera as the 5D2. And the weight is definitely not a disadvantage when you're in action. Just for carrying around.

 

[psolberg]

f/3.5-5.6

meh. boring.

 

[ecka]

??? Who defined that mirrorless cameras must be small? I really don't understand that crazy desire to carry such expensive, fragile and dust sensitive equipment in your pockets. Why?
I want a normal comfortable size FF mirrorless with all the dials and buttons. Am I alone?

 

[JoeBoe19]

they will make mirrorless cameras as long as people will buy them - and people have already begun buying them.

please dont get rid of my viewfinder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mkln]

??? Who defined that mirrorless cameras must be small? I really don't understand that crazy desire to carry such expensive, fragile and dust sensitive equipment in your pockets. Why?
I want a normal comfortable size FF mirrorless with all the dials and buttons. Am I alone?

no you're not.

I'd love a 5dEVIL:
take the 5d2, remove the mirror, put swivel screen, reduce thickness of body, larger but shorter grip (but still, keep the grip), make it compatible with leica mount (just need a shorter distance to sensor, then adapter manufacturers will do their job).

done. not small, but smaller. not light, but lighter. especially if you consider the lenses.
image quality with small lenses that are not woth $10,000? ok, it'll be somewhat lower. but some picture is better than no picture.

 

[CarebbianTraveler]

I'd love a 5dEVIL:
take the 5d2, remove the mirror, put swivel screen, reduce thickness of body, larger but shorter grip (but still, keep the grip), make it compatible with leica mount (just need a shorter distance to sensor, then adapter manufacturers will do their job).

done. not small, but smaller. not light, but lighter. especially if you consider the lenses.
image quality with small lenses that are not woth $10,000? ok, it'll be somewhat lower. but some picture is better than no picture.

I have something pretty similar from Canon in my hands right now. The A-1, one of the last manual focus canon SLRs. It's much smaller than the 5D and even a rebel, but has a 24x36mm "sensor" size. It also looks much better than the new ones, but the handling is worse due to the smaller size.

 

[kdsand]

As soon as I saw this I thought hmm g1x with nice big sensor ---- mirrorless lens. So now I gotta think there would also be a good sized sensor behind this glass. If not it would seem a step back for Canon.

 

[DzPhotography]

Excuse me for coming off ignorant, but what is with all the hype over mirror-less cameras. I'm serious, what am I missing? I get the part of less mechanical, maybe higher shutter speeds (maybe not), but what about the loss of a "real" viewfinder?

Yes, I know mirror-less have been around on and off for years, but I don't understand what market they're aimed at. Is this to compete with the P&S market, DSLR, market or its own? It seems to me they targeted towards the hip, got-to-have-the-lastest, the in-thing, trendy market.

Please, someone enlighten me. ???

See Leica M9...

not a good example imho. Leica M9 is rangefinder, not mirror-less. And also not affordable for most of the people. I don't understand the hype either, maybe it has to do with less bulky design and still interchangeable lenses. But most mirrorless systems do not have fast enough lenses for my use. Maybe the new Fuji X-Pro 1 will resolve that matter, but it's really expensive again...

 

[c.d.embrey]

Gimme an EF compatible body and a pancake prime for taking on vacation and I'll be a happy happy man.

You'd buy a bulky/over-sized camera like a Pentax K-01 ? http://pentaximaging.com/hybrid/K-01 A Canon CSC with an EF mount would have to be the size of a T3i without the Penta-mirror

 

[kdsand]

Excuse me for coming off ignorant, but what is with all the hype over mirror-less cameras. I'm serious, what am I missing? I get the part of less mechanical, maybe higher shutter speeds (maybe not), but what about the loss of a "real" viewfinder?

Yes, I know mirror-less have been around on and off for years, but I don't understand what market they're aimed at. Is this to compete with the P&S market, DSLR, market or its own? It seems to me they targeted towards the hip, got-to-have-the-lastest, the in-thing, trendy market.

Please, someone enlighten me. ???

See Leica M9...

I've been seeing some huge improvements regarding digital viewfinder tech.
Now nobody start screaming..... good old optic will be around awhile yet.
I think a relatively good veiwfinder as accessory would make these much more viable and relevant.

Well that's me speculating.

 

[c.d.embrey]

I'm not so sure what the outcome will be but I think Canon seems to have pulled all the stops in miniaturizing the lens design. Typical back focus for EF lenses are in the range of 40-70mm range. But this one apparently has a "0.5mm" back focus. Which means an extremely rear plane ! Typically, a lens with a very close rear plane can be made smaller to cover the same image circle.

I wonder how this compares to other mirrorless systems or maybe even the Leica M system ? Anyone has any clues what are the back focus of other mirrorless systems like the NEX ?

18mm for the NEX. Here's a list of ALL lens mounts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount

 

[marekjoz]

Excuse me for coming off ignorant, but what is with all the hype over mirror-less cameras. I'm serious, what am I missing? I get the part of less mechanical, maybe higher shutter speeds (maybe not), but what about the loss of a "real" viewfinder?

Yes, I know mirror-less have been around on and off for years, but I don't understand what market they're aimed at. Is this to compete with the P&S market, DSLR, market or its own? It seems to me they targeted towards the hip, got-to-have-the-lastest, the in-thing, trendy market.

Please, someone enlighten me. ???

See Leica M9...

not a good example imho. Leica M9 is rangefinder, not mirror-less. And also not affordable for most of the people. I don't understand the hype either, maybe it has to do with less bulky design and still interchangeable lenses. But most mirrorless systems do not have fast enough lenses for my use. Maybe the new Fuji X-Pro 1 will resolve that matter, but it's really expensive again...

Pardon. Does it have a mirror? No? Then it's mirror-less. Rangefinder? OK. Why Canon couldn't? Rangefinder + AF via Liveview.
No affordable? True. Does it have cost so much? I don't think so.

Example was to show how good mirrorless camera could be, not how expensive. And I think it might be cheaper if sth lke that was made by Canon.

 

[DzPhotography]

Pardon. Does it have a mirror? No? Then it's mirror-less. Rangefinder? OK. Why Canon couldn't? Rangefinder + AF via Liveview.
No affordable? True. Does it have cost so much? I don't think so.

Example was to show how good mirrorless camera could be, not how expensive. And I think it might be cheaper if sth lke that was made by Canon.

Ok, if you see it in that way, it's mirrorless. But you can't compare it to the whole bunch of the other mirrorless systems. It's another type of cam it's a rangefinder...give it into the hands of someone who uses a mirrorless system for only P&S and they're completely lost... :

 

[marekjoz]

Pardon. Does it have a mirror? No? Then it's mirror-less. Rangefinder? OK. Why Canon couldn't? Rangefinder + AF via Liveview.
No affordable? True. Does it have cost so much? I don't think so.

Example was to show how good mirrorless camera could be, not how expensive. And I think it might be cheaper if sth lke that was made by Canon.

Ok, if you see it in that way, it's mirrorless. But you can't compare it to the whole bunch of the other mirrorless systems. It's another type of cam it's a rangefinder...give it into the hands of someone who uses a mirrorless system for only P&S and they're completely lost... :

Certainly, that's right. The question is - will Canon make mirrorless like P&S and throw away entry DSLR or rather go Leica's way? Or both?
I mean - mirrorless system is at least bodies + lenses. High end - rangefinder like Leica, low end - P&S but same lenses + EF-S compatible. Why not?

 

[c.d.embrey]

I agree. I am worried it will look like the Sony NEX system. Sure the body is small, but the lenses are still large because of the sensor. Not sure how miniaturizing the body helps when the lenses are still large. Just makes working with the body harder as it is small and has fewer external controls.

The small/light Sony NEX makes photography fun again. Until recently my big/bulky/heavy Canon DSLRs were used for paying jobs or test shooting, my walk-around-camera was an iPod Touch 4G. Now I'm using a NEX for walk-around AND some paying jobs. It's so light you hardly know your carrying it

 

[unfocused]

Excuse me for coming off ignorant, but what is with all the hype over mirror-less cameras. I'm serious, what am I missing? I get the part of less mechanical, maybe higher shutter speeds (maybe not), but what about the loss of a "real" viewfinder?

Yes, I know mirror-less have been around on and off for years, but I don't understand what market they're aimed at. Is this to compete with the P&S market, DSLR, market or its own? It seems to me they targeted towards the hip, got-to-have-the-lastest, the in-thing, trendy market.

Please, someone enlighten me. ???

See Leica M9...

not a good example imho. Leica M9 is rangefinder, not mirror-less. And also not affordable for most of the people. I don't understand the hype either, maybe it has to do with less bulky design and still interchangeable lenses. But most mirrorless systems do not have fast enough lenses for my use. Maybe the new Fuji X-Pro 1 will resolve that matter, but it's really expensive again...

I fully agree. Most consumers don't even buy an extra lens for their DSLRs, what makes anything think people will be buying extra lenses for these mirror-less boxes? And, who wants to invest in a completely new set of lenses anyway?

The frustrating thing is this shouldn't be that tough. The Fuji X-10 is about 80% of the way there, and the Canon G1-X is also about 80% there. But, they both seem to have bungled the remaining 20%. Having more interchangeable lenses to invest in isn't a plus in my book. Give me a good viewfinder, decent resolution and a quality 2.8-ish lens that zooms from 28ish-100ish and I'll be there.

 

[DzPhotography]

Pardon. Does it have a mirror? No? Then it's mirror-less. Rangefinder? OK. Why Canon couldn't? Rangefinder + AF via Liveview.
No affordable? True. Does it have cost so much? I don't think so.

Example was to show how good mirrorless camera could be, not how expensive. And I think it might be cheaper if sth lke that was made by Canon.

Ok, if you see it in that way, it's mirrorless. But you can't compare it to the whole bunch of the other mirrorless systems. It's another type of cam it's a rangefinder...give it into the hands of someone who uses a mirrorless system for only P&S and they're completely lost... :

Certainly, that's right. The question is - will Canon make mirrorless like P&S and throw away entry DSLR or rather go Leica's way? Or both?
I mean - mirrorless system is at least bodies + lenses. High end - rangefinder like Leica, low end - P&S but same lenses + EF-S compatible. Why not?

They'll make whatever they can sell the most of it....