Canon EOS-A1 with Hybrid EVF? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15324"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15324">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Hybrid EVF Coming to EOS?


</strong>There is a new rumor floating around about the next high end, and high megapixel camera from Canon. Apparently this camera will have a hybrid EVF, optical for stills and electronic for video purposes. Megapixel count is said to be 35mp or higher, though the exact number isn’t known.</p>
<p>The moniker for the camera? The EOS-A1, though it’s unknown if that’s just the prototype name.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take

</strong>I’m sure there will be a time when Canon starts to experiment with different solutions for the viewfinder in cameras. If the above technology is an actual thing Canon is testing, I’d expect to see it in a Cinema EOS DSLR first. Perhaps such a feature that could differentiate it from its standard EOS cousin? Speaking of which, we have been told to expect a new Cinema EOS DSLR in 2014, and most likely at NAB in “development” form.</p>
<p>A grain of salt on this one, this is a rumor from another web site.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-rumor/" target="_blank">CW</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[ScottyP]

So it would be a mirrorless camera?

 

[rs]

So it would be a mirrorless camera?

Hybrid viewfinder. To me that means switchable between electronic and optical. Optical can be either a rangefinder style or SLR style.

I'd guess it's a DSLR.

 

[dryanparker]

Not sure I understand the correlation between a flagship studio camera and a switchable Optical/EVF. If I'm doing studio work and need the EVF feature, I'd much prefer Live View. Am I alone here?

Seems EVF makes a lot more sense on smaller cameras, particularly mirrorless or rangefinders.

 

[surapon]

" The moniker for the camera? The EOS-A1, though it’s unknown if that’s just the prototype name."
No, That new smart Camera should call " EOS-EA1 ( Excellent A-1), NOT Old AE-1( Program)---No, Why not EOS-A1, Because, if the Next Mark , such as MK II, They can not call " EOS-A2E" ( And I already have Canon A2E 16-18 years ago.---Ha, Ha, Ha ).,
Just want to have FUN. Before I spend more money for Canon Company again, with in Next 6 Months.
Surapon

 

[keithcooper]

Not sure I understand the correlation between a flagship studio camera and a switchable Optical/EVF. If I'm doing studio work and need the EVF feature, I'd much prefer Live View. Am I alone here?

As an architectural photographer, it might sometimes be helpful to have a -good- EVF available outdoors. Much easier to see at full magnification, without needing my glasses, for critical focus with movements. LV rarely cuts it for me once I'm working out of the studio. Of course if I took my glasses with me more often, it would help ;-)

That said I don't have any issues with '1 series' optical viewfinders as they are (particularly with the range of focusing screens available)

 

[traveller]

Seems to me that the 1D C is s bit crippled as a video camera without an EVF. A hybrid OVF/EVF would also be a great addition to a high mega pixel flagship stills camera, for critical focusing tasks.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Another Retro Camera (A-1) to copy Nikon? I really doubt if Canon would cripple a camera to the extent that Nikon did.

Canon did have a Hybrid viewfinder patent, as I recall. Its been a couple of years back. Now with the dual pixel system, it mike make sense.

 

[mkabi]

I'm interested in the Cinema Camera... Bring on the 7DC...
By the way, the haters of video... remember the C100 has a native ISO of 850.
Imagine what you can do as photographer with a Native ISO of 850 and 21 MP. Just saying.

 

[zim]

Apparently this camera will have a hybrid EVF, optical for stills and electronic for video purposes.

Phew... Thank goodness I'll never be able to afford this, I hate to think that I'd never use half the functionality in something so expensive :
Love the name though ;D

 

[RGomezPhotos]

I think the 'A1' is just a prototype designation.

EVF? Well, okay. It's going to happen sooner or later. As long as it's implemented well.

 

[Lawliet]

By the way, the haters of video... remember the C100 has a native ISO of 850.
Imagine what you can do as photographer with a Native ISO of 850 and 21 MP. Just saying.

It also gives you just 2MP - about 8 times the sensitive area per pixel. So much for magic photomultiplication due to video.

 

[mkabi]

By the way, the haters of video... remember the C100 has a native ISO of 850.
Imagine what you can do as a photographer with a Native ISO of 850 and 21 MP. Just saying.

It also gives you just 2MP - about 8 times the sensitive area per pixel. So much for magic photomultiplication due to video.

You're right, but your thinking along the lines of 1080p and the minimum requirements it needs inorder for that to be satisfied.

My thinking is this... you see how the DSLR was normally intended for photography, but with the addition of video with Full HD or Ultra HD, its made it easily accessible for aspiring filmmakers and independent filmmakers to make their dream videos/movies come true.

All the same rules and techniques of photography (with some exceptions) can be used onto video.
Inadvertently, photography or digital photography has made an impact on video.

But why can't canon say, okay... lets do the opposite now.... Film is really just 24 frames or pictures per second, right? What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?

You have a movie at 16K resolution, and you can stop it at any frame and turn it into a picture/poster/billboard.

 

[Lawliet]

What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?

That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason. There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

 

[jrista]

I am not much of a fan of EVFs (at least, so far), but I would be very interested in a hybrid EVF. There is no doubt that, if they can reach their technological pinnacle, that an EVF has a lot to offer. Simultaneously, there are things an OVF offers that an EVF never will. Having the option to switch between the two, at will, depending on your needs, in a single camera body?

SIGN ME UP!! ;D 8)

 

[jrista]

Another Retro Camera (A-1) to copy Nikon? I really doubt if Canon would cripple a camera to the extent that Nikon did.

Canon did have a Hybrid viewfinder patent, as I recall. Its been a couple of years back. Now with the dual pixel system, it mike make sense.

I seriously hope not. I have no problem with a retro look, and a stills-dedicated camera...but the Df probably has the worst thought out control system on the planet. Stacked dials?

I don't suspect Canon will, either. I've been digging around the net looking up Nikon history. One thing Nikon does, that Canon doesn't (or at least, not nearly as much of) is release unique and interesting camera models. Nikon has done this for years, probably even decades. They even have a 24karat gold plated camera with real lizard skin grip...it LOOKS truly amazing, it's worth around $20 grand, and there are only like 2000. It's intriguing, it's interesting, it certainly makes the fans rave...

...but, I have to ask: If Nikon did not expend so much time, effort, and money developing frivolous one-off camera models that intrigue the mind and senses, but otherwise don't actually offer any truly compelling advances, and instead invested all that time, effort, and money being a more financially and competitively stable company...would Nikon be Canon's greatest threat today?

 

[mkabi]

What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?

That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason. There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?

 

[sanj]

Bring it on!

 

[jrista]

What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?

That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason. There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?

You do realize that "taking pictures of photons" isn't really what the femtocamera does, right? It actually takes millions of frames through a microscopic slit, basically time-slicing the movement of millions of separate pulses of light. It can't actually record the motion of light waves in a single "frame"...it has to take hundreds of millions to billions of frames, which are then processed via very specialized software, in order to make an actual video clip. The device is rather large, bulky, power hungry, and is unlikely to ever look anything like a normal camera. I suspect it will eventually be shrunk in size, and probably packaged into scientific grade devices where such high speed "photography" could be immensely useful for scientific purposes. But there isn't going to be a million fps digital camera capable of actually taking anything that even remotely resembles a "picture" one millionth of a second long on the market any time soon... :

 

[mkabi]

What if in the future, they produce that prototype camera that is able to shoot 24, 30, 60 and/or 120fps, and its 100MP with Native ISOs of 1600?

That camera would require sensor cells about 16times of the current ones. At the same time you have about 4 times the cells. I.e. each side is sqrt(16)*sqrt(4)=8 times as long, we're talking about a sensor the size of a large format film/plates and lenses large enough to cover it. To have a real light collecting advantage said lenses would have to be faster then the current ones, while DOF gets thin as a razorblade. They used f/64 for a reason. There might be practical problems with that.
NB: The QE of current silicon doesn't allow for much higher sensitivity as we're already close to counting single photons. Unless we're getting more photons we're de facto stuck.

So you're saying its a pipe dream? Like the flying car...
But what about that guy that figured out how to slow it down to the point of taking pictures of photons... was it 1,000,000 fps?

You do realize that "taking pictures of photons" isn't really what the femtocamera does, right? It actually takes millions of frames through a microscopic slit, basically time-slicing the movement of millions of separate pulses of light. It can't actually record the motion of light waves in a single "frame"...it has to take hundreds of millions to billions of frames, which are then processed via very specialized software, in order to make an actual video clip. The device is rather large, bulky, power hungry, and is unlikely to ever look anything like a normal camera. I suspect it will eventually be shrunk in size, and probably packaged into scientific grade devices where such high speed "photography" could be immensely useful for scientific purposes. But there isn't going to be a million fps digital camera capable of actually taking anything that even remotely resembles a "picture" one millionth of a second long on the market any time soon... :

What would I do with a million fps camera? Nothing.
But I'm talking about the possibility that some day there will be a camera both stills and motion based that we won't care that it does both.