Canon Full Frame Mirrorless is Definitely Coming, and The Wait Won't Be as Long as We Thought
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Rocky said:
Why would a "spinning pendulum" preclude the use of an escapement?
Further, the smoothest Rolex second hand movements are quartz modulated.
"A few of Seiko's high-end models have a truly continuous second hand sweep with no mechanically induced stutter if they use a movement type called spring drive, which uses a quartz mechanism to regulate the timepiece so that it doesn't need to have an oscillating balance wheel while preserving the fundamentally mechanical nature of the timepiece. "
Upvote
0
i must admit, that i do prefer analog DISPLAY on timepieces. Because i am old enough to have grown up with it ... clockface, 2 clock-hands/needles ... 1 quick glance and i know what time it is, with more than sufficient precision for anything i do.
That said, i dont want or like mechanical/geared stuff ... so in my ideal world, a watch is fully electronic, solid state .... if a small bit of slightly swinging quartz is included that's fine with me, long as it does not make any noise audible to me or any vibrations perceptible for me ... with an ANALOG-LOOK clockface. e.g. LCD or OLED or whatever electronic display showing time not in figures but on a (virtual) clockface with 2 moving virtual clockhands. 100% mechanics-free.
my first own wristwatch was a digital Seiko ... similar to this "James Bond" version here.
Way back in the mid 1970s ... sub-optimal, because interface was not as intuitive as clockface with 2 hands. But way cool, was the first guy in town sporting one. lol
My first own car had a digital speedometer ... with those shiny red LED figures. No needle moving. Just those number racing from 0 to 200 in one smooth rapid flow when accelerating. LOL. Loved it.
"way back" in 1986 ...
Now, more than 30 years later I still should have to put up with mirror and submirrors slapping when all i want is a a truly electronic, fully digital Canon camera with a 36x24mm sensor. No f+cking way, stupid Canon!
That said, i dont want or like mechanical/geared stuff ... so in my ideal world, a watch is fully electronic, solid state .... if a small bit of slightly swinging quartz is included that's fine with me, long as it does not make any noise audible to me or any vibrations perceptible for me ... with an ANALOG-LOOK clockface. e.g. LCD or OLED or whatever electronic display showing time not in figures but on a (virtual) clockface with 2 moving virtual clockhands. 100% mechanics-free.
my first own wristwatch was a digital Seiko ... similar to this "James Bond" version here.
Way back in the mid 1970s ... sub-optimal, because interface was not as intuitive as clockface with 2 hands. But way cool, was the first guy in town sporting one. lol
My first own car had a digital speedometer ... with those shiny red LED figures. No needle moving. Just those number racing from 0 to 200 in one smooth rapid flow when accelerating. LOL. Loved it.
"way back" in 1986 ...
Now, more than 30 years later I still should have to put up with mirror and submirrors slapping when all i want is a a truly electronic, fully digital Canon camera with a 36x24mm sensor. No f+cking way, stupid Canon!
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Now you've really disappointed me ! I'd have sworn that you'd have been one of the few people left in the developed world who wears a digital display watch ! ;D
Upvote
0
Now you understand the importance of a comfortable user interface and ergonomics. While a digital watch can make it easier to see the precise time, an analog watch is quick, easy and comfortable.AvTvM said:
Your ideal world. Others may have different preferences.
Why is this about what you should have to "put up with?"
I recently went looking for a new watch, and was astonished at the variety available at very low cost. Considering how much more expensive it is to make ILC's, it's not really feasible to create a similar variety that will satisfy each person's individual ergonomic and aesthetic preferences. Manufacturers produce what they think will be profitable. You must simply learn that you can't have everything you, personally, want. It'll happen when the manufacturers think it's time, and one vocal advocate is likely seen as an outlier, or a counterexample, rather than as a sign of the trend. They'll go by sales statistics, not forum post statistics.
Upvote
0
just the other way round. Stupid Canon will soon enough realize that i - AND MANY OTHERS - will simply refuse to buy their wares any longer, if they continue to only offer hopelessly antiquated designs [mirrorslappers].
Canon's revenues and profits dont matter to me. They only matter to them. And to some apologists in forums.
Canon's revenues and profits dont matter to me. They only matter to them. And to some apologists in forums.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
I have a smartwatch that allows me to choose an analog-style clock face, a digital clock face, or a combination display, as I choose.
Wouldn't it be great if my ILC offered a mirror and OVF for quick response, tracking, and better battery life, but could also get the mirror out of the way to show the sensor feed for a WYSIWYG display, enhanced brightness in dim light, and information overlays? Yeah...I'd really like an ILC like that!!
Wouldn't it be great if my ILC offered a mirror and OVF for quick response, tracking, and better battery life, but could also get the mirror out of the way to show the sensor feed for a WYSIWYG display, enhanced brightness in dim light, and information overlays? Yeah...I'd really like an ILC like that!!
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
The technology is largely there, yes, but a transition is still needed if you want to do this all through the viewfinder like I do. I'm keenly interested in shooting manual lenses handheld, and I have no desire to do that with the camera held out 6-12" in front of my eye.
That said, I don't need a hybrid. Pure EVF would work for me as I don't use servo or high fps shooting that often. I'm shooting One Shot almost all the time, so an EVF that can do One Shot with benefits would be attractive.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
If you're looking at stills photography and relatively shallow dof don't hold your breath
I have found that the various unmagnified aids in the more recent EVF are pretty flawed when it comes to accuracy. In fact with manual, very fast lenses I'd say the 's' screen is still more accurate. Focus peaking with manual lenses sounds great in theory, but unless the dof is genuinely very shallow, say for instance the eyelashes in a tight head portrait on an 85mm, the graduation of contrast makes it pretty inaccurate. Magnifying does make it accurate but that's pretty darn useless most of the time when having a viewfinder up to your eye.
A little like digital display watches mirrorless in its present state on larger cameras will rise and fall - - a Sporgon prediction
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Have you used an M5? The EVF is pretty good imo. My opinion is based upon first using an Olympus Pen F which truly sucks big time...lag and jumpiness wise. Plus it was far too contrasty. If you are mainly shooting stills and non moving objects, the AF Touch and Drag setting of Absolute gives great control with AF of small areas. I prefer using the right side of the screen with my right thumb while using the EVF
Upvote
0
slclick said:
Negative, though I'm guessing I'd be fine with it. My AF needs are modest -- spread of points I'll take as 'pro' / comprehensive as possible, but otherwise I don't really put my 5D3 AF through its paces. So I'm guessing I would have been a fine early adopter to mirrorless.
I just love my 5D3 and what has come out since isn't worth its delta in performance over what I already have, nor will it get me to shoot more and improve my game. So I'm good for now.
- A
Upvote
0
Similar threads
