Canon is actively conducting market research on a “retro” style camera body

[jonebize]

The groupthink here is uncanny. "Retro is for hipsters! I need my ERGONOMICS!!" Maybe don't bolt a 2lb lens onto the camera and ergonomics become less of a problem. Get a neck strap and a thumb grip.

You don't use a new-retro body for 12 hour event shoots. You don't use a new-retro body for wildlife safaris. You use it for walking around town, vacations, small friends/family gatherings, where you're only shooting for a few hours at a time. Deep grips are less of a concern when you're not trying to keep the 3.5lb camera+lens combo in your hand for hours on end. I shot Fuji for 6 years (never for long events because I shoot for pleasure) even with the "big" 16-55 and I never once worried about ergos until I started considering switching systems and saw a lot of DSLR users whining about ergos.

Average people are intimidated by ugly black DSLR-like cameras. They scream "professional" and "paparazzi" to many. In my experience, most people don't act natural around them. When they notice your scary black camera is pointed at them, they turn away, or they frown - at best. Retro cameras on the other hand, usually get a look of curiosity or amusement, in my experience, and people tend to continue doing whatever they were doing. I've had many approach me and ask if I'm still shooting film in the day and age of digital. People seem to think film shooters are doing it for the joy of photography and not because they're trying to snap a creepy photo, and that makes them much more comfortable around retro-looking cameras.

Look, if you shoot events or do actual work with your camera, where all-day comfort and convenience truly matter, then a retro body isn't for you! And that's OK! There is a type of person in this world, and in this community, that love to rag on things that aren't for them - as if things that aren't for them, shouldn't be for anyone. It's sad, really.

If you think about it, the world of photographers have gotten so far away from the 60's ethos, or even 80's-90's ethos of carrying a camera around to capture moments from life itself -- that it's no wonder that none of these people are left to talk about this stuff online. Like I said in another post, I used to carry a camera daily until the mid-2010's when shooting film wasn't really feasible anymore.

I have also noticed throughout my life from let's say the early 2000's until now, that the type of people who are photographers, are actually kind of "techy" people who lack aesthetic sensibility. People seem to have been drawn to the field since the inception of AF because of an interest in the technology and specs, etc. When you go into a camera store, still, it's like a d***-measuring contest about who knows what specs better. I really don't admire the work of 99% of these people who claim to be photographers. I don't really see them as artists. Sony products definitely appeal to these people. It's all about the "tech." But they use ugly cameras and take ugly photos. Real artists don't want anything to do with those people -- or more broadly, with the overall space. I would say in general, photographers are lame. Part dorky, part creepy. The lowest of the "artists," for sure. Ironically, you can meet a lot of writers, painters, anything else, who shoot better photos than these people. I don't think this demographic is the crowd that Canon and Nikon are appealing to -- nor are they the ones they should be surveying for the marketing potential of this camera.

 

[jonebize]

The biggest fundamental advantage that Canon has over Nikon, here, is that they actually seem to listen to their customers. Nikon makes horrible, arbitrary decisions regarding certain product features, and I would love to move back to Canon if given the opportunity.

 

[Bonich]

Back in August, we spent a bit of time reading between the lines about a “retro” influences Canon camera from comments made by a Canon executive. This topic was brought up in response to the hype around Nikon’s Zf retro camera body. Now it appears Canon is actively asking customers which of their most iconic

See full article...

Oh yes, a mirrorless F1N replica with removable finder to give free access to the display from the top .....
Please keep the features
- battery less shooting with 1/90 or shorter exposure time
- aperture rings on all lenses.
- a weight withstanding hurricane force storms

- s -

My hands are too valuable to get rid of EOS ergonomics.

 

[FaolainWolf]

canon doesnt make new 50mm lenses, so it will be either the nifty 50 blah or the tank 50 L.

I'm talking about neither of those. I want a FIXED LENS 35mm or 50mm. NOT one of the MASSIVE Canon RF lenses. The Leica Q3, lens and all, probably weighs less than just a Canon RF 50 f/1.2 without camera attached.

 

[Sporgon]

The film VF's are not only huge but also have a glow looking through the lens that makes images look truly special. It makes it exciting to shoot, when you look through the camera and go, "Wowwwwww"

There are a number of factors that have corrupted the original pure view found on quality manual focus slrs.
On many dslr cameras (and the later AF slrs) the centre of the mirror is translucent to allow light to pass straight through, and then via another mirror to the AF module. Manufacturers began using transmissible LCD displays to superimpose onto the screen which we have to look through, to supply the likes of AF points etc. (Take the battery out of a modern dslr and the viewfinder goes dark). The screens used are the “Brite-Screen” invented by Minolta in the ‘80s that give a brighter view with slower lenses at the expense of seeing true dof below about f/2.2. Then take into account built in diopter adjustments and they all add up to mean a modern dslr viewfinder will never quite sing like one of the good slrs from the late ‘70s, early 80s.

 

[SwissFrank]

The Q3 is, at 28mm, a 60 MP camera. It can be electronically cropped (digital zoom) as a 35mm lens, with 36 MP, and, at 50mm, 18,5 MP.
Its lens is superb. Oh, and it's an f 1,7 !

Thanks! That kind of makes one point: we have so many MP and such low noise and lenses are sharp enough I can crop my 16mm/2.8 50mm and still have 4.6MP.

All that said, 28/1.7 is a 16.5mm aperture, which is 50mm f/3.

So while a 50/1.4 couldn't go wider, its images would look night and day different in terms of bokeh, with more than 4x the "bokeh" (if you want to measure areas of bokeh circles of OOF highlights. 40/1.4 likewise would be nearly 4x the bokeh if you measure it like I do.

So, if Leica's not making a 50/1.4 edition of the Q lineup, then a Canonet QL14 with a fixed 50/1.4 or 40/1.4 would be quite attractive I think.

 

[SwissFrank]

I'd love to see metal lens hoods.

Did you ever play with the Contax G outfit? They had metal hoods, and metal hood caps you could put on the hoods. I had a 28/2.8, 45/2.0, and 90/2.8 in my backpack at all times with hoods mounted and capped.

 

[TulseLuper]

a Canonet QL14 with a fixed 50/1.4 or 40/1.4 would be quite attractive I think

This is my feeling although I have zero expectations. The Leica Q2 is hands down my favorite camera I’ve used. It’s not retro, it’s just simple and intuitive and grown out of a long, slowly developed line of eminently usable cameras. I’d love a premium 40-50mm version from Canon with comparable simplicity and would pay a lot for it. Would much rather have a quality fixed lens and smaller size than just token vintage symbols over existing Canon hardware. That Nikon is corny as hell, as are most Fujis to me. And I love vintage cameras.

 

[scyrene]

If you think about it, the world of photographers have gotten so far away from the 60's ethos, or even 80's-90's ethos of carrying a camera around to capture moments from life itself -- that it's no wonder that none of these people are left to talk about this stuff online. Like I said in another post, I used to carry a camera daily until the mid-2010's when shooting film wasn't really feasible anymore.

I have also noticed throughout my life from let's say the early 2000's until now, that the type of people who are photographers, are actually kind of "techy" people who lack aesthetic sensibility. People seem to have been drawn to the field since the inception of AF because of an interest in the technology and specs, etc. When you go into a camera store, still, it's like a d***-measuring contest about who knows what specs better. I really don't admire the work of 99% of these people who claim to be photographers. I don't really see them as artists. Sony products definitely appeal to these people. It's all about the "tech." But they use ugly cameras and take ugly photos. Real artists don't want anything to do with those people -- or more broadly, with the overall space. I would say in general, photographers are lame. Part dorky, part creepy. The lowest of the "artists," for sure. Ironically, you can meet a lot of writers, painters, anything else, who shoot better photos than these people. I don't think this demographic is the crowd that Canon and Nikon are appealing to -- nor are they the ones they should be surveying for the marketing potential of this camera.

Whatever makes you feel superior, I guess

 

[jonebize]

There are a number of factors that have corrupted the original pure view found on quality manual focus slrs.
On many dslr cameras (and the later AF slrs) the centre of the mirror is translucent to allow light to pass straight through, and then via another mirror to the AF module. Manufacturers began using transmissible LCD displays to superimpose onto the screen which we have to look through, to supply the likes of AF points etc. (Take the battery out of a modern dslr and the viewfinder goes dark). The screens used are the “Brite-Screen” invented by Minolta in the ‘80s that give a brighter view with slower lenses at the expense of seeing true dof below about f/2.2. Then take into account built in diopter adjustments and they all add up to mean a modern dslr viewfinder will never quite sing like one of the good slrs from the late ‘70s, early 80s.

Nice recap. I didn't know almost any of that.

 

[Kiton]

can they do some market research on having a 50 1.4?

 

[eosuser1234]

F-1, A-1, AE-1, T80, EOS-1. Those are some of the best looking cameras ever.
Give me current eos R5 specs with one card slot, and camera should be plenty useable for next 8 years.

 

[MMP]

It's boxed up and in a closet now, but this pic is when I took ownership of it. Minolta SR-T 102 with 50mm f/1.4 MC Rokkor-PG lens.

I replaced the foam on the film door, but other than that, everything still works flawlessly. Now that I think of it, there is actually a roll of Fuji160 in it right now with about 20exposures remaining, and another few rolls of Fuji400, Portra 400, and Portra800 in the back of my freezer.

So many of these vintage cameras from the 70's have amazing aesthetics.

 

[Czardoom]

The biggest fundamental advantage that Canon has over Nikon, here, is that they actually seem to listen to their customers. Nikon makes horrible, arbitrary decisions regarding certain product features, and I would love to move back to Canon if given the opportunity.

Funny, people here think Canon does not listen to their customers as much as other brands, and that they make so many arbitrary decisions regarding certain product features!

Of course, the reality is that neither company makes arbitrary decisions and they all listen to their customers through market research.

 

[Czardoom]

can they do some market research on having a 50 1.4?

You can be absolutely sure that they do.

 

[sanj]

The biggest fundamental advantage that Canon has over Nikon, here, is that they actually seem to listen to their customers. Nikon makes horrible, arbitrary decisions regarding certain product features, and I would love to move back to Canon if given the opportunity.

What is holding you back now? What is missing at Canon? Serious question...

 

[sanj]

The groupthink here is uncanny. "Retro is for hipsters! I need my ERGONOMICS!!" Maybe don't bolt a 2lb lens onto the camera and ergonomics become less of a problem. Get a neck strap and a thumb grip.

You don't use a new-retro body for 12 hour event shoots. You don't use a new-retro body for wildlife safaris. You use it for walking around town, vacations, small friends/family gatherings, where you're only shooting for a few hours at a time. Deep grips are less of a concern when you're not trying to keep the 3.5lb camera+lens combo in your hand for hours on end. I shot Fuji for 6 years (never for long events because I shoot for pleasure) even with the "big" 16-55 and I never once worried about ergos until I started considering switching systems and saw a lot of DSLR users whining about ergos.

Average people are intimidated by ugly black DSLR-like cameras. They scream "professional" and "paparazzi" to many. In my experience, most people don't act natural around them. When they notice your scary black camera is pointed at them, they turn away, or they frown - at best. Retro cameras on the other hand, usually get a look of curiosity or amusement, in my experience, and people tend to continue doing whatever they were doing. I've had many approach me and ask if I'm still shooting film in the day and age of digital. People seem to think film shooters are doing it for the joy of photography and not because they're trying to snap a creepy photo, and that makes them much more comfortable around retro-looking cameras.

Look, if you shoot events or do actual work with your camera, where all-day comfort and convenience truly matter, then a retro body isn't for you! And that's OK! There is a type of person in this world, and in this community, that love to rag on things that aren't for them - as if things that aren't for them, shouldn't be for anyone. It's sad, really.

Well said!

 

[danfaz]

People seem to think film shooters are doing it for the joy of photography and not because they're trying to snap a creepy photo...

I would say in general, photographers are lame. Part dorky, part creepy. The lowest of the "artists," for sure.

Where does this "creepy photographer" notion come from?
All of my clients, friends and family think my camera/lenses are "cool" and "professional."
I've had numerous strangers on the street say "cool camera" when passing by. Nobody's called me a creep (that I know of).

 

[Skux]

The groupthink here is uncanny. "Retro is for hipsters! I need my ERGONOMICS!!" Maybe don't bolt a 2lb lens onto the camera and ergonomics become less of a problem. Get a neck strap and a thumb grip.

The funny thing is, retro ergonomics weren't even 'bad'. Any popular camera used by pros and enthusiasts had similar design language and was well-balanced and comfortable to hold. I find the Nikon F3 slightly annoying because of its small grip and shutter button over the winding lever, but if I had to I could shoot a whole wedding on it, as many pros did for decades.

And people who used bigger lenses also knew to bring a tripod, instead of complaining about the lack of IBIS.

 

[Del Paso]

The funny thing is, retro ergonomics weren't even 'bad'. Any popular camera used by pros and enthusiasts had similar design language and was well-balanced and comfortable to hold. I find the Nikon F3 slightly annoying because of its small grip and shutter button over the winding lever, but if I had to I could shoot a whole wedding on it, as many pros did for decades.

And people who used bigger lenses also knew to bring a tripod, instead of complaining about the lack of IBIS.

I wonder if all those criticising ergonomics of Leicaflex SL, Nikon F2, Minolta SRT 101, Canon F1 ever really (often!) used these cameras. Ergonomics were different, yet, quite strangely, nobody complained back then. And, between these competing brands, the important controls were almost identically placed. So, whether you used a Minolta or a Nikon, you found yourself at home...
The exception (not dramatic) being the Olympus OM series.