ronderick said:Interesting camera, I must say.
It would be quite a breakthrough if they could reproduce this model for the XXXD, though I'm not sure how that would work while still retaining the mirror and the OVF.
132 x 80 x 59 mm, is the official size of the EOS IX. 128.8 x 97.5 x 61.9mm is for T1i . The EOS IX is actually longer than the T1i. The T1i is thicker due to the much bigger grip. The difference in height is substancial due to the Prisum on the T1i. reference: Canon museum.briansquibb said:ronderick said:Interesting camera, I must say.
It would be quite a breakthrough if they could reproduce this model for the XXXD, though I'm not sure how that would work while still retaining the mirror and the OVF.
Why not? - this has a mirror. The camera body is VERY light and small - about 4/3 size
Rocky said:132 x 80 x 59 mm, is the official size of the EOS IX. 128.8 x 97.5 x 61.9mm is for T1i . The EOS IX is actually longer than the T1i. The T1i is thicker due to the much bigger grip. The difference in height is substancial due to the Prisum on the T1i. reference: Canon museum.
hahahahaha that is hillariousbriansquibb said:This is the picture you all wanted to see 8) 8) 8)
wickidwombat said:hahahahaha that is hillariousbriansquibb said:This is the picture you all wanted to see 8) 8) 8)it makes the lens look enormous
If you look at the camera closely, the mirror box is the "round tube" between the lens and the flat part of the body. It is an APS camera. therefore a smaller mirror is used.alipaulphotography said:That is hilarious! But I would kill for a digital version! How the hell does the mirror even fit?!
briansquibb said:This is the picture you all wanted to see 8) 8) 8)
kapanak said:That's the thing. A DSLR, by definition, cannot have an electronic viewfinder at the same time as an optical one. It may have a second, smaller sensor for the EVF component, but we shall not get into that. Of course, OVFs have electronic parts embedded, but it is not a preview of what the sensor is seeing, because of the mirror. It is all about that mirror. Sony has their A65/77, but that lacks an OVF ...
moreorless said:kapanak said:That's the thing. A DSLR, by definition, cannot have an electronic viewfinder at the same time as an optical one. It may have a second, smaller sensor for the EVF component, but we shall not get into that. Of course, OVFs have electronic parts embedded, but it is not a preview of what the sensor is seeing, because of the mirror. It is all about that mirror. Sony has their A65/77, but that lacks an OVF ...
The mirror could be flipped up when the EVF is in use though, obviously that means no contrast detect AF but then again the same would be true for any mirrorless camera.
We talk about improved EVF's but really there never going to provide the same thing as an OVF just as even the largest most hi tech TV is still obviously a TV.
kapanak said:I believe you meant "no phase detect AF", which is what the addition of the AF chip with the mirror offers.
If we think of the mirror as locked for the EVF, the LCD on the back of a DSLR is technically an EVF during Live View. Also, some Mirrorless cameras offer Phase detect by using pixels on the sensor itself dedicated to the job, like the Nikon 1 series.
I still cannot see why people advocate for one side or the other. The two (DSLR and Rangefinder-style) form factors have been around for a very long time, and have co-existed peacefully. No reason to kill one in favour of the other now.
moreorless said:Yeah sorry phase rather than contrast.
It just seems to me that theres little need to lose weight with DSLR's that are going to be used with a large zoom lens anyway so why give up an OVF when it shouldnt stop you having the advanatges of an EVF aswell.
My guess would be that in the coming years the high end market will be divided between DSLR's based around zooms and rangefinder similar to this new Fuji based around primes.