Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]

[zim]

Nikon Went after the Medium format with the d800. If it will succeed, Only time will tell, but they went for it.

Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design. Just give me a FF or APS-H sensor in a small, lightweight body and keeping the price sub 2000$, and it will fly off the shelves.

Canon needs to be more brave, like in the original 1Ds days.

That’s exactly it, Canon have no balls anymore it’s not like they don’t know great camera design

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_aps-c_compact.html

 

[RLPhoto]

Not many people would buy a rangefinder or hybrid.

Obviously many would buy a mirrorless camera though right? Afterall, Isnt this what the threads about?

You are the one who brougth-up the Leica rangefinder cameras ... not me I was just trying to get the tread back-on-track

Ahh, But Isn't a Leica range finder camera MIRRORLESS? ???

 

[AvTvM]

Ahh, But Isn't a Leica range finder camera MIRRORLESS? ???

yes. Rangefinders are mirrorless. But the y don't count. They are anachronistic dinosaurs which were rightfully replaced by the much better SLRS way back in the 1960s. Exactly the same is going to happen to DSLRs. And if Canon is going to continue in its current ways, they may very well suffer the fate of Zeiss Ikon, Rollei and Kodak.

 

[Lee Jay]

...
Again, the problem that mirrorless solves is size and weight. If you're doing the types of photography today where a real viewfinder is the right tool for the job, you probably don't care much about size or weight.

Oh yeah of little faith - it's coming. The flipping mirror is the ancient technology that will go! The electronic viewfinder doesn't have to be anywhere near as good [resolution, noise, etc] as you suggest - as long as you can verify composition and focus - all good. And it will only get better.

Exactly. "Mirrorless" means: finally all-digital, all-electronic cameras. 100% mechanics free ... mechanical shutters will go soon as well. That means less noise and less vibration on top of less size & weight.

Mirrorless is the concept that brings an end to the early days of photography - based on optical components, mechanical components and chemistry. n-degrees of digital freedom from capture to picture. oh yes, baby!

I've heard the same story about how airplane cockpits won't have windows, cars won't have windows, we'll have flat panel displays instead of windows in our homes, rear-view mirrors will be replaced with cameras and displays all for years and years and look what's happened - virtually nothing. That's for a very good reason. A camera and a display just isn't as good as a mirror or a window. A mirror uses zero power, has zero lag and has infinite dynamic range and color gamut. You will NEVER get that good with an EVF. Never. Ever. Maybe you can get close, and maybe you can get close enough for some purposes, but what's the point? What we have now and have had for years and years is BETTER that the EVF endgame so why spend money and time trying to make something that can never get as good as what we already have? Do you want to walk around with a camera on your head wearing glasses with microdisplays in them? Why not just use your eyes?

 

[RLPhoto]

Ahh, But Isn't a Leica range finder camera MIRRORLESS? ???

yes. Rangefinders are mirrorless. But the y don't count. They are anachronistic dinosaurs which were rightfully replaced by the much better SLRS way back in the 1960s. Exactly the same is going to happen to DSLRs. And if Canon is going to continue in its current ways, they may very well suffer the fate of Zeiss Ikon, Rollei and Kodak.

Ahh, but again old SLRs like the OM-1 are tiny compared to DSLR's today. A compact range finder camera with a large sensor will fit a nice market that canon isn't brave enough to tread.

Hence, the Leica market. (even possibly add AF but this is just speculation)

 

[pharp]

...
Again, the problem that mirrorless solves is size and weight. If you're doing the types of photography today where a real viewfinder is the right tool for the job, you probably don't care much about size or weight.

Oh yeah of little faith - it's coming. The flipping mirror is the ancient technology that will go! The electronic viewfinder doesn't have to be anywhere near as good [resolution, noise, etc] as you suggest - as long as you can verify composition and focus - all good. And it will only get better.

Exactly. "Mirrorless" means: finally all-digital, all-electronic cameras. 100% mechanics free ... mechanical shutters will go soon as well. That means less noise and less vibration on top of less size & weight.

Mirrorless is the concept that brings an end to the early days of photography - based on optical components, mechanical components and chemistry. n-degrees of digital freedom from capture to picture. oh yes, baby!

I've heard the same story about how airplane cockpits won't have windows, cars won't have windows, we'll have flat panel displays instead of windows in our homes, rear-view mirrors will be replaced with cameras and displays all for years and years and look what's happened - virtually nothing. That's for a very good reason. A camera and a display just isn't as good as a mirror or a window. A mirror uses zero power, has zero lag and has infinite dynamic range and color gamut. You will NEVER get that good with an EVF. Never. Ever. Maybe you can get close, and maybe you can get close enough for some purposes, but what's the point? What we have now and have had for years and years is BETTER that the EVF endgame so why spend money and time trying to make something that can never get as good as what we already have? Do you want to walk around with a camera on your head wearing glasses with microdisplays in them? Why not just use your eyes?

I guess I've never heard those predictions, but many cars do have rear view cameras and displays now. As to your other points; mirrors have no lag - really? They are also noisy and cause vibration. The bottom line - what is a viewfinder for? To compose and focus an image - thats it, right? I really don't care if the mirror provides "infinite dynamic range and color gamut.", because my eyes don't and it isn't reflected in the recorded image! Eyes work well enough, but can be aided by technology [e.g. night vision goggles]. I personally couldn't care less if the image through an optical is 'better' - whatever that means if the electronic viewfinder can provide assistance that will improve my images, up my keeper rate AND gets rid of the mirror.

While the current interest in mirrorless cameras seems primarily focused on reducing size and weight, there are plenty of other good reasons to dump the mirror. There is no reason that larger, FF pro cameras couldn't also be mirrorless.

 

[Lee Jay]

I guess I've never heard those predictions, but many cars do have rear view cameras and displays now.

They're only used where mirrors don't work - behind the back bumper. Wherever mirrors work, they are used because they are superior.

As to your other points; mirrors have no lag - really?

Yes - by definition they operate at the speed of light. We're talking about the viewfinder her and the process of composing the shot, not the process of taking the shot.

They are also noisy and cause vibration.

Which is largely irrelevant, and what MLU is for.

The bottom line - what is a viewfinder for? To compose and focus an image - thats it, right?

And composing requires you to be able to see the scene in a quality way. EVFs crush blacks and blow out highlights so it's hard to see what you're getting in the scene, and they have lag so they aren't showing you what you're pointing at now but what you were pointing out a short time ago. That matters a lot when you are trying to follow and frame high-speed subjects.

I really don't care if the mirror provides "infinite dynamic range and color gamut.", because my eyes don't and it isn't reflected in the recorded image!

The recorded raw image has dynamic range and color gamut much closer to that of your eye than the EVF can produce. My final images tend to look like the scene looked to me, not like the EVF shows it, which is basically the out-of-camera JPEG. See here:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/EVF%20OVF%20View%20comparison.jpg

Eyes work well enough, but can be aided by technology [e.g. night vision goggles]. I personally couldn't care less if the image through an optical is 'better' - whatever that means if the electronic viewfinder can provide assistance that will improve my images, up my keeper rate AND gets rid of the mirror.

My experience with EVFs is that they reduce the keeper rate, in some cases (high speed subjects in low light) all the way to zero.

While the current interest in mirrorless cameras seems primarily focused on reducing size and weight, there are plenty of other good reasons to dump the mirror.

I've not seen any that were valid.

 

[pharp]

They are also noisy and cause vibration

Which is largely irrelevant, and what MLU is for.

Really? WOW! If you really believe that - there is no point in debating this with you any further. I guess only time will tell.

 

[Rocky]

Exactly. "Mirrorless" means: finally all-digital, all-electronic cameras. 100% mechanics free ... mechanical shutters will go soon as well. That means less noise and less vibration on top of less size & weight.

Mirrorless is the concept that brings an end to the early days of photography - based on optical components, mechanical components and chemistry. n-degrees of digital freedom from capture to picture. oh yes, baby!

No mechanical Component: Would you like to expose the sensor to collect dust when you are changing lens??
No optical component: How do you propose to capture the image of the object onto the sensor?? How do you see the image in detail on the LED for the EVF???

 

[Rocky]

Ahh, But Isn't a Leica range finder camera MIRRORLESS? ???

yes. Rangefinders are mirrorless. But the y don't count. They are anachronistic dinosaurs which were rightfully replaced by the much better SLRS way back in the 1960s. Exactly the same is going to happen to DSLRs. And if Canon is going to continue in its current ways, they may very well suffer the fate of Zeiss Ikon, Rollei and Kodak.

It is not fair to call the Range Finder a dinasaurs. They are near extinct . That is true. If you really look at the range Finder close enough, they are actually very advance. The focusing is a mechanical and optical marvel. Just think about these 5 separate components: 1. The actual focusing movement of the lens. 2. The focusing information transmitted to the camera body. 3. The receiving of the information of the camera body. 4. the focusing information translated to optical information in the view/range finder window. 5. separate frame shows up with different lens. Also please remember that #1 is different with different lens and #2 has to be keep exactly identical for different focal length. This makes the lens mount become a mechanical nightmare. That is why the lens for range finder and Range Finder Body are more expensive than SLR since the dawn of both the rangefinder and SLR in the 1930's. Range finder is being over taken by SLR is due to economics reason. In fact Ranger finder is faster in focusing than SLR if any lens shorter than 50mm is used. For 90mm and 135mm they are about the same, if the right lens is being used. As for closeup, macro, longer tele lenses, SLR are faster to be used. Range Finder is still usable but a little bit clumsy.
The advantage of Range Finder are: Smaller (not necessarily lighter), Quieter and Less vibration due to lack of mirror. In the old days, range finder and TLR are allowed in the court room and SLR are banded due to noise consideration.

 

[AvTvM]

Ahh, But Isn't a Leica range finder camera MIRRORLESS? ???

yes. Rangefinders are mirrorless. But the y don't count. They are anachronistic dinosaurs which were rightfully replaced by the much better SLRS way back in the 1960s. Exactly the same is going to happen to DSLRs. And if Canon is going to continue in its current ways, they may very well suffer the fate of Zeiss Ikon, Rollei and Kodak.

It is not fair to call the Range Finder a dinasaurs. They are near extinct . That is true. If you really look at the range Finder close enough, they are actually very advance. The focusing is a mechanical and optical marvel. Just think about these 5 separate components: 1. The actual focusing movement of the lens. 2. The focusing information transmitted to the camera body. 3. The receiving of the information of the camera body. 4. the focusing information translated to optical information in the view/range finder window. 5. separate frame shows up with different lens. Also please remember that #1 is different with different lens and #2 has to be keep exactly identical for different focal length. This makes the lens mount become a mechanical nightmare. That is why the lens for range finder and Range Finder Body are more expensive than SLR since the dawn of both the rangefinder and SLR in the 1930's. Range finder is being over taken by SLR is due to economics reason. In fact Ranger finder is faster in focusing than SLR if any lens shorter than 50mm is used. For 90mm and 135mm they are about the same, if the right lens is being used. As for closeup, macro, longer tele lenses, SLR are faster to be used. Range Finder is still usable but a little bit clumsy.
The advantage of Range Finder are: Smaller (not necessarily lighter), Quieter and Less vibration due to lack of mirror. In the old days, range finder and TLR are allowed in the court room and SLR are banded due to noise consideration.

I appreciate and agree with many of your points. Digital Mirrorless cameras [not rangefinders with digital sensor like Leica M9] will combine all advantages of SLRs and rangefinders:
* view the scene through the lens ... to me, TTL is the one single reason why SLRs replaced rangefinder cameras, despite being bulkier and burdened with moving mirrors. It was far superior to rangefinder viewfinders with a very limited scope of focal lengths to be used with it and parallax problems of all sorts and kinds!
* silent operation and no vibrations whatsoever - as soon as all mechanical, moving components are finally removed from cameras [movable mirrors and mechanical shutters]
* smaller size and less weight
* plus all of the advantages of SLRs ... fast Phase-AF is now just possible (in-sensor)

And all the advantages in practical use derived from this. This is why mirrorless cameras are a big thing and a "paradigm shift" in photography. Similar to TTL replacing rangefinders and digital sensors replacing chemical film.

 

[AvTvM]

Why not just use your eyes?

Because mankind has developed TOOLS of all sorts and kinds from the dawn of civilization ... to AUGMENT the muscles and senses given to us by nature ... in order to achieve goals that would be utterly unattainable with our bare hands, feet and naked eyes.

Cars and all other means of transportation are "augmented feet", communication devices from bush drum to mobile phones are ... "augmented ears and vocal cords" ... glasses, lenses, scopes, night vision devices, X-ray scanners, the hubble telescope ... are all "augmented eyes" - allowing us to see things we could not see or not see as well with our naked eyes.

The same is true for cameras: augmented eyes, augmented human brain-based memory.

We clearly are just about to reach the next stage of image capturing devices:
* Stage 1: cave wall + hands, brushes from plants, organic colors from dirt to blood to ocre to soot
* stage 2: mobile substrates - from rock plates to clay tablets to dried animal skin to canvas to paper, plus again human hands, various painting and carving tools, all sorts of chemical dyes
* stage 3: mobile substrate: silver-halogenide film (and other chemical crap) + optical + mechanical contraptions to capture light/images; hands are augmented to the point that they only need to "press the button". Camera and Kodak do the rest.
* stage 4: mechanical + optical contraptions to capture light. No more substrate required! Incoming photons converted to electrons! Digital revolution!
* stage 5: Optical contraptions still there. Mechanics all gone. Hands? Not required any longer. Not even to "press the button". Voice commands will do nicely. Plus Canon Eye Control Focus v2.0 ...
* stage 6: Optical crap in the form of cumbersome ground glass blocks with extremely limiting features eliminated. Incoming photon stream shaped in any which way - as desired and envisionable by creative human brains. Light shaping and capture using newer technology, bypassing current optical "laws".
* and so on.

So now, Canon and photo industry, be brave, be bold, bring on at least phase #5 and kick-start research into phase #6 to #99!

 

[moreorless]

...
Again, the problem that mirrorless solves is size and weight. If you're doing the types of photography today where a real viewfinder is the right tool for the job, you probably don't care much about size or weight.

Oh yeah of little faith - it's coming. The flipping mirror is the ancient technology that will go! The electronic viewfinder doesn't have to be anywhere near as good [resolution, noise, etc] as you suggest - as long as you can verify composition and focus - all good. And it will only get better.

Exactly. "Mirrorless" means: finally all-digital, all-electronic cameras. 100% mechanics free ... mechanical shutters will go soon as well. That means less noise and less vibration on top of less size & weight.

Mirrorless is the concept that brings an end to the early days of photography - based on optical components, mechanical components and chemistry. n-degrees of digital freedom from capture to picture. oh yes, baby!

I've heard the same story about how airplane cockpits won't have windows, cars won't have windows, we'll have flat panel displays instead of windows in our homes, rear-view mirrors will be replaced with cameras and displays all for years and years and look what's happened - virtually nothing. That's for a very good reason. A camera and a display just isn't as good as a mirror or a window. A mirror uses zero power, has zero lag and has infinite dynamic range and color gamut. You will NEVER get that good with an EVF. Never. Ever. Maybe you can get close, and maybe you can get close enough for some purposes, but what's the point? What we have now and have had for years and years is BETTER that the EVF endgame so why spend money and time trying to make something that can never get as good as what we already have? Do you want to walk around with a camera on your head wearing glasses with microdisplays in them? Why not just use your eyes?

Pretty much my feelings, the SLR system is something that technology will find very difficult to replicate in terms of optical quality where as there is the potential to include the advanatges of an EVF into a DSLR with a Fuji like system. This really isnt the same as the switch from ground glass to rangefinder to DSLR, all of which used "real" optics, just in progressively more effective ways.

Now in certain cases the downgrade in viewfinder quality might be worth it for the size saving it offers but for FF DSLR's with zoom or long tele lenses I'm not seeing it in the near future given how unbalanced a system it creates.

A Leica like FF system based on wide/normal primes has more ponteital but really thats a relatively small market and I think the prefference will remain for a Fuji like system that retains a rangefinder like OVF.

 

[AvTvM]

...
Now in certain cases the downgrade in viewfinder quality might be worth it for the size saving it offers but for FF DSLR's with zoom or long tele lenses I'm not seeing it in the near future given how unbalanced a system it creates.

A Leica like FF system based on wide/normal primes has more ponteital but really thats a relatively small market and I think the prefference will remain for a Fuji like system that retains a rangefinder like OVF.

Yes, for users of long-teles or other large optical lenses, size of camera body is virtually irrelevant. Although this group is very vocal on tghis and aother photography-related forums, in reality it is a very tiny percentage of the market. I bet, 99% of all pictures made - are or could have just as well been made with lenses of 200mm or even less focal length. This probably holds true for "photo enthusiasts and pros" as well.

Personally, I would accept an EVIL if one explicit limitation was, that I can only use it with lenses to max. 200mm angle-of-view (FF equivalent). I would not accept a system however, that limits me to max. 135mm (like Leica M).

I also like the Fuji X-Pro1 hybrid viewfinder concept "in principle", although I do not find it well enough implemented yet on that very camera. But if Canon did it "really right" ... heck, YES!

Speaking of viewfinders .. on EVILS I love the viefinder position on the side of the camera, rather than smack in the middle as in all DSLRs ... and the rubbing of nose on the back of the camera/main LCD.

And if the photo industry were really customer-oriented, they would even offer the cam in a "right-eye and left-eye version", in order to reach 100% of market with as perfect a product as possible. After all, most cars are avaliable in left/right steering wheel configuration. And many car models have sigbnificantly smaller production runs than successful digital camera models!

 

[psolberg]

small sensor therefore not interested. I need aps-c at the minimum. That is why I'm all but certain to go with a NEX instead because nothing matches that big nice sensor. Although I did see nikon is patenting a new set of lenses for a mirrorless aps-c format camera. now that would be top of my list since I just recently switched to a D800 from a 5DmkII and sold all my canon glass. I rather not have to buy sony glass just for the mirrorless system.

if this canon mirrorless is indeed a small g1x sensor barrely larger than micro 4/3's then it will always trail sony's mirrorless entry.

 

[pharp]

...
Now in certain cases the downgrade in viewfinder quality might be worth it for the size saving it offers but for FF DSLR's with zoom or long tele lenses I'm not seeing it in the near future given how unbalanced a system it creates.

A Leica like FF system based on wide/normal primes has more ponteital but really thats a relatively small market and I think the prefference will remain for a Fuji like system that retains a rangefinder like OVF.

Yes, for users of long-teles or other large optical lenses, size of camera body is virtually irrelevant. Although this group is very vocal on tghis and aother photography-related forums, in reality it is a very tiny percentage of the market. I bet, 99% of all pictures made - are or could have just as well been made with lenses of 200mm or even less focal length. This probably holds true for "photo enthusiasts and pros" as well.

Personally, I would accept an EVIL if one explicit limitation was, that I can only use it with lenses to max. 200mm angle-of-view (FF equivalent). I would not accept a system however, that limits me to max. 135mm (like Leica M).

I also like the Fuji X-Pro1 hybrid viewfinder concept "in principle", although I do not find it well enough implemented yet on that very camera. But if Canon did it "really right" ... heck, YES!

Speaking of viewfinders .. on EVILS I love the viefinder position on the side of the camera, rather than smack in the middle as in all DSLRs ... and the rubbing of nose on the back of the camera/main LCD.

And if the photo industry were really customer-oriented, they would even offer the cam in a "right-eye and left-eye version", in order to reach 100% of market with as perfect a product as possible. After all, most cars are avaliable in left/right steering wheel configuration. And many car models have sigbnificantly smaller production runs than successful digital camera models!

Various companies have played with alternate SLR forms in the past, with little [no] acceptance, but to get the best EVF [biggest, etc] will probably require a rethink of the standard DSLR shape. Seems redundant to have an large LCD on the back and a small one in the viewfinder - how about one big eye level one? Maybe more video camera like - more in parallel with lens. Now that would take some real courage!

 

[moreorless]

...
Now in certain cases the downgrade in viewfinder quality might be worth it for the size saving it offers but for FF DSLR's with zoom or long tele lenses I'm not seeing it in the near future given how unbalanced a system it creates.

A Leica like FF system based on wide/normal primes has more ponteital but really thats a relatively small market and I think the prefference will remain for a Fuji like system that retains a rangefinder like OVF.

Yes, for users of long-teles or other large optical lenses, size of camera body is virtually irrelevant. Although this group is very vocal on tghis and aother photography-related forums, in reality it is a very tiny percentage of the market. I bet, 99% of all pictures made - are or could have just as well been made with lenses of 200mm or even less focal length. This probably holds true for "photo enthusiasts and pros" as well.

Personally, I would accept an EVIL if one explicit limitation was, that I can only use it with lenses to max. 200mm angle-of-view (FF equivalent). I would not accept a system however, that limits me to max. 135mm (like Leica M).

I also like the Fuji X-Pro1 hybrid viewfinder concept "in principle", although I do not find it well enough implemented yet on that very camera. But if Canon did it "really right" ... heck, YES!

Speaking of viewfinders .. on EVILS I love the viefinder position on the side of the camera, rather than smack in the middle as in all DSLRs ... and the rubbing of nose on the back of the camera/main LCD.

And if the photo industry were really customer-oriented, they would even offer the cam in a "right-eye and left-eye version", in order to reach 100% of market with as perfect a product as possible. After all, most cars are avaliable in left/right steering wheel configuration. And many car models have sigbnificantly smaller production runs than successful digital camera models!

Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.

This is another point that the peanut gallery is generally missing.

A small, lightweight camera is pointless without small, lightweight lenses.

And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.

So, if you want small and light, you'll either have to go with something slower or that doesn't have as large an image circle. And probably both.

Surprise! That's exactly what I've been describing: something that bridges the upper end of the P&S range and the Rebels.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Rocky]

And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.

May be you are thinking about SLR lens. For range finder ( or mirrorless)lenses, it is different. The wide angle lenses can be made smaller (not necessarily lighter). Summicron 35mm is only 1 1/4 inches outside of the camera body. Skopar 25mm f4.0 is also 1 1/4 inches outside of the cameras body. A M4 body can be pant pocketable with either lens.

 

[AvTvM]

Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.

This is another point that the peanut gallery is generally missing.
A small, lightweight camera is pointless without small, lightweight lenses.
And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.
So, if you want small and light, you'll either have to go with something slower or that doesn't have as large an image circle. And probably both.

YES. small wide-angle to standard lenses are important. This is EXACTLY why I would love to get a small Canon FF mirrorless body (size like Minolta CLE) with an electrified Leica M mount, call it Canon EM.

You surely know, how really small many of those M-mount fixed focals are? All of them built for 135 image circle. Available all the way to f/0.95 not just f/2.8. I am sure, it is possible to build a 40/1.8 lens for a FF mirrorless cam which is still smaller than the EF 40/2.8 pancake.

Zooms are a bit tougher, but some constant f/4 "kit-zoom", say a Canon "EM" 24-70/f 4.0 IS for FF mirrorless could for sure be quite small. I would even skip manual focusing gear and ring, since i never use it anyways. And 90% of users do neither. And those video guys shall go buy proper Canon camcorders rather than trying to cheapskate on our stills cameras.