Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]

[AvTvM]

A mirrorless camera body could easily
* be small and still have a FF-sensor in it. Think of a modern day Minolta CLE.
* have blazing-fast AF: hybrid in-sensor phase detect AF plus contrast AF ... as in Nikon 1 and Canon EOS650D
* have an electrified Leica M-mount plus a couple of compact high-grade fixed focals and zooms with AF.
* deliver IQ as a 5D3
* be built and sold for less money than a 5D3

Only problem is that Canon does not want to. They still believe they can protect their DSLRs from oblivion that way.

 

[pharp]

Thats the downside to having other models to 'protect' - Canon is simply not going to make a camera as good they could, for any given price point. They'll itentionally hobble it - and thats a shame, but.. It will be real interesting to see how their mirrorless offering compares to the Olympus OM-D - who, IMHO got it almost right. Small tough, weathersealed w/sealed lenses, good IQ by most accounts. On the other hand, may put some price pressure on the Conrus/Metabones Sony NEX to Canon lens adapter.

 

[Lee Jay]

Why does it HAVE to be smaller? Just remove the mirror mechanism. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, just sack the mirror.

Then what's the point? How does losing functionality add value?

 

[Lee Jay]

Putting aside that I think this whole mirrorless thing is silly, why would anyone want to pair them with a bunch of closely-spaced slow primes?

Want a reasonable mirrorless interchangeable lens body? Build it the size of the S100 and make sure the kit zoom and at least two primes of different focal lengths - each faster than f/2.8 - fit entirely inside the body when not in use. The 24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 40/2.8 are totally unsuitable to that purpose because they are EF-mount, and thus have too large a backfocus distance to make that happen.

Such a thing would sell to compact-camera upgraders if it were cheap enough (under $600 with kit lens).

Then you have really tiny image sensors like S100.

Not necessarily. The Sony has a 1" sensor in a small camera. We had full-frame film cameras with film transports that had zoom lenses that folded flat inside the camera.

 

[Lee Jay]

A mirrorless camera body could easily
* be small and still have a FF-sensor in it. Think of a modern day Minolta CLE.
* have blazing-fast AF: hybrid in-sensor phase detect AF plus contrast AF ... as in Nikon 1 and Canon EOS650D
* have an electrified Leica M-mount plus a couple of compact high-grade fixed focals and zooms with AF.
* deliver IQ as a 5D3
* be built and sold for less money than a 5D3

Only problem is that Canon does not want to. They still believe they can protect their DSLRs from oblivion that way.

Such a camera would have to have no eye-level viewfinder or else it would be thick (EVF optics are like telescope eyepieces in size or else they're garbage), and it would have to have twice the battery energy as a 5D3 has to operate the sensor, processing pipeline, and LCD for a useful length of time.

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

 

[AvTvM]

A mirrorless camera body could easily
* be small and still have a FF-sensor in it. Think of a modern day Minolta CLE.
* have blazing-fast AF: hybrid in-sensor phase detect AF plus contrast AF ... as in Nikon 1 and Canon EOS650D
* have an electrified Leica M-mount plus a couple of compact high-grade fixed focals and zooms with AF.
* deliver IQ as a 5D3
* be built and sold for less money than a 5D3

Only problem is that Canon does not want to. They still believe they can protect their DSLRs from oblivion that way.

Such a camera would have to have no eye-level viewfinder or else it would be thick (EVF optics are like telescope eyepieces in size or else they're garbage), and it would have to have twice the battery energy as a 5D3 has to operate the sensor, processing pipeline, and LCD for a useful length of time.

It could easily have a hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder similar to Fuji X1-Pro, just "better". [btw: no, the inferior G1-X optical viewfinder is no acceptable solution for a mirrorless]
It is not big ... it is proven to fit into a range-finder sized Fuji.
And hybrid OVF/EVF would keep power consumption down, if user does not use EVF all the time.

And it could easily have a Canon 600EX-compatible radio-ETTL-RT-flash transmitter to act as wireless flash master, instead of a pop up flash. That would again save some size and power.

In terms of size I would also happily settle for Fuji X-Pro1 size or even Leica M9 size, if a Minolta CLE-sized package could absolutely not be achieved without major compromises.

Cameras with 36x24mm imaging area ("full frame") do NOT have to be big and clunky!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_CLE

And even smaller "full-frame" 135 cameras are easily possible ... complete with 40mm/2.8 "pancake" lens ... but without interchangeable lens mount.

 

[AvTvM]

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.

yes, exactly my thoughts!
A Leica M9 sized mirrorless with the innards of the 5D 3 [minus flippy-flappy mirror-and prism] at the price of a Nikon D800! THAT would be innovative and worthwile ... for a change, Canon!

 

[AvTvM]

Canon could probably make an M9 equivalent with EVF for under 2K, but I'm not holding my breath. I just don't see them doing that. It'll have to be one of the smaller hungrier companys - Sony? They have the sensors, but then they'd need a new mount? No lenses?

The mount? Look no further: Leica M ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M_mount
The Leica M-mount patent has expired in 1999 - so it is royalty free! [Konica took advantage of this with their remarkable Konica Hexar RF http://www.cameraquest.com/konicam.htm ]
All Canon needs to do is to add a couple of electrical contacts for AF, IS and all the other lens protocol-stuff.
Immediately compatible with all manual focus M-mount lenses ever made - by Leica, Voigtländer, Zeiss and others!
Fully compatible with all Canon EF lenses by means of a small adaptor.

It would be such an obvious and good solution.

 

[c.d.embrey]

I think it is important to remember what the value proposition of a mirrorless camera is, namely size and price (okay, in some cases only size as you do get cheaper DSLRs than some mirrorless cameras).

It's obvious that you are not paying attention to what is happening with Mu-43 cameras.

1. Olympus has a 12mm f/2.0 (=24mm) that sell for $799.00 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/805167-REG/Olympus_V311020SU000_M_Zuiko_Digital_ED.html and just started shipping a 75mm (=150mm) f/1.8 priced at $899.00 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=olympus+75mm+f%2F1.8&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma Here are some 75mm f/1.8 test shots, from Robin Wong, Day http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-street.html and Night http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-night.html

2. Schneider-Kreuznach has announced a 14mm f/2.0 Super Angelon for Mu-43 http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photoscala.de%2F&sl=de&tl=en Target price is less than 1500 €. They will show the lens at Photokina. They will also be announcing two more lenses.

Seems to me that the value proposition is size only, unless you consider the above mentioned lenses to be bargain basement priced. Hopefully Canon will release something that can compete in this market.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design.

At one time Leica was the pro camera of choice, Canon and Nikon also built rangefinders. But all that changed when the Nikon F arrived. Pros abandoned the rangefinder and went with SLRs. Canon switched to building SLRs, Leica added an SLR to their line-up. Time marches on!.

Not many people would buy a rangefinder or hybrid.

 

[RLPhoto]

Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design.

At one time Leica was the pro camera of choice, Canon and Nikon also built rangefinders. But all that changed when the Nikon F arrived. Pros abandoned the rangefinder and went with SLRs. Canon switched to building SLRs, Leica added an SLR to their line-up. Time marches on!.

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?

Last time, I recall my OM-1 not being much larger that a animal cracker box, compared to how hulking DSLRs have gotten.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design.

At one time Leica was the pro camera of choice, Canon and Nikon also built rangefinders. But all that changed when the Nikon F arrived. Pros abandoned the rangefinder and went with SLRs. Canon switched to building SLRs, Leica added an SLR to their line-up. Time marches on!.

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?

Last time, I recall my OM-1 not being much larger that a animal cracker box, compared to how hulking DSLRs have gotten.

The SLR design solved a lot of problems with the rangefinder design. It also created a new problem, that of size and weight.

The mirrorless design solves the size and weight problem, but it re-introduces most of the problems with the rangefinder design plus a few new ones of its own.

It won't be until there's a mirrorless design that solves the same problems that the SLR design solves that we'll see mirrorless be a viable alternative to an SLR for those who need an SLR today.

And, let's face it. While smaller and lighter is certainly better, it's something a pro can easily live with. Even a 1-series body weighs nothing in proportion to the kit as a whole, especially if you've got enough in there to qualify for Platinum CPS membership without the body.

I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and nobody who wants an ELPH wants to mess with changing lenses.

Cheers,

b&

 

[pharp]

I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and

I couldn't disagree more - ALL cameras will eventually be mirrorless, including 5- or 1- series equivalents. Mirrorless cameras with EVF have many potential advantages. Increased fps, weight, reliability, etc. EVFs [with current AF technology] aren't quite there yet, but I can certainly see the day when they replace OVF - the ability to zoom and control brightness alone should settle the issue. How nice would it be to be able shoot your 85 1.2 wide open in a dark room and be able to confidently manual focus on someones nose!! How many times have people complained that they love the results of the 65 mp-e, but the viewfinder is dark and DOF is shallow making focusing difficult. If you can get the zoom functionality of live view with brightness control in an eye level viewfinder - that'd be the end of OVF.

 

[RLPhoto]

Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design.

At one time Leica was the pro camera of choice, Canon and Nikon also built rangefinders. But all that changed when the Nikon F arrived. Pros abandoned the rangefinder and went with SLRs. Canon switched to building SLRs, Leica added an SLR to their line-up. Time marches on!.

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?

Last time, I recall my OM-1 not being much larger that a animal cracker box, compared to how hulking DSLRs have gotten.

The SLR design solved a lot of problems with the rangefinder design. It also created a new problem, that of size and weight.

The mirrorless design solves the size and weight problem, but it re-introduces most of the problems with the rangefinder design plus a few new ones of its own.

It won't be until there's a mirrorless design that solves the same problems that the SLR design solves that we'll see mirrorless be a viable alternative to an SLR for those who need an SLR today.

And, let's face it. While smaller and lighter is certainly better, it's something a pro can easily live with. Even a 1-series body weighs nothing in proportion to the kit as a whole, especially if you've got enough in there to qualify for Platinum CPS membership without the body.

I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and nobody who wants an ELPH wants to mess with changing lenses.

Cheers,

b&

We're not asking for a "Perfect" Camera design, Just for canon to pull up its pants and deliver something thats innovative for mirrorless.

 

[FunPhotons]

Now that canon is finally coming out with small high quality lenses like the shorty forty I'm happy. On a DSLR its a small relatively light combo, with all the quality of the DSLR. A slightly smaller body with seriously compromised capability sacrifices too much in exchange for a minor change in weight and size.

So interestingly, Canon has somewhat cannibalized the mirror less market by offering small mirror less lenses.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and

I couldn't disagree more - ALL cameras will eventually be mirrorless, including 5- or 1- series equivalents. Mirrorless cameras with EVF have many potential advantages. Increased fps, weight, reliability, etc. EVFs [with current AF technology] aren't quite there yet, but I can certainly see the day when they replace OVF - the ability to zoom and control brightness alone should settle the issue. How nice would it be to be able shoot your 85 1.2 wide open in a dark room and be able to confidently manual focus on someones nose!! How many times have people complained that they love the results of the 65 mp-e, but the viewfinder is dark and DOF is shallow making focusing difficult. If you can get the zoom functionality of live view with brightness control in an eye level viewfinder - that'd be the end of OVF.

Sure, and someday we'll all have flying cars.

Electronic viewfinders have a looooooooooooooong way to go before they can be a suitable replacement for a good SLR viewfinder. The resolution will have to get into the several-megapickle range at the least, and we can't cram that much into the LCD on the back. And then there's the lag...basically, the refresh and response rate will have to be in the 100 Hz range or better, and now we're into crazy talk with today's technology even on a large computer display, let alone something miniaturized to the size of an eye-level viewfinder. The computers can't push that many pixels around that fast, for starters. And now you want to add light amplification into the mix? With active noise reduction, I presume?

Yeah, right. Don't hold your breath.

In the mean time, the optical viewfinder works brilliantly for what it's designed to do, and the LCD with quick view satisfies the needs of virtually all of the remaining cases. Those few remaining cases involve available-light photography of black cats at the bottom of a coal mine, and pardon me if I can't be bothered to worried about the people trying to use a camera like that.

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.

b&

 

[pharp]

I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and

I couldn't disagree more - ALL cameras will eventually be mirrorless, including 5- or 1- series equivalents. Mirrorless cameras with EVF have many potential advantages. Increased fps, weight, reliability, etc. EVFs [with current AF technology] aren't quite there yet, but I can certainly see the day when they replace OVF - the ability to zoom and control brightness alone should settle the issue. How nice would it be to be able shoot your 85 1.2 wide open in a dark room and be able to confidently manual focus on someones nose!! How many times have people complained that they love the results of the 65 mp-e, but the viewfinder is dark and DOF is shallow making focusing difficult. If you can get the zoom functionality of live view with brightness control in an eye level viewfinder - that'd be the end of OVF.

Sure, and someday we'll all have flying cars.

Electronic viewfinders have a looooooooooooooong way to go before they can be a suitable replacement for a good SLR viewfinder. The resolution will have to get into the several-megapickle range at the least, and we can't cram that much into the LCD on the back. And then there's the lag...basically, the refresh and response rate will have to be in the 100 Hz range or better, and now we're into crazy talk with today's technology even on a large computer display, let alone something miniaturized to the size of an eye-level viewfinder. The computers can't push that many pixels around that fast, for starters. And now you want to add light amplification into the mix? With active noise reduction, I presume?

Yeah, right. Don't hold your breath.

In the mean time, the optical viewfinder works brilliantly for what it's designed to do, and the LCD with quick view satisfies the needs of virtually all of the remaining cases. Those few remaining cases involve available-light photography of black cats at the bottom of a coal mine, and pardon me if I can't be bothered to worried about the people trying to use a camera like that.

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.

b&

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.

I think the Olympus OM-D is the future. I'd bet a nickel that if Canon took the 5D and replaced the the mirror with a good eye level EVF - wouldn't have to be huge or spectacular, but bumped up the fps by 50% - they'd have some takers! Remember also - the human eye doesn't have a great refresh rate!

 

[c.d.embrey]

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

 

[AvTvM]

...
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!