Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]

[Rocky]

That is a small fast 40mm f 1.4 for range finder only.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt4014.htm

 

[AvTvM]

That is a small fast 40mm f 1.4 for range finder only.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt4014.htm

Right! And for a mirrorless a version 2.0 of such a lens would be even smaller and lighter. No rangefinder coupling stuff, no f-stop ring, as far as I am concerned, no MF gear/ring, but a hi-speed Ring-USM AF drive.

I would love to use such a beast natively not on an anachronistic Leica M rangefinder but on a hi-end Canon FF mirrorless camera equipped with a modified 5D3 sensor [with in-sensor phase AF] with a non-Leica pricetag.

Wouldn't that be something? Canon would sell 'em by the millions.

 

[pharp]

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.

Agree, but I would actually forgo AF on most lenses! Never had much value in AF on wide angle or macro lenses - half my kit is MF lenses.

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

Since wide angles and middle-focal-length lenses are the smallest lenses in the kit, generally, who cares? A 70-200/2.8 isn't going to get smaller because of closer back-focus distance, and that's the one that's sizing my kit.

 

[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.

Since wide angles and middle-focal-length lenses are the smallest lenses in the kit, generally, who cares? A 70-200/2.8 isn't going to get smaller because of closer back-focus distance, and that's the one that's sizing my kit.

You should care if you want it to be pant pocketable. None of the existing normal or wide angle lens will make the camera to be pant pocketable ( not even the 40 f2.8 on a Rebel).

 

[pharp]

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.

Since wide angles and middle-focal-length lenses are the smallest lenses in the kit, generally, who cares?

I agree to a point. Based on SLR sales and the fact that Canon felt compelled to make such a camera - ALOT of people evidently do! I would be happy with a digital version of my old Nikon F2 kit - I had a 70-200 zoom, but rarely carried it. I think many folks would go for a more compact [not NEX sized, but smaller] APS-C or FF travel kit. I think Canon/Nikon is missing the ball - P&S or most rebel users probably don't care about interchangeable lenses. The fact that conrus/metabones sold out immediately of their NEX to Canon EF adapters should be telling to anyone willing to look. Whether you want to believe it or not, there is [I believe] a large market for a more compact [probably mirrorless] prosumer 7D or 5D camera. THATS the market they should be going after, but seems unlikely since it'd cannabalze existing line. Smaller/lighter is usually better. Nikon still lists their old style MF lenses on their website - I've always wondered how well they sell. I would really go for some FD build MF only lenses.

 

[Rocky]

A lot of people seems to be disappointed that the Canon Mirrorless will be a G1 X sized sensor , not the FF or APS-C that they are expecting. For me it may be a little bit over reacted. In order to make it "smaller and lighter" canon have no choice but not to use FF. As for G1 X sized sensor, the multiplication factor for the focal length is 1.85 ( based on width) or 1.7 (based on height). Is is necessary to get disappointed because it is not 1.6 multiplication factor??? For me, if Canon gives us FAST AF(or good MF, like the Leica M) and smaller lenses, I will be happy with a smaller sensor.

 

[pharp]

A lot of people seems to be disappointed that the Canon Mirrorless will be a G1 X sized sensor , not the FF or APS-C that they are expecting. For me it may be a little bit over reacted. In order to make it "smaller and lighter" canon have no choice but not to use FF. As for G1 X sized sensor, the multiplication factor for the focal length is 1.85 ( based on width) or 1.7 (based on height). Is is necessary to get disappointed because it is not 1.6 multiplication factor??? For me, if Canon gives us FAST AF(or good MF, like the Leica M) and smaller lenses, I will be happy with a smaller sensor.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but it strikes many that Canon is just late to the party, isn't offering anything really new - just a Canon branded m4/3? If thats it - OK, obviously a market for that and I suspect they'll sell many, but from the thread - I can see that absolute small size isn't the 'only' driver for many. There aren't even any public announcements of a mirrorless pro camera - but just speculation of such sure has gotten some folks riled up! They need to take a pill - it'll come if it makes sense.

 

[RLPhoto]

This is good stuff, if canon would be more daring like it used to be, it could make a compact system with super speed primes and a large sensor for general photography. Who want to lug the DSLR around all the time when just a small mirror less and a 35mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor would be better.

 

[pharp]

This is good stuff, if canon would be more daring like it used to be, it could make a compact system with super speed primes and a large sensor for general photography. Who want to lug the DSLR around all the time when just a small mirror less and a 35mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor would be better.

+1

 

[moreorless]

That is a small fast 40mm f 1.4 for range finder only.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt4014.htm

Right! And for a mirrorless a version 2.0 of such a lens would be even smaller and lighter. No rangefinder coupling stuff, no f-stop ring, as far as I am concerned, no MF gear/ring, but a hi-speed Ring-USM AF drive.

I would love to use such a beast natively not on an anachronistic Leica M rangefinder but on a hi-end Canon FF mirrorless camera equipped with a modified 5D3 sensor [with in-sensor phase AF] with a non-Leica pricetag.

Wouldn't that be something? Canon would sell 'em by the millions.

I'd say just the reverse, adding in AF and other electrics is going to increase the size a good deal as we can see with a number of mirrorless primes that are larger than there manual FF rivals. Isnt the

As I said I can see a (smaller)market for a mirrorless FF camera based on primes but pretty much any zoom besides an kit standard or perhaps a very wide UWA doesnt seem likely to balance well to me.

Whether you want to believe it or not, there is [I believe] a large market for a more compact [probably mirrorless] prosumer 7D or 5D camera. THATS the market they should be going after, but seems unlikely since it'd cannabalze existing line. Smaller/lighter is usually better. Nikon still lists their old style MF lenses on their website - I've always wondered how well they sell. I would really go for some FD build MF only lenses.

I'd agree but I'm not sure it has to be mirrorless, again if Pentax can make a fully sealed camera with a 100% veiwfinder the size of the K-5 I don't see any reason Canon can't.

 

[AvTvM]

Wouldn't that be something? Canon would sell 'em by the millions.

I'd say just the reverse, adding in AF and other electrics is going to increase the size a good deal as we can see with a number of mirrorless primes that are larger than there manual FF rivals. Isnt the
As I said I can see a (smaller)market for a mirrorless FF camera based on primes but pretty much any zoom besides an kit standard or perhaps a very wide UWA doesnt seem likely to balance well to me.

I disagree. The market for a small, Canon FF mirrorless with an elecitrfied M-mount would be gigantic.

Leica is selling millions of the M9 despite its totally outdated non-digital rangefinder concept and despite its extremely high price tag.

Canon could sell millions of "Leica M9 killers" with a 5D3-like FF sensor with fast hybrid Contrast- plus Phase-AF (on sensor) and an excellent hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder at a 5D3-ish price. Especially if this mirrorless were fully backwards compatible with all those wonderfully compact and ggreat M-mount lenses (manual focus, of course).

With M-mount compatibility, Canon would really only need this prosumer mirrorles body for a start plus 1 decent AF kit-zoom plus 2-3 AF pancake fixed-focals. That would be all it takes to remain market leader once the dust has settled, and mirrorless rules whereas bulky DSLRs are relegated to specialist tasks.

 

[Rocky]

Leica is selling millions of the M9 despite its totally outdated non-digital rangefinder concept and despite its extremely high price tag.

Not true. Leica was never be able to sell more than 100,000 unit on any model, except the M3 which 200,000 units were made. 80,000 M2's were made. 50,000 M4's were made. The rest of the models are all well under 50,000 units. That is another reason why Leica is so expensive, regardless whether it is new or used.
Range Finder Camera is better than SLR for short focal length in focusing and viewing, especially in dim light situation. You actually see your object BEFORE it is in the field of your lens which no SLR can made that claim. If you have ever use one you will appreciate it. However, to be fair, rangefinder is clumsy for macro and lens longer than 135mm. You can actually buy lens longer than 500mm made by Leica and for Leica.

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

Since wide angles and middle-focal-length lenses are the smallest lenses in the kit, generally, who cares? A 70-200/2.8 isn't going to get smaller because of closer back-focus distance, and that's the one that's sizing my kit.

You should care if you want it to be pant pocketable. None of the existing normal or wide angle lens will make the camera to be pant pocketable ( not even the 40 f2.8 on a Rebel).

A G1X or a G12 isn't pocketable. Heck, to me, an S100 is pretty borderline because the lens sticks out. My pocket right now has an Elph 500HS in it, which is an amazing pocket camera.

To me, if they can't get this to be as small when off as an S100 is when off, there's really no point to it - might as well take my T2i or my 5D.

 

[RLPhoto]

Another advantage for Mirrorless is truly awesome ultra-wides with pin sharpness to the corners is possible. Less retro-focus designs. 8)

 

[moreorless]

Another advantage for Mirrorless is truly awesome ultra-wides with pin sharpness to the corners is possible. Less retro-focus designs. 8)

I'v heard this alot but so far on digital the reality doesnt seem to match up, existing ultrawides on the NEX almost all perform poorly and the options on m43 are neither shorter nore cheaper than you'd expect from an SLR.

 

[RLPhoto]

Another advantage for Mirrorless is truly awesome ultra-wides with pin sharpness to the corners is possible. Less retro-focus designs. 8)

I'v heard this alot but so far on digital the reality doesnt seem to match up, existing ultrawides on the NEX almost all perform poorly and the options on m43 are neither shorter nore cheaper than you'd expect from an SLR.

Well, I was thinking about the Good contax/Zeiss lenses for m43 or leica M mount.

 

[Rocky]

Another advantage for Mirrorless is truly awesome ultra-wides with pin sharpness to the corners is possible. Less retro-focus designs. 8)

I'v heard this alot but so far on digital the reality doesnt seem to match up, existing ultrawides on the NEX almost all perform poorly and the options on m43 are neither shorter nore cheaper than you'd expect from an SLR.

Well, I was thinking about the Good contax/Zeiss lenses for m43 or leica M mount.

Zeiss does not make lens for m4/3. They are for FF only. So are the Leica M mount lenses. If you look at the rangefinder lenses, both Leica and Zeiss are Retro-focus design for anything wider than the 28mm (FF). That is due to the sensor require close to vertical (60 degree minimum??) incident angle. After multiplication factor, you will not have a ultrawide from either manufacturer.

 

[RLPhoto]

Another advantage for Mirrorless is truly awesome ultra-wides with pin sharpness to the corners is possible. Less retro-focus designs. 8)

I'v heard this alot but so far on digital the reality doesnt seem to match up, existing ultrawides on the NEX almost all perform poorly and the options on m43 are neither shorter nore cheaper than you'd expect from an SLR.

Well, I was thinking about the Good contax/Zeiss lenses for m43 or leica M mount.

Zeiss does not make lens for m4/3. They are for FF only. So are the Leica M mount lenses. If you look at the rangefinder lenses, both Leica and Zeiss are Retro-focus design for anything wider than the 28mm (FF). That is due to the sensor require close to vertical (60 degree minimum??) incident angle. After multiplication factor, you will not have a ultrawide from either manufacturer.

Ooops, I meant the m39 screw mount lenses.

I am talking in terms of FF because thats what we'd want from canon.

 

[pharp]

Another advantage for Mirrorless is truly awesome ultra-wides with pin sharpness to the corners is possible. Less retro-focus designs. 8)

I'v heard this alot but so far on digital the reality doesnt seem to match up, existing ultrawides on the NEX almost all perform poorly and the options on m43 are neither shorter nore cheaper than you'd expect from an SLR.

Well, I was thinking about the Good contax/Zeiss lenses for m43 or leica M mount.

Zeiss does not make lens for m4/3. They are for FF only. So are the Leica M mount lenses. If you look at the rangefinder lenses, both Leica and Zeiss are Retro-focus design for anything wider than the 28mm (FF). That is due to the sensor require close to vertical (60 degree minimum??) incident angle. After multiplication factor, you will not have a ultrawide from either manufacturer.

Zeiss does make leica m mount lenses [ZM] which of course can be easily adapted to m4/3 or NEX cameras. Voigtlander also makes a couple of pretty wide M mounts lenses.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/accessories.html#i_dmw_ma1_panasonic

There are also adapters for m4/3 and NEX to mount the old Zeiss Contax G lenses