Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?

[gmrza]

my 5-cents here:
- Digital full-frame version of Canon 7 w/ 50mm f/0.95 to directly compete with M9
- don't really care about lenses mount as long as it can mount some M lenses (via adaptor or not)
- Couple of extra lenses 28/35/50/90mm would be nice

Are there other canon fans that would vote for this?

That will be a fun camera to have. The only question is How many Canon fans will give up the auto focus? I am for it as long as Canon brings back the rangefinder lens with fine focus adjustment With a fine range finder built into the camera.

I think there will ultimately be some challenges that Canon (or any manufacturer needs to address):
- with a fixed lens system (e.g. Fuji X100) a cheaper leaf shutter is viable. For an interchangeable lens system, the
the cheapest shutter system is probably a focal plane shutter (since a leaf shutter would need to be built into
the lens). A focal plane shutter adds quite a bit of complexity over the type of leaf shutter that the Powershots have.
- Autofocus on mirrorless systems has not been perfected - contrast-detect autofocus does not work as well
as phase-detect (which requires a reflex mirror). Leica's solution was to do without autofocus. With larger sensors,
using the sensor to do contrast-detect based focusing is a drain on the battery, and creates heat.

These are probably the two biggest technical challenges I can think of. There are probably more.

I believe that the reason that Canon has not jumped headlong into the mirrorless segment yet is because
the technical problems have, to date, led to solutions which are not appropriate to the market Canon wants
to address.

Maybe Canon are on their way to sorting out the technical issues? I don't know.

While I would welcome a range finder, I think that most users (the bulk of the market) want autofocus. Most
people who take snap-shots don't want to spend time on focusing. Most people under the age of 30 have
probably also never encountered a camera that does not have autofocus! - The first camera I bought - an
EOS650 - had autofocus, but I have used cameras like a Zeiss Ikon and Canon T70 to have the experience of
having to use manual focus. (The Zeiss will see use again once I put aside the cash to have it overhauled,
as I am currently scared to use it, for fear that it will break after over 20 years in storage.)

 

[Hillsilly]

Oh No!!! I just bought an Olympus E-PL1 (with an EF adapter of course) on Monday, and now this news comes out. D'oh!

 

[zerotiu]

Oh No!!! I just bought an Olympus E-PL1 (with an EF adapter of course) on Monday, and now this news comes out. D'oh!

what? did you know there are newer PEN series also? ;D

@gmrza , it is okay if it's a manual focus rangefinder. As long as the manual focus sytem is like LEICA.

 

[Hillsilly]

I've been researching these for a while and waited fot the June 30 announcement. I like the look of the E-P3 a lot. But thought it might be a bit expensive for something I may not use much. A local store had an awesome deal on the E-pl1 + kit lens + EVF. The lens and EVF would be compatible if I ever want to upgrade.

 

[UncleFester]

"I'm a little lost on why mirror-less is excting, besides just having another gadget."

The ability to mount legacy glass is one reason,

And onto true rangefinder (like the M8 M9). And I don't think the X100 fits this catagorie (correct me if I'm wrong) but it's to my understanding that a rangefinders sharpness characteristic is the reduced distance of the the rear lens element to the focal plane. Which would put one up on the X100 and no need to compete.

If the X100 isn't a rangefinder, then it is more likely a point and shoot with a big sensor and compact body. Not very impressive.

So, what I'm getting at here is, it makes no sense for me to be gassing for mirrorless systems for the sake of portability or mounting a Zeiss if the end result is only competitive for almost-as-good-as dslr image quality. Where a true rangefinder would really make a difference.

 

[Flake]

Mirrorless is exciting - not because it's another gadget, but because there's no mirror! In a DSLR a mirror is a neccessary evil, but evil it is. It prevents the exit pupil being moved closer to the sensor plane (bad for wide angle especially), and then there's the mirror slap, you can move to live view to avoid it, but then you're shooting the same as the mirrorless camera, but without the benefits. The shutter assembly is large only syncs with flash at slow speeds, it's possible without a mirror to increase the flash sync.

The true rangefinder comment is a little confusing, the rangefinder is a focus system not a mount, and isn't particularly good with zoom lenses. The reason the Leica M7 M8 appears sharp is that it doesn't have an anti aliasing filter. Pros & Cons to that, but certainly sharp.

 

[Rocky]

If the X100 isn't a rangefinder, then it is more likely a point and shoot with a big sensor and compact body. Not very impressive.

So, what I'm getting at here is, it makes no sense for me to be gassing for mirrorless systems for the sake of portability or mounting a Zeiss if the end result is only competitive for almost-as-good-as dslr image quality. Where a true rangefinder would really make a difference.

You are right, X100 is not a range finder. The excitement of it is the retro style and the optical view finder and electronic view finder can be switch over through the same eyepiece.
None of the existing mirrorless camera excite me due to the slow shutter lag. The best one is still twice as much as a DSLR. There is only one that impresses me, the Leica M9. It is too rich for my blood. It takes careof the shutter lag by not using auto focus. Instead it uses manual focus via range finder. When it is handled properly(using zone focusing technique), it will be be faster than the auto focus of DSLR.

 

[Rocky]

Mirrorless is exciting - not because it's another gadget, but because there's no mirror! In a DSLR a mirror is a neccessary evil, but evil it is. It prevents the exit pupil being moved closer to the sensor plane (bad for wide angle especially), and then there's the mirror slap, you can move to live view to avoid it, but then you're shooting the same as the mirrorless camera, but without the benefits. The shutter assembly is large only syncs with flash at slow speeds, it's possible without a mirror to increase the flash sync.

The true rangefinder comment is a little confusing, the rangefinder is a focus system not a mount, and isn't particularly good with zoom lenses. The reason the Leica M7 M8 appears sharp is that it doesn't have an anti aliasing filter. Pros & Cons to that, but certainly sharp.

The mirror give us fast auto focus and fast shutter lag. Nowadays, the mirror are so well damped that It hardly causes vibration unless you are working with microscope or copying stand for extremely critical work. There is always a mirror lock up function. At slow shutter speed, most of the shaking are from the user, not the mirror.
So far the best mirrorless still have twice the shutter lag of DSLR. So would you rather have longer shutter lag or the mirror?
As for M9, the picture is sharp and good look is due to the exceptional good Lieca lens plus no AA filter. Leica may have better DSP also. Leica uses range finder manual focusing. It can be faster than the DSLR if handled correctly. Unfortunately, It is too expensive for me

 

[Haydn1971]

My feeling is that EF & EF-S lenses will not be a native fit and that a third range of lenses will be the order of the day. Firstly, there is more money to be made in making customers duplicate their lenses, second, although APS-C is possible, it's just as likely to share a sensor with the G series, which would have the advantage of not needing as large a lenses to feed the sensor, which makes the lenses cheaper to make thus creating a greater profit margin. I suspect also that the lens range will be large, but also EF/EF-S compatable using an expensive adaptor.

Canon are not in the game to suit what we want, but to make money and allowing native use of existing lenses would be like shooting themselves in the money making foot ! Canon might not wish to erode too deeply into their current and future DSLR market, but will wish to take sales off existing compact interchangeable cameras and twist the arms of premium compact buyers into buying something more than just a camera.

Also, I'll give it a week or so before we see photoshopped images of little cigarette box mock up designs attached to a 1200mm tele ;-)

 

[dr croubie]

Also, I'll give it a week or so before we see photoshopped images of little cigarette box mock up designs attached to a 1200mm tele ;-)

nothing yet, i'm too lazy to make my own, but i did find this. The camera on the back in one of the pic looks like a film camera, that looks like a matchbox already compared to the lens...


and as for the general idea of ef/s lenses on an EVIL, for anyone who doesn't know, the flange distance of an EOS camera is 44.0mm. So if you want to mount that lens on any camera, it has to be 44.0mm from the film/sensor. Any further and it won't focus to infinity. Any closer would work, but you lose macro capability, you can focus beyond infinity, and i think the lens' inbuilt distance-information would be off.
So to make a compact camera which is by definition at least 44mm thick (closer to 50 at least i'd think) doesn't make sense.

So definitely they'd need a new lens mount, something closer to the ~20mm of the u4/3 and NEX would be more like it.
And canon won't be stupid, they'll make an adapter so you can mount your ef/s lenses on any EVIL they make, so that you can use them with full autofocus and IS. Making a tilt/shift adapter would be nice too, but probably not possible to keep AF and IS, you'd be lucky to get diaphragm-linkage.

I doubt canon would make one for any other brand though, so no Leica M adapter. But just wait a month or two and then buy one off ebay from china...


And the upside of a shorter flange distance is that wide-angles get easier to make. Even with a Full Frame sensor, it is a lot easier to make a 15mm lens with a flange distance of 20mm than 44mm. I don't think they'll try a FF EVIL just yet, but even on APS-C we could get sweet lenses down to 5-10mm prime a lot lighter and cheaper than efs...

 

[goodmane]

Another feature request if anyone from Canon is reading: how many of you would like an option to merge all your video files on SD card to one large video file sorted by time /date e.g. one merged h264 video and aac stereo audio, within an mkv container for easy storage?

This would be a dream for me, as I'm fed up of having my family videos in a million files in the video folder, making them difficult to watch passively in succession.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Another feature request if anyone from Canon is reading: how many of you would like an option to merge all your video files on SD card to one large video file sorted by time /date e.g. one merged h264 video and aac stereo audio, within an mkv container for easy storage?

This would be a dream for me, as I'm fed up of having my family videos in a million files in the video folder, making them difficult to watch passively in succession.

Your SD card is going to have a file size limit of 4GB, same as the camera. Its a limitation of the Fat 32 format, not the camera. You cannot have one large file on your sd card and still use it in your camera.

We may see cameras go to the NTFS, but Macs can only read it, so that becomes a issue.

 

[Rocky]

although APS-C is possible, it's just as likely to share a sensor with the G series, which would have the advantage of not needing as large a lenses to feed the sensor, which makes the lenses cheaper to make thus creating a greater profit margin. I suspect also that the lens range will be large, but also EF/EF-S compatable using an expensive adaptor.

I doubt that canon will use the sensor from the G series for the upcoming mirrorless. The name of the game is to have a"larger" sensor than its competitators. So APS-C will be a good candidate. Until Canon can solve the shutter lag issue, all bets are off.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I doubt that canon will use the sensor from the G series for the upcoming mirrorless. The name of the game is to have a"larger" sensor than its competitators. So APS-C will be a good candidate. Until Canon can solve the shutter lag issue, all bets are off.

The shutter lag in point and shoots is a function of the time it takes to AF using contrast detect. A phase detect solution would have no shutter lag.

Canon has patented a small format lens to EF mount adapter for use on a small format or mirrorless camera, so they are definitely think about a small format sensor, and a set of new lenses for interchangable lens cameras. The patent was posted on CR several weeks ago.

The fact that they actually developed and patented a adapter design says they are serious even though it may never come to pass.

 

[lol]

I think there are two questions here, with two possible partial answers:

1 - how small could they make a DSLR? I have a film EOS that's much smaller than any digital, so could they shrink one down further? I think the film camera size comes down to only needing space for a thin strip of film before the back of the camera. Now we have a sensor with filter assembly on top of it, and typically a LCD display behind that. Let's say the rear LCD was ditched, and they just relied on the viewfinder for everything (possibly X100 style electronic-hybrid?). How small could that get? Would it be interesting to people? With a small prime on I think it wouldn't be that dissimilar in size to current bigger mirrorless models.

2 - if they go mirrorless, where in the range would they target? The m4/3 and APS-C sensor size is pretty much covered by existing players for example. Could Canon bring something new to that space and not come out with a "me too" product? The tiny sensor like Q I find hard to take off, as you're competing directly with compacts there, and to me I can't see why I would want one over a compact unless the price is slashed right down, but then what's the point? The rumoured small-ish sensor Nikon is more interesting, as you can get smaller lenses than current APS-C models (assuming you're not after strict DoF equivalence) without compromising too much on image quality. That would be a more logical positioning keeping both compacts and SLRs out of the way of self competition. As a wild card, could they go high end only? Go full frame, and make a Leica for the 21st century. I don't think they would have any trouble undercutting Leica pricing anyway...

 

[Rocky]

I think there are two questions here, with two possible partial answers:

1 - how small could they make a DSLR? I have a film EOS that's much smaller than any digital, so could they shrink one down further? I think the film camera size comes down to only needing space for a thin strip of film before the back of the camera. Now we have a sensor with filter assembly on top of it, and typically a LCD display behind that. Let's say the rear LCD was ditched, and they just relied on the viewfinder for everything....

2 - if they go mirrorless, where in the range would they target? The m4/3 and APS-C sensor size is pretty much covered by existing players for example. Could Canon bring something new to that space and not come out with a "me too" product? The tiny sensor like Q I find hard to take off, as you're competing directly with compacts there, and to me I can't see why I would want one over a compact unless the price is slashed right down, but then what's the point? The rumoured small-ish sensor Nikon is more interesting, as you can get smaller lenses than current APS-C models (assuming you're not after strict DoF equivalence) without compromising too much on image quality. That would be a more logical positioning keeping both compacts and SLRs out of the way of self competition. As a wild card, could they go high end only? Go full frame, and make a Leica for the 21st century. I don't think they would have any trouble undercutting Leica pricing anyway...

The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.
As for the size of sensor,I think Canon need to make it big to be attractive. Otherwise we can just buy a S95 and we will have anything that a mirrorless has got except the interchangable lens.
Personally, I would like to see Canon to make something that will be a M9 competitator With a M mount. ( Canon has been making Leica competitator with Leica mount up to the late 60's)

 

[lol]

The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.

Look at compact digital cameras, they also have a ton of electronics in them. I can imagine the "stuff" would easily sit in place of where the film rolls would otherwise go. The mechanics between a SLR and DSLR I think would be near enough the same. I do think the LCD on the back is one of the biggest consumers of volume, so removing that would allow bodies to get much smaller. That also removes the need for the power so batteries could be smaller too.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.

Look at compact digital cameras, they also have a ton of electronics in them. I can imagine the "stuff" would easily sit in place of where the film rolls would otherwise go. The mechanics between a SLR and DSLR I think would be near enough the same. I do think the LCD on the back is one of the biggest consumers of volume, so removing that would allow bodies to get much smaller. That also removes the need for the power so batteries could be smaller too.

I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera. It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo, and many carry their cameras with them to use as a display gallery to show photos they took.

The big user of space is the mirror. EF Lenses are designed with a focus distance to account for a FF mirror. Remove the mirror, design new lenses with a short distance to the sensor, and a huge reduction in size occurs. Thats why the 35mm film point and shoot cameras were much smaller.

Once you remove the mirror and design a new set of lenses, the size of the sensor doesn't have much effect, its the lens design.

Canon could design a new set of lenses with short back focus distance that covered full frame, and make a small FF point and shoot, or interchangable lens camera. So could the others, but Canon does have a jump in FF technology. Fast and accurate autofocus is the hurdle.

 

[Loswr]

So could the others, but Canon does have a jump in FF technology. Fast and accurate autofocus is the hurdle.

And so far, Canon seems to have consistently tripped and fallen flat when trying to jump that contrast-detect AF hurdle, at least in some product lines. Perhaps they would import their 'instant AF' technology from the camcorder lineup, which uses an external emitter/detector system to measure subject distance (essentially a 'coarse focus' that is then refined by the contrast AF system) and thus substantially increase AF speed.

 

[lol]

I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera. It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo, and many carry their cameras with them to use as a display gallery to show photos they took.

It could be radical and still be mainstream. I'm not saying remove the ability to playback images on the body, I'm just saying remove it from the back. If they can come up with some kind of hybrid EVF like on the X100 for example, you could review that way.

The big user of space is the mirror. EF Lenses are designed with a focus distance to account for a FF mirror. Remove the mirror, design new lenses with a short distance to the sensor, and a huge reduction in size occurs. Thats why the 35mm film point and shoot cameras were much smaller.

As before I was thinking in two parts, one of which was how small could you make a DSLR? Specifically one that would be compatible with existing accessories. As such, the mirror box stays in that case. I was looking at other areas where size optimisation could occur.

Once you remove the mirror and design a new set of lenses, the size of the sensor doesn't have much effect, its the lens design.

Not entirely true... only shorter focal length lenses could get some benefit. A longer zoom or prime wouldn't get smaller just because you move the mount slightly closer to the sensor. Big sensor still means big lenses (for a given quality, FoV, equivalent f number, ignoring DoF). Look at m4/3 using various compromises to help make lenses simpler. Distortion is less corrected and they rely on software to fix it. Olympus claim a small 75-300, but that's in part because it is slower than anyone else's similar zoom.