Canon Mirrorless Related Patent?

[Rocky]

The problem with most of the EVILs out there is that whilst small and even pocketable with a pancake lens, the quickly become ungainly when a kit lens is attached.

For EVIL to really take off their has to be a step change in the quality of image sensors, so that you can either get APC-Like quality from a SUB APC imager (and probably something smaller than Micro 4/3) or alternatively a step change in imager sensitivity and noise processing so that smaller lenses (with greatly reduced maximum F Stops) are viable.

I have a feeling that until there is this dramatic revolutionary (rather than evolutionary) improvement in Image Sensors EVIL will remain a much smaller market than pundits and product managers would like!

The EVIL sysytem is not intended to be a cheaper DSLR system. It is just a "smaller" system with picture quality comparable to DSLR. Therefore if they can make the small sensor (smaller than 4/3) with image as good as the APS-C, I am sure that they will also apply the same technolgy on the APS-C sensor the make the APS-C sensor even better. So If we want the EVIL to be as good as the APS-C DSLR, The EVIL sensor must be the same size as APS_C.
As for the lens, It is harder to design a lens to have total line pair resolution of APS-C for a small sensor. The lens will need 2 to 3 times more resolutin per mm.
We should try to look at EVIL and DSLR just like the range finder (with interchangeable lens , like Leica and Canon) and DSLR (like Exakta, Canon, Pantacon, Pentax... etc) in the old film days. It is two seperate system to fit the different need of user. Either system may be more expensive than the other. So EVIL should not be in the cost saving path. It should be on the quality path.

 

[ronderick]

We should try to look at EVIL and DSLR just like the range finder (with interchangeable lens , like Leica and Canon) and DSLR (like Exakta, Canon, Pantacon, Pentax... etc) in the old film days. It is two seperate system to fit the different need of user. Either system may be more expensive than the other. So EVIL should not be in the cost saving path. It should be on the quality path.

This is the part which I always have a question about: if the m43 evolves along the lines of rangefinders, will there be a difference between the eventual product and the current Leica digital rangefinder? Granted, price-wise there might be a significant difference, but the M-9 already comes with a FF sensor; even better it has a comfortable-looking optical viewfinder.

Is it fair to say that eventually the m43 route would just yield a cheaper M9 with an electronic viewfinder? Even though giiven the size of the 43 sensor and lenses designed specifically for it, I doubt the m43 companies can replace the 43 sensor with a FF sensor.

 

[Rocky]

Is it fair to say that eventually the m43 route would just yield a cheaper M9 with an electronic viewfinder? Even though giiven the size of the 43 sensor and lenses designed specifically for it, I doubt the m43 companies can replace the 43 sensor with a FF sensor.

If there is another EVIL FF, the existing M4/3 EVIL player may be out of the picture. My reasoning is: 1. They got too much investment in M4/3. 2. If they replace theM4/3 with FF, that is almost admitted that they have made a BIG mistake. On the other hand, It is hard to have anybody to do a FF EVIL from ground up due to the huge capital outlay and the patent right held by Leica for the offset micro lens to minimize the uneven explosure at the corner and the edge of the frame. Even Leica did not start the FF digital from ground up. It uses its existing rangefinder lens that is for M6 onward (Even lenses from M2 to M5 are usable in M9, ALL Leica lens since day one of Lieca (since 1930??)are usable via a screw mount to M mount adapter). The wonderful view finder and range finder are move over from M7 also.

 

[bycostello]

when we gonna get mirrorless? just don't the thing in there....

 

[racgordon]

The problem with most of the EVILs out there is that whilst small and even pocketable with a pancake lens, the quickly become ungainly when a kit lens is attached.

For EVIL to really take off their has to be a step change in the quality of image sensors, so that you can either get APC-Like quality from a SUB APC imager (and probably something smaller than Micro 4/3) or alternatively a step change in imager sensitivity and noise processing so that smaller lenses (with greatly reduced maximum F Stops) are viable.

I have a feeling that until there is this dramatic revolutionary (rather than evolutionary) improvement in Image Sensors EVIL will remain a much smaller market than pundits and product managers would like!

The EVIL sysytem is not intended to be a cheaper DSLR system. It is just a "smaller" system with picture quality comparable to DSLR. Therefore if they can make the small sensor (smaller than 4/3) with image as good as the APS-C, I am sure that they will also apply the same technolgy on the APS-C sensor the make the APS-C sensor even better. So If we want the EVIL to be as good as the APS-C DSLR, The EVIL sensor must be the same size as APS_C.
As for the lens, It is harder to design a lens to have total line pair resolution of APS-C for a small sensor. The lens will need 2 to 3 times more resolutin per mm.
We should try to look at EVIL and DSLR just like the range finder (with interchangeable lens , like Leica and Canon) and DSLR (like Exakta, Canon, Pantacon, Pentax... etc) in the old film days. It is two seperate system to fit the different need of user. Either system may be more expensive than the other. So EVIL should not be in the cost saving path. It should be on the quality path.

My point is ergonomic rather than economic although ultimately economics come into it. Most EVILs with any zoom are not as ergonomically ideal as DSLRs. The major selling point from the manufacturers pint of view ids that they are more "approachable" by the average user looking for greater quality, thus (the thought goes) we will create demand for another product. My observation is that in reality they are less approachable as they are less ergonomic when configured as most would like to use them, and in fact are no cheaper in reality.

With a fixed focal length lens they become very akin to a pocketable Rangefinder.

Going off at a tangent for a moment, we also need to think about how retake pictures. Since for an EVIL to be really compact the viewfinder paradigm needs to be ditched. Looking at the latest crop (Olympus PEN 3 family. Panasonic 3 etc) they are getting there by using touch screens but the interfaces are still too slow and the displays not of sufficiently high resolution. When we can get a high resolution LCD at around 300ppi (Apple "Retina" style) and a generations faster processor then all sorts of interface improvements are possible and I am sure will come. (This technology is probably a year or so away looking at developments in Sartphones and Tablets)

Imaging a fast touch display that let you zoom with a multi-touch movement (a la Apple iPad/iPhone) and then let you pick hyper focal point or let you choose the depth of field by touching a beginning and ending position or conversely let you swipe the area you wanted out of focus etc. This type of interface makes the EVIL a compelling tool. It is not there yet but it is coming.

One thing is sure the speed of development of fast low power processors )Moores "Law") is greater than developments in either optical Imaging or optical design. So (and some will cringe) we will see the ability for the camera to compensate for the inherent limitations in Optical Design and Imager Technology in real time (today we like to pull a raw image and make the adjustments ourselves, but this is a counter intuitive workflow, especially if one wants to capture the essential moment in time a la Cartier Bresson).

If one looks closer at current Imager Technology and the Bayer Mask it becomes apparent that this is a highly developed "Kludge". Something more like the Foveon idea makes more sense as it will produce less noise per color channel. I think that the only reason that it has not taken off is that more engineers are focussed of creating workarounds for the limitations of the Bayer Mask.

This harks back to the old school fight between Leica and Zeiss, of contrast vs. resolution. For the mass market the Zeiss school of thought won because with the technology of the time higher resolution (compensating for loss due to dispersion) won out over higher contrast (compensating for loss due to diffraction).

Ultimately change is inevitable just as the bulk of the Canon AE-1P + 35-135 Zoom customers of 25 years ago is now likely to by a $200-#250 Digicam. It is the mid market that drives oct technology improvements - economies of scale.

__________________________
Art is in the Brain of the Beholder!

 

[Rocky]

Racgordon, You are asking for a brand new system with technology that does not exist yet, with all the bells and whistles and still want it in midprice range ($200??).Good Luck. Let us face it. as it it now, nobody even has made an EVIL or point and shoot with AF as fast as DSLR. The claim of fast AF of EP-3 has been shot down by a few people in the internet. Your dream EVIL may have to wait a LONG time. I suggest you get a S95 now. It have everything you want (pocketable, good image, zoom lens full control etc,)except the touch screen.

 

[racgordon]

No, I am quite happy with my G10 for when I don't want to crack around a couple of bodies and lots of glass.

I think that if you look at the rate at which Panasonic (especially) has advanced the usability of their EVILs what I describe will be here in two years.

Yes all of these EVILs have new lens systems, even Micro 4/3 was an update to the original 4/3 format. If canon were to do an EVIL then their lenses might be cheaper as the Canon Brand is worth something in the market place and they stand a good chance of selling better than other EVILs just because of Brand recognition. The positive thing I see is that this patent application appears to deal with using existing lenses with dull functionality on a new system.

As to quality............

Well there is objective quality (no pun intended) but most people tend to argue about subjective quality. I wonder how often photographers (Amateur and Pro - and lets remember the Amateur market is far larger than the pro market) ever really push their equipment to the very edge of performance.

The only instance that comes to mind easily is low light shooting.........

The point I am making is that all of us (Pros and Amateurs) tend to buy above our needs. (There are lots of valid reasons for doing so). But a Canon Evil of 2012 may well give the same quality (maybe lower resolution and fewer fps) as a 7D of 2010 simple because of the improvements in imager technology and especially in camera processing.

I recently looked at some image files I shot with a Kodak DCS-420 using Nikon ED glass in the mid 90s and compared it to some image files shot with a Panasonic Pocket (2010 bottom of the line).

Their is a night and day difference in quality. The Imagers have maybe gone through 5 or 6 generations but still use the same basic technology the ASICs and DSPs that do the in camera post processing (noise removal, compensating for bayer mask etc) etc etc have developed at a far greater rate. Look at the power of the typical PC mid 90s and look today.

 

[moreorless]

With a fixed focal length lens they become very akin to a pocketable Rangefinder.

If comsumer awareness of the advantages of a large sensor increases I'm wondering if fix focal lenght might not become rather more acceptable?