Canon R1000??

[SwissFrank]

You know what would sell? A rear lens cap that is a rudimentary camera. 3MP would produce results good enough for nearly all web publishing. No card or removable battery, instead internal storage for 1000 photos. A USB slot for downloading and recharging. maybe a 60,000 pixel, 200x300 LCD the size of a stamp. Aim for a price of $50-100 or less.

The 20mm film-to-flange spec of the RF mount would set the minimum thickness, but still.

 

[koenkooi]

Have you asked Olympus?

 

[SwissFrank]

I hadn't heard of that!

I see they're like $130 used in Japan. OK, similar thinking, but imagine a stripped-down version of that! I'm thinking of something that'd be like 1/4 the price, with every dispensable feature removed, such as a memory card slot, blutooth, etc. BTW it needn't be a full-frame sensor, though I was thinking full-frame.

 

[koenkooi]

I hadn't heard of that!

I see they're like $130 used in Japan. OK, similar thinking, but imagine a stripped-down version of that! I'm thinking of something that'd be like 1/4 the price, with every dispensable feature removed, such as a memory card slot, blutooth, etc. BTW it needn't be a full-frame sensor, though I was thinking full-frame.

You'll still need a sensor and a processor, so I don't see how you'd get significantly below $300 for all this. I could find a few uses for this, it would make building a camera trap a lot easier.

For mass-market appeal, Canon would need to have a few phone mounts ready on launch, that will make or break this system. Ideally using 3rd parties that have produced phone cases/mounts before.

 

[SwissFrank]

You'll still need a sensor and a processor, so I don't see how you'd get significantly below $300 for all this.

I was friends with a guy in finance whose firm was working on a funding deal for a new company with a camera they could make for $50... and this was in 2002.

Of course, if it costs $50 to make you have to sell it for 2-4x more to cover non-manufacturing expense, profit margin, distribution, retailer costs and profits, etc. But again, 20 years ago you could already get close.

Just for example, I'm seeing a company selling color LCDs (1.8", 128x160) to hobbyists for six bucks. I think we'd need more like 200x300 minimum but a big manufacturer like Canon could get far better pricing when buying 100k units or what have you.

For mass-market appeal, Canon would need to have a few phone mounts ready on launch

I don't follow? To be clear I'm talking about a cheapest possible camera that could take RF lenses....

 

[koenkooi]

I was friends with a guy in finance whose firm was working on a funding deal for a new company with a camera they could make for $50... and this was in 2002.

Of course, if it costs $50 to make you have to sell it for 2-4x more to cover non-manufacturing expense, profit margin, distribution, retailer costs and profits, etc. But again, 20 years ago you could already get close.

Just for example, I'm seeing a company selling color LCDs (1.8", 128x160) to hobbyists for six bucks. I think we'd need more like 200x300 minimum but a big manufacturer like Canon could get far better pricing when buying 100k units or what have you.



I don't follow? To be clear I'm talking about a cheapest possible camera that could take RF lenses....

I was thinking of an AIR01 analog, so no screen, you need a latptop/phone/tablet as evf.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was thinking of an AIR01 analog, so no screen, you need a latptop/phone/tablet as evf.

Reminds me of the Sony QX series.

 

[SwissFrank]

I was thinking of an AIR01 analog, so no screen, you need a latptop/phone/tablet as evf.

I see, yeah, that'd let you have a great display and a GUI with lots of buttons and sliders that you couldn't fit on the unit itself. I think bluetooth costs less than $10 to implement, but again, displays are super cheap too. It wouldn't be good for checking focus but would let you see the composition and field of view.

 

[Kit.]

You know what would sell? A rear lens cap that is a rudimentary camera. 3MP would produce results good enough for nearly all web publishing. No card or removable battery, instead internal storage for 1000 photos. A USB slot for downloading and recharging. maybe a 60,000 pixel, 200x300 LCD the size of a stamp. Aim for a price of $50-100 or less.

For which lens?

 

[SwissFrank]

For which lens?

Any RF lens.

 

[Kit.]

Any RF lens.

Most RF lenses would be close to unusable with a body having no grip at all.

 

[SwissFrank]

Most RF lenses would be close to unusable with a body having no grip at all.

The camera would be bigger than a traditional lenscap. Think of the smallest M body, except maybe a BIT smaller, and a lot cheaper.

 

[Nemorino]

Any RF lens.

They have all focus by wire, powered by the camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

They have all focus by wire, powered by the camera.

In fairness, the OP said no removable battery, rather a USB port for charging. So this hypothetical camera could still power an AF motor in the lens. One reason modern mobile devices and laptops have a smaller size than their predecessors is a non-removable battery.

 

[Nemorino]

Yes, but have to be strong enough to move the focus group of all lenses. The focus group of a 50 1.2 is as heavy as a EF 50 1.8.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, but have to be strong enough to move the focus group of all lenses. The focus group of a 50 1.2 is as heavy as a EF 50 1.8.

The battery could easily have the same power cells as current ILCs, but eliminating the case/slot/door/release/etc. saves significant space.

This thing had a removable battery.



This thing does not.

 

[Uneternal]

You'd probably have to travel to the future, there is no way that this is feasible with current technology. Not with an APS-C or full frame sensor. Where would all the hardware go? Processor, screen, battery - all that needs space.

 

[Maximilian]

… but eliminating the case/slot/door/release/etc. saves significant space.

This thing had a removable battery.
...
This thing does not.
...

Sorry for the lack of beautiful photo models but IMO the example below shows that the size difference could be more by the decades between those two cellphones and the development of battery cell tech and radio receiver and antenna within that time.