Mirrorless Update - APS-C? [CR2]

[infared]

i guess that´s how the canon mirrorless will look.. more or less:

no honest i think it will resemble more a DSLR then a PEN or GF.

I hope not. That will make it not even coat-pocketable.

ANYTHING APS-C sensor will be perhaps knap-sackable. Get real. LOL!

 

[infared]

im not sure if "pocketable" is a concern for canon when it comes to the new mirrorless camera.
APS-C is not the way to go then. the body can be small but as you see on NEX.. the lenses are not.

they will sure try to make it smaller then the SX1... but i would not be suprised when it resembles a bridge/DSLR look.

The only M4/3 camera that I'd buy is the Olympus OM-D E-M5, it's 4.8 inch (W) x 3.5 inch (H) x 1.7 inch (D) and weighs 15 Oz with battery and memory card. Not what I'd call a small pocketable camera. Add to that a lens length of 1.7" to 2.9" (12mm f/2.0 and 75mm f/1.8 ) and they won't even fit in the pocket of Cargo Shorts My Sony NEX 5n (APS-C) isn't really pocketable, even with the 16mm f/2.8 pancake lens.

If I need a pocketable camera, I use my iPod Touch 4G

Now your are talkin!!!!!! Canon missed the whole point to mirrorless! SMALL...SMALL & SMALL! LOL!

 

[Rocky]

im not sure if "pocketable" is a concern for canon when it comes to the new mirrorless camera.
APS-C is not the way to go then. the body can be small but as you see on NEX.. the lenses are not.

they will sure try to make it smaller then the SX1... but i would not be suprised when it resembles a bridge/DSLR look.

The only M4/3 camera that I'd buy is the Olympus OM-D E-M5, it's 4.8 inch (W) x 3.5 inch (H) x 1.7 inch (D) and weighs 15 Oz with battery and memory card. Not what I'd call a small pocketable camera. Add to that a lens length of 1.7" to 2.9" (12mm f/2.0 and 75mm f/1.8 ) and they won't even fit in the pocket of Cargo Shorts My Sony NEX 5n (APS-C) isn't really pocketable, even with the 16mm f/2.8 pancake lens.

If I need a pocketable camera, I use my iPod Touch 4G

Now your are talkin!!!!!! Canon missed the whole point to mirrorless! SMALL...SMALL & SMALL! LOL!

Unfortunately, either camera have good ergonomics.

 

[intown]

BTW there will be no future P&S cameras, they will be replaced by smart phones

Completely agree.

I think the majority of camera owners will never own a camera that costs more than $350 but they will own a smartphone that will take pictures as good as a P&S. These pictures will never be printed they will just be sent in text messages and posted to Facebook. IMO some of the new smart phones do a great job for this level of photography.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Mirrorless - Replaces G-series PowerShots and all Rebels, 3 - 5 models total

I doubt that will be happening soon. Not until there is a huge breakthrough in EVF technology (in both performance and cost). The optical view finder on the Rebel beats any existing EVF anytime.

I agree with you that we're ages away from an EVF that can even pretend to compete with the real thing, even the dark and dinky ones on a Rebel.

However, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of Rebel owners already mostly use live view anyway. Note, that's the majority of those who own Rebels, and certainly not the majority of Rebel owners who read Canon Rumors -- those are two entirely distinct sets of people.

But the EVF problem is yet another reason why there'll never be a full-frame mirrorless Canon camera. The only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers. The only reason for mirrorless is to make something you can slip in the opposite pocket from your cellphone. If you're really making 24" x 36" and bigger prints, fitting your camera in your pocket is the least of your photographic challenges.

Cheers,

b&

 

[c.d.embrey]

See, that's where I don't get it; my wife's 4s is the *only* half way 'keepable' phone camera but it is nothing compared to any of canon's entry-level IS cameras.

Most people don't care about quality!!! All they ever do with their photos is post them on FaceSpace. They don't even make 4x6 prints. For these Non-Photo-Enthusiasts a camera phone makes more sense than a Real Camera, 'cause they can post to Social Sites directly from their Smart Phone (no computer needed).

The SX40IS type cameras are super light and get great IQ for the price ...

But you can't make a phone call on them or post to directly to SpaceFace

We're pretty sure this camera's price isn't going to be cheap and nothing is going to be revolutionary on it . . .

I'm not looking for a cheap price! I'm looking for a small/light camera and I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount of money to get it. The M4/3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 sells for $999.00 and there is a waiting list to get them, so it's not just me wanting this type of small/light camera.

 

[Dylan777]

Then no one would buy it. The "classic" looks way better.

you would not buy it.. but i really doubt you can speak for other customers.

you have not done a survey, right?
so you can not even say how many people would prefer a classic look.

the SX1 is no beauty.. but then i find angelina jolie not that sexy either.

With current survey, people seems to prefer classic body style.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7984.msg145588;topicseen#new

I think I know the person voted for SX1 body style ;D

 

[Dylan777]

Then no one would buy it. The "classic" looks way better.

Who cares how they look? You aren't taking pictures of them, you're taking pictures with them.

I hated using my AE-1 - rotten ergonomics. Much better with an actual grip.

Canon users and CRs members do care:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7984.msg145588;topicseen#new

 

[c.d.embrey]

Unfortunately, either camera have good ergonomics.

I like my NEX 5n, ergonomics isn't a problem for me. And I wear X-Large gloves The NEX 5n's biggest problem is lack of a hot-shoe. Without a hot-shoe I can't use PocketWizanrds to trigger Profoto packs

 

[unfocused]

Then no one would buy it. The "classic" looks way better.

Who cares how they look? You aren't taking pictures of them, you're taking pictures with them.

I hated using my AE-1 - rotten ergonomics. Much better with an actual grip.

Canon users and CRs members do care:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7984.msg145588;topicseen#new

Yes. All 12 of them.

Just one more example of why people are delusional if they think Canon should pay any attention at all to the ramblings on this forum. This is entertainment, but under no circumstances should anyone think that the opinions expressed here are typical or representative of the customer base.

 

[Lee Jay]

BTW there will be no future P&S cameras, they will be replaced by smart phones

Maybe someday, when they get the basics, like a shutter release button, a zoom lens, and a tripod mount.

 

[Kernuak]

BTW there will be no future P&S cameras, they will be replaced by smart phones

Maybe someday, when they get the basics, like a shutter release button, a zoom lens, and a tripod mount.

The vast majority of owners of P&S and low end DSLRs don't care how it works and don't own a tripod. Most would find the zoom useful, but there have been quite a few cheap P&S cameras without zooms.

 

[zim]

I feel intimidated nowadays walking around with a DSLR but something with a classic look (I prefer the Canon-p as an example) I’d be fine with, and the general public/police/security guards. For me the problem with phone camera’s is not the quality of the picture, I’ve printed 12x16 off of my wife’s Samsung galaxy and was rather surprised at the results - she was ecstatic, but the slowness of the AF and shutter reaction times are the issue. I’d really want DSLR performance on that for a mirrorless rangefinder type.

On the other hand…..
Maybe if I tried my D500 with a pancake and lost the strap I’d feel better which would mean I’m only a couple of hundred pounds away from a real good street setup and will that be really be that much bigger than this mirrorless?

 

[Blaze]

Mirrorless - Replaces G-series PowerShots and all Rebels, 3 - 5 models total

I doubt that will be happening soon. Not until there is a huge breakthrough in EVF technology (in both performance and cost). The optical view finder on the Rebel beats any existing EVF anytime.

I agree with you that we're ages away from an EVF that can even pretend to compete with the real thing, even the dark and dinky ones on a Rebel.

However, I'd bet that the overwhelming majority of Rebel owners already mostly use live view anyway. Note, that's the majority of those who own Rebels, and certainly not the majority of Rebel owners who read Canon Rumors -- those are two entirely distinct sets of people.

But the EVF problem is yet another reason why there'll never be a full-frame mirrorless Canon camera. The only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers. The only reason for mirrorless is to make something you can slip in the opposite pocket from your cellphone. If you're really making 24" x 36" and bigger prints, fitting your camera in your pocket is the least of your photographic challenges.

Cheers,

b&

I disagree that the "only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers." Full frame sensors are not good just for extra resolution; they gather more than twice as much light as an APS-C sensor. That makes a big difference to me shooting sports in low light.

 

[Rocky]

I feel intimidated nowadays walking around with a DSLR but something with a classic look (I prefer the Canon-p as an example) I’d be fine with, and the general public/police/security guards. For me the problem with phone camera’s is not the quality of the picture, I’ve printed 12x16 off of my wife’s Samsung galaxy and was rather surprised at the results - she was ecstatic, but the slowness of the AF and shutter reaction times are the issue. I’d really want DSLR performance on that for a mirrorless rangefinder type.

On the other hand…..
Maybe if I tried my D500 with a pancake and lost the strap I’d feel better which would mean I’m only a couple of hundred pounds away from a real good street setup and will that be really be that much bigger than this mirrorless?

Usually, the length of the lens attracts attention from the security people, not the camera. I was stopped by the security when I entered the pavilion for the children's tennis match. They told me that the lens cannot be longer than 3 inches. So I changed into a shorted lens and walked in.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I disagree that the "only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers." Full frame sensors are not good just for extra resolution; they gather more than twice as much light as an APS-C sensor. That makes a big difference to me shooting sports in low light.

But that's just image quality again. Boost the ISO by a stop or two and you get pretty much the same shot as on full frame, just with more noise. Now, downsample that frame to 1024x768, to post on the Web or send in an email, and the noise vanishes.

Would you be satisfied with the image quality? Obviously not. But 99 44/100% of Rebel owners would be thrilled with it, and that's why we're not going to see a full-frame mirrorless.

b&

 

[whatta]

yes, apsc please, then it would be possible to use my efs lenses, so it can be a real alternative to replace my 400d.

 

[ecka]

I disagree that the "only reason for full-frame is image quality, and APS-C is already overkill for the largest desktop printers." Full frame sensors are not good just for extra resolution; they gather more than twice as much light as an APS-C sensor. That makes a big difference to me shooting sports in low light.

But that's just image quality again. Boost the ISO by a stop or two and you get pretty much the same shot as on full frame, just with more noise. Now, downsample that frame to 1024x768, to post on the Web or send in an email, and the noise vanishes.

Would you be satisfied with the image quality? Obviously not. But 99 44/100% of Rebel owners would be thrilled with it, and that's why we're not going to see a full-frame mirrorless.

b&

It seems like many people are underestimating "image quality" just because they don't care. For me, it is not about noise in unreasonably high ISO shots or gigantic prints, but about clear, sharp and not smeared details of an image with fully usable resolution. I often find 100% crops from my 5D2 (good lighting, low ISO, sharp lens) being high quality images by themselves, while the 18mp APS-C is really pushing it. Most of the time, high resolution APS-C may be reasonable for prints, but it is an overkill (+ many compromises) for digital use. For what I do with my camera, FF can pretty much compensate for using a small prime instead of a huge L zoom, just by cropping the image. APS-C is a few levels below in this regard. FF + 40/2.8 can pretty much act like APS-C + 24-70 in term of usable image resolution for screen.

 

[briansquibb]

For what I do with my camera, FF can pretty much compensate for using a small prime instead of a huge L zoom, just by cropping the image. APS-C is a few levels below in this regard. FF + 40/2.8 can pretty much act like APS-C + 24-70 in term of usable image resolution for screen.

Using large whites is as much a reason for IQ than closeups. I use a 200 f/2 rather than the 70-200 f/2.8 for the better IQ. The 100-400L does not compare with the 400 f/2.8 either

Cropping has the effect of reducing the bg blur that you would get with a longer lens

 

[ecka]

For what I do with my camera, FF can pretty much compensate for using a small prime instead of a huge L zoom, just by cropping the image. APS-C is a few levels below in this regard. FF + 40/2.8 can pretty much act like APS-C + 24-70 in term of usable image resolution for screen.

Using large whites is as much a reason for IQ than closeups. I use a 200 f/2 rather than the 70-200 f/2.8 for the better IQ. The 100-400L does not compare with the 400 f/2.8 either

Well, first of all, why would you use large whites with a mirrorless camera?

Cropping has the effect of reducing the bg blur that you would get with a longer lens

So, are you going closer to the lion just to get that bg blur you want? (sorry, I couldn't resist)
Now seriously, if I put something like 85L on my 5D2, there is nothing in the APS-C world I could compare it to, even 85/1.8 on FF is unbeatable for the price (opposed to 50/1L on crop). FF wins in bokeh competition any day of the year. The distance is an important factor. To get the same framing with the same lens on both FF and crop cameras you have to be closer when using FF and that's where the bonus bokeh comes from. More on that, using a crop sensor camera and cropping FF image to match it (same lens on both cameras), gets you to a similar result without any compromises in bg blur. So, in my mind, FF is a win/win.
24-105L on FF > 17-55/2.8 on APS-C, while price and weight are the same + 24-105L has wider (15-65/2.5 equivalent) focal range as well as dust and moisture resistance. If not cropping, 40/2.8 on FF equals 25/1.8 on crop, which wouldn't be a pancake lens for $199 (or could it be?).