Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]

[Policar]

...
The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor.
...

Right and because of color gamut issues (amongst others), you'll never see on your monitor at home or on paper what it is that you saw through the viewfinder that was glass and mirrors. In which case, what value does the optical view finder have if the colors that you see will not be the colors that are captured and displayed later?

The resolution and gamut of ground glass surpasses both an EVF and a print, but the RAW file (22 megapixels, 16 bit color) still surpasses what's seen in the low res EVF by far. Even an analogue negative far surpasses what's seen on the print... It's just part of the process.

Whether I capture all of it or not, I'm composing based on what I see, and either attempting to replicate that accurately or improve upon it by throwing in a subjective spin or at worst mitigating the damage if the scene is too detailed/there's not enough light/the contrast ratio is too high. When I grade, I don't use an iPhone. I want a high end CRT or Flanders LCD (or my Dreamcolor at home at worst!). Just because the final result is inevitably a compromise doesn't mean I need to compose for a worst case scenario.

When I shoot, I want the truest representation of the scene available to compose from; as for worrying about contrast ratios and white balance and whatnot well... years of spot metering and color temperature metering gives me the experience to know roughly what I'm getting and if I don't, I take out the meter.

I'm not kidding when I say if you win the Tour de France it doesn't matter if you have on training wheels. If your photos are amazing in the print, you could have taken them blind for all I care.

But, personally, I do better when I don't.

 

[moreorless]

Right and because of color gamut issues (amongst others), you'll never see on your monitor at home or on paper what it is that you saw through the viewfinder that was glass and mirrors. In which case, what value does the optical view finder have if the colors that you see will not be the colors that are captured and displayed later?

To be fair though a monitor or a printer at home do have the potential to be much better calibrated than an EVF in a camera. The biggie for me though would be getting maximum dynamic range so I can compose for areas of a picture I intend to lift in post.

I can definitely see an EOS mount camera with some form of EVF(either replacing the OVF or a hybrid viewfinder) in the not too distant future if only to cater to the video market, not sure I see a Rebel next year though.

For one thing the Rebel line will likely be getting the 70D/7D2 sensor, I don't think theres a problem with that as the 7D2 is being sold on AF, FPS and handling not the sensor plus even the 70D now has the old 7D AF unit. You add in wifi as well and that's already a bigger shift in the Rebel likeup than we've had since the T2i/550D years ago.

My opinion would be as well that the EOS mount isn't really that well suited for very small mirrorless bodies. Of course any DSLR mount will have a long flange distance BUT the EOS mount is also pretty large compared to say the F-mount meaning more empty space. I spose you could argue that space could be used for recessed lens designs but I'm not sure Canon or Nikon want to get into the position of producing lenses that can't just not be used on certain other bodies but will damage them.

The EF-M lens lineup might not be very deep but honestly I think it covers a lot of the needs of the average entry level users anyway, maybe add in a normal macro lens(say a 50mm F/2.8 2:1) and I think you've covered 95% of the market. Canon have a real advantage in terms of lens performance/value at the moment I would say plus I suspect a lot of the reason for the EF-M project is simply to devalue the market as a whole. If theres an EF-M body with EVF and decent controls with that lens lineup I think some of the current high end mirrorless prices will not be sustainable.

 

[Sella174]

... my day job is color grading. ... My other job is in camera department ...

In this case, notwithstanding the fact that you don't like EVF's, stop putting down actual photographers who do prefer an EVF in their cameras.

 

[roby17269]

Basically Canon has three possible ways to design "a Digital Rebel with OVF".

1. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, fixed (pellicle) mirror, EVF [or hybrid VF] and EF-S mount
This concept has failed already 2 times ... first Canon Pellix, later Sony SLTs ... similar to e.g. Alpha 57 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9545765927/sony-slt-a57-hvl-le1

2. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, mirrorless, EVF and EF-S mount
This concept has failed also ... see Pentax K01 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/slrs/pentax_k01

3. Mirrorless, EVF, EF-M mount = EOS M3
Concept has half-failed first time round. Not for technical reasons, but for shortsighted Canon product crippling combined with Canon greed (way too high price).


In reality Canon does not have a choice but to take route #3. Which is perfectly fine with me.

And if they are smart, it will be sold body only and in 4 kits:
A) Body with EF-M 18-55 STM and
B) Body plus dual zoom kit .. EF-M 18-55 and EF-M 55-200
C) Body with EF/EF-S adapter
D) Body with EF-M 18-55 and EF/EFS adapter

While I do agree with your analysis, at the same type I hope you're wrong... mostly because I dislike using adaptors.
People seem to be ok with adaptors, but they do increase the risk of mechanical misalignments and make the whole system more cumbersome.

I guess I am not the target audience for this type of product but I do hope they keep the EF mount around

 

[Woody]

To me, after using XE2 for over a year, they are GREAT.

From http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-e2/3:

"One significant improvement Fujifilm claims compared to the X-E1 relates to the refresh rate in low light. Where the X-E1's finder dropped to 20 fps at 2EV, the X-E2 can now maintain 50 fps, which gives a noticeably more fluid and natural-looking live view feed. The consequent trade-off, though, is a visibly noisy viewfinder image in low light, especially when shooting with a zoom lens (as opposed to a fast prime)."

 

[AvTvM]

Basically Canon has three possible ways to design "a Digital Rebel with OVF".

1. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, fixed (pellicle) mirror, EVF [or hybrid VF] and EF-S mount
This concept has failed already 2 times ... first Canon Pellix, later Sony SLTs ... similar to e.g. Alpha 57 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9545765927/sony-slt-a57-hvl-le1

2. Rebel-style and size body, e.g. like SL-1, mirrorless, EVF and EF-S mount
This concept has failed also ... see Pentax K01 back in 2012 http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/slrs/pentax_k01

3. Mirrorless, EVF, EF-M mount = EOS M3
Concept has half-failed first time round. Not for technical reasons, but for shortsighted Canon product crippling combined with Canon greed (way too high price).


In reality Canon does not have a choice but to take route #3. Which is perfectly fine with me.

And if they are smart, it will be sold body only and in 4 kits:
A) Body with EF-M 18-55 STM and
B) Body plus dual zoom kit .. EF-M 18-55 and EF-M 55-200
C) Body with EF/EF-S adapter
D) Body with EF-M 18-55 and EF/EFS adapter

While I do agree with your analysis, at the same type I hope you're wrong... mostly because I dislike using adaptors.
People seem to be ok with adaptors, but they do increase the risk of mechanical misalignments and make the whole system more cumbersome.

I guess I am not the target audience for this type of product but I do hope they keep the EF mount around

Well, I only have experience using the (original Canon) EF/EF-M adaptor on my EOS-M. And for me I have no issues whatsoever .. it works like a charm.

If I am out only with EF-S/EF glass, I leave the adapter attached to the camera body ... a little extension of the body, a small nozzle ... and change lenses as on any DSLR ... one move.

If I am out with EF-M glass and only have one EF lens [typically 40/2.8] or EF-S lens [often 55-250 STM or 60 Macro] along, I leave the adapter attached to that lens and mount it, whenever needed, in just the one, usual movement .. exactly as on a DSLR.

ANd yes, in theory an adapter introduces one more coupling between lens and camera. One more joint were something can go wrong. In my practice however, I have not experienced any issues long thos lines. Everything is very solidly held in place and connected. There is no flex or mechanical instability.

At the end of the day, people will migrate to native short flange-distance lenses for mirrorless cameras, of course. But those little adapters will tide us over for as long as we want or for as long as we may have to wait for the right native lens to come along.

 

[Woody]

At the end of the day, people will migrate to native short flange-distance lenses for mirrorless cameras, of course. But those little adapters will tide us over for as long as we want or for as long as we may have to wait for the right native lens to come along.

+1

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I just don't see Canon dumping EF-S any time soon...

But they're probably not advancing it further, either. Look at the last lens releases, esp. at the 16-35L/4 with IS with is just made to be a sturdy "standard" zoom on a 20mp crop camera...

Huh?! The latest lens releases include EF-S glass...I think they're advancing it.

And the 16-35 f/4 as evidence that EF-S is on its way out?! Sorry, but that's the craziest thing I've heard. There are much better standard crop lenses (17-55mm f/2.8 ), and there's no way Canon intended, even for a second, that the 16-35 f/4 IS would replace any of them, officially or in practice by customers. Least we mention Sigma's "standard" crop zoom....with just about the same focal range at a constant f/1.8 AND yet more affordable.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

...
The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor.
...

Right and because of color gamut issues (amongst others), you'll never see on your monitor at home or on paper what it is that you saw through the viewfinder that was glass and mirrors. In which case, what value does the optical view finder have if the colors that you see will not be the colors that are captured and displayed later?

+1

 

[Lee Jay]

I just don't see Canon dumping EF-S any time soon...

But they're probably not advancing it further, either. Look at the last lens releases, esp. at the 16-35L/4 with IS with is just made to be a sturdy "standard" zoom on a 20mp crop camera...

Canon released a new EF-s lens this year - the 10-18IS STM. They released two new EF-s lenses in 2013, the 18-55IS STM and the 55-250IS STM.

So, from March 21st, 2013 to now, they've released three lenses that cover a 16mm to 400mm equivalent zoom range for the EF-s mount.

 

[AvTvM]

Canon released a new EF-s lens this year - the 10-18IS STM. They released two new EF-s lenses in 2013, the 18-55IS STM and the 55-250IS STM.

So, from March 21st, 2013 to now, they've released three lenses that cover a 16mm to 400mm equivalent zoom range for the EF-s mount.

You forgot the EF-S 24 / 2.8 pancake.
On the other hand i would not count iterations of the kit zoom or the 55-250 as "new lenses".

 

[Lee Jay]

Canon released a new EF-s lens this year - the 10-18IS STM. They released two new EF-s lenses in 2013, the 18-55IS STM and the 55-250IS STM.

So, from March 21st, 2013 to now, they've released three lenses that cover a 16mm to 400mm equivalent zoom range for the EF-s mount.

You forgot the EF-S 24 / 2.8 pancake.
On the other hand i would not count iterations of the kit zoom or the 55-250 as "new lenses".

Gee...I didn't even realize the 24/2.8 was an EF-s! I really pay very little attention to slow primes.

These aren't just version II, III and IV of the kit lenses (like all the 28-80s and so on), they are genuinely new in that they use STM focusing systems. So I think they're worthy of being "new lenses" especially since they still sell the old ones.

 

[Tugela]

Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly. Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket. They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway). EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway). And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark. And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon. It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready. In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either. the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs. Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one. So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end. Then again, what do I know?

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor.

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

I hear bicycles fall over less with training wheels.

Having tools available to you to capture the perfect image is a bad thing? Real men walk backwards in the snow uphill for an hour to do their thing? Really? that is your argument????? :

 

[lescrane]

canon is way behind in mirrorless, totally squandered an opportunity to keep loyal customers who want mirrorless.

I don;t think a Canon mirrorless system has to use EF S or EF lenses.. It can exist side by side. As mentioned before, one of the big advantages of mirrorless is reduced size . I have an EOS M and will never even consider mounting my L lenses on it. What';s the point? what's most important to me is that the mirrorless body is NOT A STEP DOWN in features from my mid level 70D. I don't want Rebel features only. I am willing to invest in 2 more mirrorless lenses (beyond the kit) but they are not coming.

Bottom line for me is one word: SONY. Sony clearly is way beyond Canon. If I'm going to buy lenses anyway, why not get into a new ecosystem, and go with a company that is dedicated to building it?

I will not give up my 70D, 60d etc for use with long lenses for wildlife, etc... BUt am ready to move on for walk around use, even landscapes, street photography etc. I;m not trying to spite Canon, but I am ready and they are not.

 

[Policar]

Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly. Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket. They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway). EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway). And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark. And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon. It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready. In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either. the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs. Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one. So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end. Then again, what do I know?

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor.

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

I hear bicycles fall over less with training wheels.

Having tools available to you to capture the perfect image is a bad thing? Real men walk backwards in the snow uphill for an hour to do their thing? Really? that is your argument????? :

Depends what tools you need. For me, the racing bike would be the better tool than the training wheels (metaphorically speaking, I've never used a bike that takes a good photo.) OVFs offer better performance in every area except having a built-in histogram, which is pretty useless to anyone who meters competently.

 

[moreorless]

Canon released a new EF-s lens this year - the 10-18IS STM. They released two new EF-s lenses in 2013, the 18-55IS STM and the 55-250IS STM.

So, from March 21st, 2013 to now, they've released three lenses that cover a 16mm to 400mm equivalent zoom range for the EF-s mount.

You forgot the EF-S 24 / 2.8 pancake.
On the other hand i would not count iterations of the kit zoom or the 55-250 as "new lenses".

If were talking about keeping the EF-S mount for entry level bodies then I would say the 18-55mm especially is actually a very important lens, no advance in specs but in terms of performance and build its a clear upgrade.

 

[sanj]

... my day job is color grading. ... My other job is in camera department ...

In this case, notwithstanding the fact that you don't like EVF's, stop putting down actual photographers who do prefer an EVF in their cameras.

I get it. Sorry. I'll stop insulting actual bad photographers.

If this is directed to me, please point out my bad photographs with suggestions. I so want to improve. I will appreciate. Honest. www.sanjayfgupta.co

 

[Sella174]

... my day job is color grading. ... My other job is in camera department ...

In this case, notwithstanding the fact that you don't like EVF's, stop putting down actual photographers who do prefer an EVF in their cameras.

I get it. Sorry. I'll stop insulting actual bad photographers.

It is now the time to put your knowledge where your mouth is ... by telling me (and other photographers) why preferring an EVF equates to bad photography. Go ahead, let 'er rip with a comprehensive and numbered list!

P.S. An excuse why you won't will mean you can't, because it does.

 

[traveller]

This thread is a perfect example of how discussions on CR (and most forums) degenerate into personal attacks. :

The title of the thread is "Next Rebel going EVF"; everyone should frame their discussions within this context and stop dragging high-end DSLRs, cinema cameras and large format film cameras into the mix. The question is whether an EVF would be superior to a 0.5x pentamirror optical viewfinder for the majority of that camera's target market, not whether EVFs or OVFs are always superior. Not that our opinions are really that relevant, as for the most part, we are not the target demographic.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

The childish war of ovf vs evf, all over again,

yet nobody seems to understand that both have their advantages and both have their disadvantages and each one should choose the one that fits his meeds and stop claiming superiority to the other type of user.

Anyway, the rebel with evf, not going to happen. I can bet big money on that.

The next Canon with an evf is the eos m, this is coming soon, and so is a high megapixel body.

The next rebel will have the 70D sensor, dpaf, digic 6, articulating touch monitor, no 1/8000s, no top lcd, no , pentaprism, no mfa, no weather sealing etc, just like the difference between the 600d and the 60D.