Patent: A Pellicle Mirror by Canon

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/patent-a-pellicle-mirror-by-canon/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/patent-a-pellicle-mirror-by-canon/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Canon coming full circle


</strong>A patent revealing a pellicle mirror by Canon has made its way to public eyes. It seems everyone is researching the technology. Canon did this a long time ago in the Pellix, F1 High Speed, EOS RT and EOS 1N RS.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2013-218241</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Publication date 2013.10.24</li>
<li>Filing date 2012.4.12</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon patent</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Pellicle mirror</li>
<li>The transmitted light image sensor in, I lead the OVF the reflected light</li>
<li>Reflectance (transmittance) variable</li>
<li>(Low transmittance) high set the reflectance OVF when, at the time of imaging is set (high transmittance) low reflectance</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-10-30" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[verysimplejason]

Is there any difference with the current Sony SLT?

 

[mkabi]

Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
Listen, Canon... if you're reading...unless its going to make OVF better and not just smaller... don't waste your time. Unless you're going to cram more tech into the current bodies...

Think of it this way... not everyone wants small mirrorless cameras... its small and its cute, but thats about it.
Its like a Mini Cooper, not everyone wants one... similarly not everyone wants a Hummer either, but there is no point in making your entire product line into a mini cooper. If anything be like Toyota, have the yaris, corrolla, camry, RAV4, 4Runner, etc.

 

[Ricku]

Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
Listen, Canon... if you're reading...unless its going to make OVF better and not just smaller... don't waste your time. Unless you're going to cram more tech into the current bodies...

Think of it this way... not everyone wants small mirrorless cameras... its small and its cute, but thats about it.
Its like a Mini Cooper, not everyone wants one... similarly not everyone wants a Hummer either, but there is no point in making your entire product line into a mini cooper. If anything be like Toyota, have the yaris, corrolla, camry, RAV4, 4Runner, etc.

Wrong. Image quality is everything. If cameras can be made tiny without losing IQ, then go for it.

Who wants to drag around on big heavy bulky shit if it isn't really necessary?

The only reason to why I'm still shooting DSLRs is because of the IQ. Sony's new A7R (tiny FF body) might replace my canon bodies permanently.

 

[verysimplejason]

Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
Listen, Canon... if you're reading...unless its going to make OVF better and not just smaller... don't waste your time. Unless you're going to cram more tech into the current bodies...

Think of it this way... not everyone wants small mirrorless cameras... its small and its cute, but thats about it.
Its like a Mini Cooper, not everyone wants one... similarly not everyone wants a Hummer either, but there is no point in making your entire product line into a mini cooper. If anything be like Toyota, have the yaris, corrolla, camry, RAV4, 4Runner, etc.

Wrong. Image quality is everything. If cameras can be made tiny without losing IQ, then go for it.

Who wants to drag around on big heavy bulky S___ if it isn't really necessary?

The only reason to why I'm still shooting DSLRs is because of the IQ. Sony's new A7R (tiny FF body) might replace my canon bodies permanently.

If image quality is everything (you said everything so exclude price and ergonomics), you'd be in Nikon's camp already or with Leica... That said, SLR's most important advantage over mirrorless would still be its OVF at least currently. I've used A77 and I almost liked it until I've used it in lower light.

 

[privatebydesign]

They won't be much smaller, the geometry for a pellicle mirror is the same as a swinging mirror, they should be lighter and less complicated.

However, the "issue" for pellicle mirrors was always durability and light loss, the silvering had to be on the frontside of the mirror so was very delicate, and even the best lost the film about 1/2 a stop, also the light going up to the viewfinder is lost to the exposure. Now if they have come up with an electronically switching mirrored surface that is silvered on the backside they have cracked it and I for one, would find that more interesting than the EVF's around so far.

 

[Jon Gilchrist]

One big advantage of a fixed mirror system is that you can get a much higher frame rate while being able to see the subject during exposure. So maybe 20+ fps with no mirror blackouts, less vibration, and improved durability. If I were a sports shooter, this would be huge.

 

[mkabi]

Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
Listen, Canon... if you're reading...unless its going to make OVF better and not just smaller... don't waste your time. Unless you're going to cram more tech into the current bodies...

Think of it this way... not everyone wants small mirrorless cameras... its small and its cute, but thats about it.
Its like a Mini Cooper, not everyone wants one... similarly not everyone wants a Hummer either, but there is no point in making your entire product line into a mini cooper. If anything be like Toyota, have the yaris, corrolla, camry, RAV4, 4Runner, etc.

Wrong. Image quality is everything. If cameras can be made tiny without losing IQ, then go for it.

Who wants to drag around on big heavy bulky S___ if it isn't really necessary?

The only reason to why I'm still shooting DSLRs is because of the IQ. Sony's new A7R (tiny FF body) might replace my canon bodies permanently.

I have not mentioned anything about IQ, and I did say "not everyone," if you want small, dainty and fragile... then by all means... but I didn't consider you to be a "single person" that represents "everyone".

Who wants an expensive flimsy thing that can be broken with a drop?

 

[ScottyP]

Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
Listen, Canon... if you're reading...unless its going to make OVF better and not just smaller... don't waste your time. Unless you're going to cram more tech into the current bodies...

Think of it this way... not everyone wants small mirrorless cameras... its small and its cute, but thats about it.
Its like a Mini Cooper, not everyone wants one... similarly not everyone wants a Hummer either, but there is no point in making your entire product line into a mini cooper. If anything be like Toyota, have the yaris, corrolla, camry, RAV4, 4Runner, etc.

Wrong. Image quality is everything. If cameras can be made tiny without losing IQ, then go for it.

Who wants to drag around on big heavy bulky S___ if it isn't really necessary?

The only reason to why I'm still shooting DSLRs is because of the IQ. Sony's new A7R (tiny FF body) might replace my canon bodies permanently.

I have not mentioned anything about IQ, and I did say "not everyone," if you want small, dainty and fragile... then by all means... but I didn't consider you to be a "single person" that represents "everyone".

Who wants an expensive flimsy thing that can be broken with a drop?

And what if you don't have small hands? I don't even like the feel of Nikon cameras, which are the same size as Canon, because their hand grips are so shallow and small I don't feel I have a grip on the camera like I do with the Canons. Look at mobile phones. They got smaller and smaller for a while but then got larger again to let you use them more effectively.

 

[rs]

Is there any difference with the current Sony SLT?

Sony's SLT is very different from the Canon film pellicle mirror cameras.

Canon had a semi-translucent mirror to direct half the light to a viewfinder, and the other half to the film - the upshot is no mirror slap, so higher frame rates are possible and also a more stable camera, and also no viewfinder blackout. The downsides are a darker viewfinder and less light hitting the film.

Sony use the same type of mirror to redirect half the light to a dedicated AF chip, and the other half to the sensor - there is no OVF. So its basically a mirrorless camera in a big body and only half the light sensitivity it should have. A mirrorless camera with on-chip PDAF is much more sensible if you're going to dispense with the OVF - which is precisely what the A7 and A7r are all about.

This new Canon patent is almost a digital version of the film based Canon pellicle mirrored cameras, but with one major difference - the mirror has variable reflectance/transmission. If it could approach 100% reflection while composing, you've got pretty much a conventional bright viewfinder, and if it could electronically switch almost instantly to almost 100% transmission, pretty much all the light can hit the sensor for the shot.

Much higher frame rates, much shorter shutter lag, and no vibration due to mirror slap could be on the cards.

 

[Marsu42]

One big advantage of a fixed mirror system is that you can get a much higher frame rate while being able to see the subject during exposure.

For these reason I loved my EOS RT - actually *seeing* what you shoot makes a huge difference and even on digital would save me lots of "did it blink?" looks at the lcd screen.

Another big advantage of the non-flipping "mirror" design is the ultra-low shutter lag - with the EOS RT you just have to touch the shutter, and it has taken a picture before you realize what's been going on.

With the advances in high iso capability imho this would be great for sports/wildlife shooters as the reduction in light that reaches the sensor doesn't matter that much as on film ... or of course mirrorless and an evf.

 

[J.R.]

Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
Listen, Canon... if you're reading...unless its going to make OVF better and not just smaller... don't waste your time. Unless you're going to cram more tech into the current bodies...

Think of it this way... not everyone wants small mirrorless cameras... its small and its cute, but thats about it.
Its like a Mini Cooper, not everyone wants one... similarly not everyone wants a Hummer either, but there is no point in making your entire product line into a mini cooper. If anything be like Toyota, have the yaris, corrolla, camry, RAV4, 4Runner, etc.

Wrong. Image quality is everything. If cameras can be made tiny without losing IQ, then go for it.

Who wants to drag around on big heavy bulky S___ if it isn't really necessary?

The only reason to why I'm still shooting DSLRs is because of the IQ. Sony's new A7R (tiny FF body) might replace my canon bodies permanently.

I have not mentioned anything about IQ, and I did say "not everyone," if you want small, dainty and fragile... then by all means... but I didn't consider you to be a "single person" that represents "everyone".

Who wants an expensive flimsy thing that can be broken with a drop?

And what if you don't have small hands? I don't even like the feel of Nikon cameras, which are the same size as Canon, because their hand grips are so shallow and small I don't feel I have a grip on the camera like I do with the Canons. Look at mobile phones. They got smaller and smaller for a while but then got larger again to let you use them more effectively.

I have large hands (being over 6 feet tall) and am more comfortable using a bigger body. In-fact I use both my 5D3 and 6D gripped because I like the balance of the system.

I'm surprised though that the constant suggestion that the metabones adapter is the one stop solution to the lack of native lenses on the A7(R). If IQ is paramount, you'd be as far away from an adapter as possible.

 

[AvTvM]

Fixed mirrors were a dead end then (EOS RT).
Fixed mirrors are a dead end now (Sony SLT).
Canon: stop f*cking around and bring those mirrorless cameras!

* APS-C: EOS-M2 with exactly the innards and capabilities of the 70D. In a much smaller box. Adapter for EF-S and EF included in package. Minus obsolete mirror-box and prism. Plus fabulous "Retina" EVF. Plus Eye-Control Focus v.2.0. 999,- USD/€ body only.

* FF -> 5DIII innards and capabilities in a Sony A7/R sized body. Adaptor for EF lenses included. USD/€ 1999,-

Canon customers would buy like mad.

Mirrors? yes, for cars and girls. Not for cameras.

 

[pharp]

Fixed mirrors were a dead end then (EOS RT).
Fixed mirrors are a dead end now (Sony SLT).
Canon: stop f*cking around and bring those mirrorless cameras!

* APS-C: EOS-M2 with exactly the innards and capabilities of the 70D. In a much smaller box. Adapter for EF-S and EF included in package. Minus obsolete mirror-box and prism. Plus fabulous "Retina" EVF. Plus Eye-Control Focus v.2.0. 999,- USD/€ body only.

* FF -> 5DIII innards and capabilities in a Sony A7/R sized body. Adaptor for EF lenses included. USD/€ 1999,-

Canon customers would buy like mad.

Mirrors? yes, for cars and girls. Not for cameras.

+1 Finally we'll get a chance to really see how the wind blows in the DSLR vs MILC debate (not just largely meaningless forum comments) - will Sony sell a ton of the A7(R)? If they do, Canon will have to, if not, they probably won't. We're kind of at that awkward technological stage where EVFs are ALMOST as good/better than OVFs. They are better for manual focusing (especially with focus peaking). I'm hoping they've done it right - I think alot of 5D III owners using the standard screen will be surprised how much easier this could be. Anyway - there is room for both - for awhile anyway. How hard would it be for Canon to take the plunge with a 6D/70D body w/really good EVF, no mirror - all else the same, size etc? Would they sell many? I think so.

 

[Ruined]

Not sure why people are so obsessed with the Sony A7. Yes it is small, but good quality zoom lenses are huge. So you end up having the worst of both worlds. Inferiror EVF, less controls and harder to handle because the camera is so tiny and lenes so large, and you defeat the purpose of a small camera if you have to truck around big lenses anyway. So unless you plan on shooting with pancake primes all day, I fail to even see the purpose of the A7 aside from novelty. Crops I can see because their lenses are actually smaller, but FF mirrorless is pointless IMO.

I think the A7 will sell to a small group of tech enthusiasts at first, but no professional will rely their business on that camera - they will stick with DSLR. I forsee a large amount of initial sales, followed by massive plunge after the techies buy their gadget of the month. Lens + body size mismatch = Sony A7 = fat guy in a little coat!

 

[Dylan777]

Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
Listen, Canon... if you're reading...unless its going to make OVF better and not just smaller... don't waste your time. Unless you're going to cram more tech into the current bodies...

Think of it this way... not everyone wants small mirrorless cameras... its small and its cute, but thats about it.
Its like a Mini Cooper, not everyone wants one... similarly not everyone wants a Hummer either, but there is no point in making your entire product line into a mini cooper. If anything be like Toyota, have the yaris, corrolla, camry, RAV4, 4Runner, etc.

Wrong. Image quality is everything. If cameras can be made tiny without losing IQ, then go for it.

Who wants to drag around on big heavy bulky S___ if it isn't really necessary?

The only reason to why I'm still shooting DSLRs is because of the IQ. Sony's new A7R (tiny FF body) might replace my canon bodies permanently.

Until your subject running ;D

Can't wait for my a7 + zeiss 55mm to arrive.

 

[gmrza]

One big advantage of a fixed mirror system is that you can get a much higher frame rate while being able to see the subject during exposure.

For these reason I loved my EOS RT - actually *seeing* what you shoot makes a huge difference and even on digital would save me lots of "did it blink?" looks at the lcd screen.

Another big advantage of the non-flipping "mirror" design is the ultra-low shutter lag - with the EOS RT you just have to touch the shutter, and it has taken a picture before you realize what's been going on.

With the advances in high iso capability imho this would be great for sports/wildlife shooters as the reduction in light that reaches the sensor doesn't matter that much as on film ... or of course mirrorless and an evf.

I think everyone is missing one part: The Canon patent seems to be about a mirror with variable reflectance/transmittance. That is different, I believe, to the Sony system.

What is also being forgotten is that a patent is no guarantee of a product based on that patent.

 

[marceloshak]

....Plus Eye-Control Focus v.2.0...

+1 I miss the focus eye control of my EOS 3 and EOS A2e...

 

[Bennymiata]

I agree with gmrza.
If you look at the drawing and read the words, it does seem that Canon are talking about a mirror that can change its reflectiveness electronically.

When looking through the OVF, the mirror reflects most of the light into the prism, and when you press the shutter, the mirror goes almost clear meaning that most of the light WILL go to the sensor.

It's basically electronic mirror lifting but instead of the mirror going up and down, it just goes clear when required.
A bit like the electronic LCD glass you can get now where at the touch of a button, the glass become opaque.
This is similar, but the glass becomes either clear or reflective depending on the position of the shutter.

 

[pharp]

I agree with gmrza.
If you look at the drawing and read the words, it does seem that Canon are talking about a mirror that can change its reflectiveness electronically.

When looking through the OVF, the mirror reflects most of the light into the prism, and when you press the shutter, the mirror goes almost clear meaning that most of the light WILL go to the sensor.

It's basically electronic mirror lifting but instead of the mirror going up and down, it just goes clear when required.
A bit like the electronic LCD glass you can get now where at the touch of a button, the glass become opaque.
This is similar, but the glass becomes either clear or reflective depending on the position of the shutter.

Thats my interpretation, but the biggest problem I see - there is NO way that adding an additional element (mirror) can do anything but hurt IQ. Only question - how much.