Patent for Moving Sensor Switch?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
neuroanatomist said:
However, this proposal doesn't offer a thinner body anyway, hence my questioning of the suggested advantage above. If the goal is to only need one range of lenses, it would be much simpler to make an SLR-body without the mirror, or make a small mirrorless body plus a glassless adapter.
This contraption would let you use both types of lenses on one body, but it wouldn't eliminate the need for both types of lenses.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
3kramd5 said:
Your suggestion allows MILC integration with current dSLR lenses without the need for an adapter. The patent describes a solution that allows integration with MILC lenses. Currently, the present invention has no real place in the Canon system. But in several years, if there is a shift such that the market is dominated by MILCs instead of dSLRs, this patent becomes a way for people to maintain one key advantage of dSLRs, the ability to look directly through the lens.
This is merely Canon planning for one possible future direction of the industry.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
I think it does actually: the sensor is effectively lying flat in the bottom of the mirror box until it flips up to deploy, so it's not adding to the overall size of the mirror box, and of course 35 mm slrs had the same size box. Not sure how the AF would work when using the OVF.
Seems a convoluted system but it does overcome the main disadvantage of a mirrorless system - it adds a mirror
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
But without the 'one key advantage of mirrorless, thinner body due to short flange focal distance lenses.'
neuroanatomist said:
I suspect that any advantage of looking directly through the lens will be eaten up by whatever lag is involved in moving the sensor to shooting position after framing and focusing. Shrug.
It's a dog, and I'll eat the diagram if it ever comes to market.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
3kramd5 said:
Obviously. But right now, long flange lenses are the majority, and those wanting to use them on a mirrorless body must use an adapter. What about if short flange lenses become the majority? Those wanting a TTL option can't use an adapter (at least, not one without optics and the probably negative consequences associated with that). As is often the case, those in the minority need to make compromises.
3kramd5 said:neuroanatomist said:
I suspect that any advantage of looking directly through the lens will be eaten up by whatever lag is involved in moving the sensor to shooting position after framing and focusing. Shrug.
It's a dog, and I'll eat the diagram if it ever comes to market.
Presumably everything would be yoked together and driven by one motor, the lag would likely be no different from that of most current dSLRs (although I wouldn't expect a 12 fps version!).
But I agree, this is pretty unlikely to ever see the light of day as a product.
Upvote
0
I would be seriously concerned about misfocus with a design like this. The sensor becomes a mobile part on a hynge...you could have focus distance issues as well as sensor tilt issues. I would also be concerned about sensor shake issues. Because of the scales we are talking about for the image focused at the focal plane, it only takes micrometers before you have an issue.
I think the concept is interesting...a dual-mode camera that can operate in either use case. I like my OVF for many things, and thus far have not been totally happy with the best available mirrorless EVF options for anything involving quick action (the Samsung NX1 EVF was one of the best so far, but still not quite ideal.) I think the design here is fundamentally flawed unless they have some way of being EXTREMELY accurate with sensor placement and rigidity when the sensor is up in imaging mode.
I hope Canon keeps working on the concept, though. Would be interesting to see more patents with more viable solutions to the problem.
I think the concept is interesting...a dual-mode camera that can operate in either use case. I like my OVF for many things, and thus far have not been totally happy with the best available mirrorless EVF options for anything involving quick action (the Samsung NX1 EVF was one of the best so far, but still not quite ideal.) I think the design here is fundamentally flawed unless they have some way of being EXTREMELY accurate with sensor placement and rigidity when the sensor is up in imaging mode.
I hope Canon keeps working on the concept, though. Would be interesting to see more patents with more viable solutions to the problem.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
If the solution described in this patent were to be adopted:
- those who want a thinner body and are prepared to use an electronic viewfinder would buy a classical, thin mirrorless camera
- those who prefer an optical viewfinder would buy a camera built according to this patent, which wouldn't be thin but would not be thicker than a conventional DSLR
- the main benefit would be for the camera maker who would only have one range of lenses to maintain and develop instead of two.
It's clearly a (convoluted) solution meant for a world dominated in volume by mirrorless cameras but in which some people would be prepared to pay a (substantial) premium to keep on enjoying an optical viewfinder.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Of course. With too little to go on (just a patent), I imagine I'd lean towards the optical adapter than this solution, but again: shrug
neuroanatomist said:
It would have to, but I don't think they could move position it as quickly as they do a mirror: the contents of the tray are significantly more sensitive.
Upvote
0
kphoto99 said:
Aaand...we are ridiculing Canon's idea of patenting a pivoting sensor.
Not sure that strengthens your idea any. It's a bad idea. The sensor plane needs to be so precisely positioned to get sharp images, I honestly don't know how well it could be implemented in a way that wouldn't potentially result in a tilted sensor. I mean, a large enough particle of dust or some particulate stuck in the path of the sensor frame when it flips up could cause problems.
It's also something else to wear out in the long run. On top of the shutter, on top of the mirror assembly, you would also potentially have failing sensor assemblies.
Upvote
0
jrista said:kphoto99 said:
Aaand...we are ridiculing Canon's idea of patenting a pivoting sensor.
It's a bad idea. The sensor plane needs to be so precisely positioned to get sharp images, I honestly don't know how well it could be implemented in a way that wouldn't potentially result in a tilted sensor. I mean, a large enough particle of dust or some particulate stuck in the path of the sensor frame when it flips up could cause problems.
It's also something else to wear out in the long run. On top of the shutter, on top of the mirror assembly, you would also potentially have failing sensor assemblies.
The less mass the sensor has the easier (and quicker) it would be to do it. I would think this would be a small sensor, probably aps at the very largest. And if you think of this as a small sensor you can see how shallow (thin) the body could be. Not that a shallow body is always the be all and end all of course.
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:jrista said:kphoto99 said:
Aaand...we are ridiculing Canon's idea of patenting a pivoting sensor.
It's a bad idea. The sensor plane needs to be so precisely positioned to get sharp images, I honestly don't know how well it could be implemented in a way that wouldn't potentially result in a tilted sensor. I mean, a large enough particle of dust or some particulate stuck in the path of the sensor frame when it flips up could cause problems.
It's also something else to wear out in the long run. On top of the shutter, on top of the mirror assembly, you would also potentially have failing sensor assemblies.
The less mass the sensor has the easier (and quicker) it would be to do it. I would think this would be a small sensor, probably aps at the very largest. And if you think of this as a small sensor you can see how shallow (thin) the body could be. Not that a shallow body is always the be all and end all of course.
I think APS-C is still much too big. APS-C is still on the larger side of sensors...the vast majority of sensors in the world are smaller. I could see it working with a very tiny sensor, 1/3" size or smaller. I wouldn't want to use a DSLR that had a sensor that flipped up and down. It's difficult enough tuning each lens to focus ideally on the focal plane with a fixed sensor DSLR...the added potential error for tilt and added potential for vibration with a moving sensor?
I think the idea is interesting, but I don't think flipping the sensor up and down like that is the right solution.
If I really wanted mirrorless, and I do want mirrorless....I want it for the benefits it has to offer. Smaller bodies, potentially smaller lenses, etc. The only real benefit of flipping the sensor up like this is it would make a DSLR compatible with mirrorless lenses, which require a shorter flange focal distance. That could certainly be useful if you have a lot of mirrorless lenses you might want to adapt (and for a given system, that might only be viable with in-brand lenses...like EF and EF-M)...not sure if it's more than an interesting idea right now, though.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
This is definitely not something for the short- to mid-term. But it could well happen that, in ten years from now, may be less, DSLR cameras would be in the same minority position as rangefinder cameras today, those rangefinder cameras that once ruled the 135 format.
If so, people still wanting to shoot with a TTL optical viewfinder would have to pay a substantial premium, as those who want today to use a digital rangefinder camera have no other solution than to pay Leica prices for their camera.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
At the moment, Canon believes the concept has merit. A patent isn't a product on a shelf. I suspect the idea will evolve before it actually becomes a product, because I think a lot of people would have issues with the design as currently done.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
