m4/3 Competitor
Received some information about a possible Canon competitor to the Olympus/Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras.
![c500d - Micro Canon [CR1]](https://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/c500d.jpg "Micro Canon [CR1]")
Canon is researching such a camera design. There is a lot of close attention being paid to the success or failure of the system. Canon has no immediate plans to introduce such a camera to the marketplace, nor do they have any plans to become part of the micro 4/3 mount.
Canon's interest seems to lie in making a CMOS based APS-C compact camera with a zoom. Not a new system. Leica and Sigma both have APS-C compact cameras now, albeit with a prime lens. Also, Nikon is rumored to perhaps have the same thing coming down their pipeline.
Another issue with a Micro Canon is the need for a 3rd lens format. EF-S and EF lenses would generally be too big on an EP1 sized camera. Do you think Canon really wants to get into that? If they did want a new lens format, medium format would be a far more desirable market.
All is not lost in the quest for a small camera body. You can expect a smaller Rebel down the line with an electronic viewfinder. It won't be as small as the EP1 or GF1, but taking out the mirror box will shrink the size.
No new news on the often spoken about “G”MOS camera.
cr
28 Comments
“Removing the mirror from a Canon Rebel to make it smaller would be effectively creating a new system. If you want to make the camera smaller not only do you have to remove the mirror but you also need to reduce the flange focal depth. Otherwise, removing the mirror would only leave an unused empty space inside the camera.”
That is not strictly correct, just removing the pentaprism, the mirror and the associated systems will make the camera smaller. You get a lot of space that can be used to electronic components since the back of the camera would be presumably occupied by a large screen.
“And if, indeed, you reduce the flange focal depth reducing the size of the camera, all Canon lenses would become unusable, and you would have to design new lenses adapted to the shorter flange focal length, thus, creating a new system.”
Again, not quiet true. If you decided to make the camera MUCH smaller by making a thinner body and changing the focal length you can still use the old lenses with very simple adapters.
I take it that, in the first sentence, you meant that “just because the flange focal depth remains the same doen’t mean they can’t change the design and size of the camera”
Well, the empty space I was talking about is that of the movable part of the mirror system, i.e. the piece between the lens and the sensor. So if you don’t reduce the flange focal depth to take advantage of that space, the resulting camera will be exactly as thick as it was with the mirror. And then, the lenses will be the same ones, therefore making the overal depth of the system exactly the same.
Now, I take it that, in your second sentence, you meant that it is the pentaprism on top of the camera that you can indeed remove making the camera smaller, at least height-wise. I take your point, one of the factors that make both the Oly EP-1 and the Panasonic GF1 smaller than the G1 and reflex cameras is their absence of a viewfinder.
However, in my view, it is the depth of the camera the number one factor that can make the overall system significantly smaller, both the depth of the camera itself and the depth of the lenses.
Actually, I’d much rather buy a panasonic G1 in combination with the 20mm pancake, than the GF1 or the EP-1. I just need the viewfinder. When pana or oly (or even Fuji, as rumors say they are joining the M4/3 platform) release a sort of GF1 with a good integrated viewfinder, I’ll be willing to pay a good sum of money to get it.
By the way, if it wasn’t my intention to come off as a know-it-all. I just thought I for once knew a bit about this one, and I think this rumor is really far-fetched.
Peace
I take your points, but
1) removing the mirror and the associated systems (leaving the flange focal depth the same) could reduce camera size hight and width wise, but not really depth wise. And I think it is mainly the depth of the camera and the lenses that make our dslr systems so bulky.
2) If they indeed reduce the flange focal depth, very simple adapters could, sure enough, make the old lenses work (micro 4/3 lenses are of course using these adapters), but the adapter would do nothing but adding the missing focal depth, so, again, the overall depth of the system would remain the same. But it they went through the fuss of reducing the flange focal depth it would certainly be because they would design new lenses, and that, again, would be designing a new system.
Else, what would be the point of reducing the focal depth only to have to increase it again with the adapters?
So while I give you guys you could reduce the size of the camera in every dimension and corner except for the depth, I don’t really see the point. I bet you guys, when Canon, Nikon, Sony, and every player in the market begins making (and they will) mirrorless cameras, they will all have the flange distance reduced, and they will all be released with new lenses. They will all be new systems with backwards compatibility via the aforementioned adapters.
Or so I think, anyway
Have a nice day
I don’t understand the appeal of these cameras. I have absolutely no problem toting around my backpack, with as much stuff crammed into it as possible.
If you stress size over quality, get a point-n-shoot.
If you stress quality over size, get a DSLR and do it right.
When you compromise, no one wins….
I find this whole concept of a pocket sized camera with DSLR-like image quality very appealing. There are times when I don’t want to drag my big DSLR around with me and something to stick in my pocket would be ideal.
However, at this point in the game I have no desire to purchase one. I think they’re too new and the drawbacks vs. cost just plain aren’t worth it to me. In a year or two when there’s more options out there, then I’ll consider it.
I’d like to see a model with no a LCD and a viewfinder, if that’s make it super-compact.
Canon using the 4/3 system would be nice, but I don’t see that happening.