# Canon Mirrorless on the Horizon?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 5, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;;width: 55px;" name="fb_share"><div id="fb-root"></div><script src="http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#appId=125029517579627&xfbml=1"></script><fb:like href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6728" send="false" layout="box_count" width="55" show_faces="false" font="arial"></fb:like></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6728"></a></div>
<p><strong>The inevitable coming soon?</strong>

In an interview with Reuters, the head of the camera divisionÃ‚Â Masaya Maeda says Canon isÃ‚Â ”…considering the technical aspects,” in regards to the mirrorless segment.</p>
<p>He also goes on to say thatÃ‚Â ”We will launch an interesting product next year,” saying that it is “small”, but didn’t specify if it was a mirrorless camera system or not.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/05/idUSL3E7I50RX20110705">Read the full article</a></strong></p>
<p><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">thanks m</span></em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff00ff;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## polpaulin (Jul 5, 2011)

18x24 sensor
EVF 
interchangeable lenses 
pancake lenses

I take it


----------



## jimmy156 (Jul 5, 2011)

Hi everyone, have read these forums for years but only just registered.

Is the consensus that if canon make a mirror-less camera it will have the EF mount or not?

If it was to have the EF mount it could be very interesting for me as a second camera to sling in my camera bag that would be compatible with all my lenses/accessories.

James


----------



## Stuart (Jul 5, 2011)

jimmy156 said:


> Hi everyone, have read these forums for years but only just registered.
> 
> Is the consensus that if canon make a mirror-less camera it will have the EF mount or not?
> 
> ...


I'd hope that a convertors was available for EF/EFS lenses. I'd assume a new smaller family of lenses though.


----------



## EYEONE (Jul 5, 2011)

I'm sure it will have adapters for EF lenses. But natively I don't think it could support it due to the small size. the sensor would be very close to the back of the lens.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 5, 2011)

polpaulin said:


> 18x24 sensor
> EVF
> interchangeable lenses
> pancake lenses
> ...


May I add 3 more requirement??
1. Shutter delay close to DSLR. I do not want point and shoot shutter delay.
2. With adapter for EF, EF-S lenses.
3. Adapter for Leica M lenses (i would be giving up auto focus for this) as a wish list.


----------



## zerotiu (Jul 5, 2011)

what the .. I AM really shocked by this news. I've been thinking to buy a new e-p3. You know, sometimes it's nice to have small camera with you, fast AF, any moment can always be captured and it is not intimidating if you want to do street photography.

and then this news come out from nowhere hahaha ;D

and I agree with EYEONE, EF lenses definitely can't be attached on 4/3 camera (will it be a 4/3 camera?). Unless canon have EF adapter.. wow it will be so goooooood.

However, e-p3 is still on my list. I will be old if I wait for the release of canon mirror-less camera


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jul 5, 2011)

It would be great to see Canon dive in against the exist strong competition in the mirrorless market. Canon has dominated the point and shoot and SLR market and I think could use that strength to undercut competitors by releasing a superior product at a lower price. Let's just make sure that whatever mirrorless camera they release has a direct print button, or I'm not buying it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2011)

zerotiu said:


> and I agree with EYEONE, EF lenses definitely can't be attached on 4/3 camera (will it be a 4/3 camera?). Unless canon have EF adapter.. wow it will be so goooooood.
> 
> However, e-p3 is still on my list. I will be old if I wait for the release of canon mirror-less camera



Not directly attached, no. But there are EF-to-m4/3 adapters available, e.g. this one on Amazon, rebranded for Fotodiox and others, and blogged about here. 

If Canon does bring a mirrorless camera to market, I'm certain they'll release an EF-/EF-S mount adapter. Given that such an adapter will contain no optics, but presumably provide electrical contacts to allow AF, aperture control, power for IS, etc., such an adapter would be analagous to an Extension Tube. Based on that analogy, Canon _may_ charge ~$100 for such an adapter. Of course, Canon being Canon, and their marketing department knowing a major segment of those interested in a mirrorless body would already own a few EF/EF-S lenses, well, they'd have us over a barrel, so to speak, especially if they somehow chipped the new bodies so data would only be transmitted through _their_ branded adapter...in that case, I'd expect a much higher price tag.


----------



## kubelik (Jul 5, 2011)

neuro, I think $100 is quite a lot for an adapter already, so I'd hope that's at the high end of the estimate spectrum, rather than the low end.

I feel that m4/3 is out of the question in terms of sensor format. Canon makes excellent APS-C sensors, and Sony has demonstrated you can put APS-C sensors into incredibly small bodies. there's no reason to end up with a fourth (third if you're a believer in the possible demise of APS-H) sensor production line.

I actually hope they don't make the body quite as skinny and awkward as the sony bodies. given the size of lens that still needs to be attached to the camera, the NEX cameras are strange to see and strange to hold.


----------



## goodmane (Jul 5, 2011)

@ Eagle eye - very funny 

So long as this has unfettered ETTL hotshoe support - by which I mean it must work in manual mode unlike my G9, and has ETTL master built-in ala 7D - and a compact lens, and looks nice and easy for my wife to use I'll buy it.

Another feature I would love is the option to enable RAW on full AUTO somewhere in the settings, so I can hand it to someone on AUTO and process their iffy exposures later. If its buried deep enough in the settings, it can only be a good thing. Sure, my wife uses P mode at the moment on G9 but there are way to many settings that can be altered and she frequently switches it back to AUTO if she gets confused, leaving us with crappy jpegs.


----------



## goodmane (Jul 5, 2011)

Also I should qualify my post; for a walkabout high quality camera, video is mandatory for me. I use the video on my G9 50% of the time.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 5, 2011)

goodmane said:


> Also I should qualify my post; for a walkabout high quality camera, video is mandatory for me. I use the video on my G9 50% of the time.


I don't use the video function, but I certainly don't mind that its there. I might actually use video if it becomes practical, meaning with autofocus, IS, good sound, ... all the things my Sony camcorder has.

When I first bought my 5D MK II, tried the video, and it produces a impressive result, considering that it came at no extra cost. Still, It hasn't yet reached the stage to be practical for casual use, like photographing a kids soccer game or basketball game. and, even with IS, you need some sort of support for long video clips. I start wavering after 2 or 3 minutes.

I expect to see improvements on new models, Canon has the lead for large sensor DSLR's, and will try to keep it.


----------



## tiagomlalves (Jul 6, 2011)

my 5-cents here:
- Digital full-frame version of Canon 7 w/ 50mm f/0.95 to directly compete with M9
- don't really care about lenses mount as long as it can mount some M lenses (via adaptor or not)
- Couple of extra lenses 28/35/50/90mm would be nice

Are there other canon fans that would vote for this?


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 6, 2011)

So, if I'm going to use EF-S lenses, wouldn't it make more sense to use a DSLR?

I'm a little lost on why mirror-less is excting, besides just having another gadget.


----------



## J-Man (Jul 6, 2011)

I can see Canon charging $100+ for an adapter, just look what Olympus is charging for theirs, just remember this won't be a cheap POS.

There is 0% chance Canon will join the 4/3, m4/3 camp, they could design their own mount super easy, 
all they have to do is alter the EF design enough to prevent the direct mounting of EF lenses, 
that would give them freedom to release an APS-C sensor camera with an instant up grade path to FF.

My biggest fear is that they will use a smaller than APS-C sensor, I'm sure they will be looking closely at Pantax's Q sales numbers.

"I'm a little lost on why mirror-less is excting, besides just having another gadget."

The ability to mount legacy glass is one reason, a more compact system is another, there are many times I've left my 1DIII & 40D at home because I didn't want to be burdened with an anchor all day/night and no a P&S is not an option, the IQ sucks, and DOF control is pathetic.

There is a possibility that Canon could release a G13/Cononet with an APS-C sensor to take on Fuji's X100, and add a 28-85(35mm) f2 zoom.


----------



## ronderick (Jul 6, 2011)

I recall a Canon official once mentioned during an interview that the company would not consider the mirrorless market unless there's a way to come up with an AF system quick enough (comparable to the entry DSLR models).

So has Canon found a way to do it?

Or is the mirrorless market looking too lucrative to resist? 8)


----------



## Rocky (Jul 6, 2011)

tiagomlalves said:


> my 5-cents here:
> - Digital full-frame version of Canon 7 w/ 50mm f/0.95 to directly compete with M9
> - don't really care about lenses mount as long as it can mount some M lenses (via adaptor or not)
> - Couple of extra lenses 28/35/50/90mm would be nice
> ...


That will be a fun camera to have. The only question is How many Canon fans will give up the auto focus? I am for it as long as Canon brings back the rangefinder lens with fine focus adjustment With a fine range finder built into the camera.


----------



## NXT1000 (Jul 6, 2011)

i have 5d2, i do not care less for mirrorless system. 

only if they build a full frame slr with built in stabilisation, which i know they never will, i am not interested. 

canon red eye over fuji x100 sucess, want a part of the market. Did they paid I am number 4 to use their camera in the show? 

I want the lens weight to go down, i want L lens that is black, i want the 24-70L 2.8 IS , that is what i want, i do not want some gimmick like mirrorless, and look into a shitty EVF.


----------



## zerotiu (Jul 6, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not directly attached, no. But there are EF-to-m4/3 adapters available, e.g. this one on Amazon, rebranded for Fotodiox and others, and blogged about here.



oh yes, I've seen that post when I was researching the 4/3 camera. I'm so exciting about this 4/3 stuffs.

I think maybe it's not really a 4/3 camera with size like e-p3/NEX. If canon thinks that the lens for the mirrorless are going to be EF lines and EF-S lines. It won't be a compact anymore.


----------



## gmrza (Jul 6, 2011)

Rocky said:


> tiagomlalves said:
> 
> 
> > my 5-cents here:
> ...



I think there will ultimately be some challenges that Canon (or any manufacturer needs to address):
- with a fixed lens system (e.g. Fuji X100) a cheaper leaf shutter is viable. For an interchangeable lens system, the
the cheapest shutter system is probably a focal plane shutter (since a leaf shutter would need to be built into
the lens). A focal plane shutter adds quite a bit of complexity over the type of leaf shutter that the Powershots have.
- Autofocus on mirrorless systems has not been perfected - contrast-detect autofocus does not work as well
as phase-detect (which requires a reflex mirror). Leica's solution was to do without autofocus. With larger sensors,
using the sensor to do contrast-detect based focusing is a drain on the battery, and creates heat.

These are probably the two biggest technical challenges I can think of. There are probably more.

I believe that the reason that Canon has not jumped headlong into the mirrorless segment yet is because
the technical problems have, to date, led to solutions which are not appropriate to the market Canon wants
to address.

Maybe Canon are on their way to sorting out the technical issues? I don't know.

While I would welcome a range finder, I think that most users (the bulk of the market) want autofocus. Most
people who take snap-shots don't want to spend time on focusing. Most people under the age of 30 have
probably also never encountered a camera that does not have autofocus! - The first camera I bought - an
EOS650 - had autofocus, but I have used cameras like a Zeiss Ikon and Canon T70 to have the experience of
having to use manual focus. (The Zeiss will see use again once I put aside the cash to have it overhauled,
as I am currently scared to use it, for fear that it will break after over 20 years in storage.)


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 6, 2011)

Oh No!!! I just bought an Olympus E-PL1 (with an EF adapter of course) on Monday, and now this news comes out. D'oh!


----------



## zerotiu (Jul 6, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Oh No!!! I just bought an Olympus E-PL1 (with an EF adapter of course) on Monday, and now this news comes out. D'oh!



what? did you know there are newer PEN series also? ;D

@gmrza , it is okay if it's a manual focus rangefinder. As long as the manual focus sytem is like LEICA.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 6, 2011)

I've been researching these for a while and waited fot the June 30 announcement. I like the look of the E-P3 a lot. But thought it might be a bit expensive for something I may not use much. A local store had an awesome deal on the E-pl1 + kit lens + EVF. The lens and EVF would be compatible if I ever want to upgrade.


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 6, 2011)

J-Man said:


> "I'm a little lost on why mirror-less is excting, besides just having another gadget."
> 
> The ability to mount legacy glass is one reason,



And onto true rangefinder (like the M8 M9). And I don't think the X100 fits this catagorie (correct me if I'm wrong) but it's to my understanding that a rangefinders sharpness characteristic is the reduced distance of the the rear lens element to the focal plane. Which would put one up on the X100 and no need to compete.

If the X100 isn't a rangefinder, then it is more likely a point and shoot with a big sensor and compact body. Not very impressive.

So, what I'm getting at here is, it makes no sense for me to be gassing for mirrorless systems for the sake of portability or mounting a Zeiss if the end result is only competitive for almost-as-good-as dslr image quality. Where a true rangefinder would really make a difference.


----------



## Flake (Jul 6, 2011)

Mirrorless is exciting - not because it's another gadget, but because there's no mirror! In a DSLR a mirror is a neccessary evil, but evil it is. It prevents the exit pupil being moved closer to the sensor plane (bad for wide angle especially), and then there's the mirror slap, you can move to live view to avoid it, but then you're shooting the same as the mirrorless camera, but without the benefits. The shutter assembly is large only syncs with flash at slow speeds, it's possible without a mirror to increase the flash sync.

The true rangefinder comment is a little confusing, the rangefinder is a focus system not a mount, and isn't particularly good with zoom lenses. The reason the Leica M7 M8 appears sharp is that it doesn't have an anti aliasing filter. Pros & Cons to that, but certainly sharp.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 6, 2011)

UncleFester said:


> If the X100 isn't a rangefinder, then it is more likely a point and shoot with a big sensor and compact body. Not very impressive.
> 
> So, what I'm getting at here is, it makes no sense for me to be gassing for mirrorless systems for the sake of portability or mounting a Zeiss if the end result is only competitive for almost-as-good-as dslr image quality. Where a true rangefinder would really make a difference.



You are right, X100 is not a range finder. The excitement of it is the retro style and the optical view finder and electronic view finder can be switch over through the same eyepiece.
None of the existing mirrorless camera excite me due to the slow shutter lag. The best one is still twice as much as a DSLR. There is only one that impresses me, the Leica M9. It is too rich for my blood. It takes careof the shutter lag by not using auto focus. Instead it uses manual focus via range finder. When it is handled properly(using zone focusing technique), it will be be faster than the auto focus of DSLR.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 6, 2011)

Flake said:


> Mirrorless is exciting - not because it's another gadget, but because there's no mirror! In a DSLR a mirror is a neccessary evil, but evil it is. It prevents the exit pupil being moved closer to the sensor plane (bad for wide angle especially), and then there's the mirror slap, you can move to live view to avoid it, but then you're shooting the same as the mirrorless camera, but without the benefits. The shutter assembly is large only syncs with flash at slow speeds, it's possible without a mirror to increase the flash sync.
> 
> The true rangefinder comment is a little confusing, the rangefinder is a focus system not a mount, and isn't particularly good with zoom lenses. The reason the Leica M7 M8 appears sharp is that it doesn't have an anti aliasing filter. Pros & Cons to that, but certainly sharp.


The mirror give us fast auto focus and fast shutter lag. Nowadays, the mirror are so well damped that It hardly causes vibration unless you are working with microscope or copying stand for extremely critical work. There is always a mirror lock up function. At slow shutter speed, most of the shaking are from the user, not the mirror.
So far the best mirrorless still have twice the shutter lag of DSLR. So would you rather have longer shutter lag or the mirror?
As for M9, the picture is sharp and good look is due to the exceptional good Lieca lens plus no AA filter. Leica may have better DSP also. Leica uses range finder manual focusing. It can be faster than the DSLR if handled correctly. Unfortunately, It is too expensive for me


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 6, 2011)

My feeling is that EF & EF-S lenses will not be a native fit and that a third range of lenses will be the order of the day. Firstly, there is more money to be made in making customers duplicate their lenses, second, although APS-C is possible, it's just as likely to share a sensor with the G series, which would have the advantage of not needing as large a lenses to feed the sensor, which makes the lenses cheaper to make thus creating a greater profit margin. I suspect also that the lens range will be large, but also EF/EF-S compatable using an expensive adaptor.

Canon are not in the game to suit what we want, but to make money and allowing native use of existing lenses would be like shooting themselves in the money making foot ! Canon might not wish to erode too deeply into their current and future DSLR market, but will wish to take sales off existing compact interchangeable cameras and twist the arms of premium compact buyers into buying something more than just a camera.

Also, I'll give it a week or so before we see photoshopped images of little cigarette box mock up designs attached to a 1200mm tele ;-)


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 6, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> Also, I'll give it a week or so before we see photoshopped images of little cigarette box mock up designs attached to a 1200mm tele ;-)



nothing yet, i'm too lazy to make my own, but i did find this. The camera on the back in one of the pic looks like a film camera, that looks like a matchbox already compared to the lens...


and as for the general idea of ef/s lenses on an EVIL, for anyone who doesn't know, the flange distance of an EOS camera is 44.0mm. So if you want to mount that lens on any camera, it has to be 44.0mm from the film/sensor. Any further and it won't focus to infinity. Any closer would work, but you lose macro capability, you can focus beyond infinity, and i think the lens' inbuilt distance-information would be off.
So to make a compact camera which is by definition at least 44mm thick (closer to 50 at least i'd think) doesn't make sense.

So definitely they'd need a new lens mount, something closer to the ~20mm of the u4/3 and NEX would be more like it.
And canon won't be stupid, they'll make an adapter so you can mount your ef/s lenses on any EVIL they make, so that you can use them with full autofocus and IS. Making a tilt/shift adapter would be nice too, but probably not possible to keep AF and IS, you'd be lucky to get diaphragm-linkage.

I doubt canon would make one for any other brand though, so no Leica M adapter. But just wait a month or two and then buy one off ebay from china...


And the upside of a shorter flange distance is that wide-angles get easier to make. Even with a Full Frame sensor, it is a lot easier to make a 15mm lens with a flange distance of 20mm than 44mm. I don't think they'll try a FF EVIL just yet, but even on APS-C we could get sweet lenses down to 5-10mm prime a lot lighter and cheaper than efs...


----------



## goodmane (Jul 6, 2011)

Another feature request if anyone from Canon is reading: how many of you would like an option to merge all your video files on SD card to one large video file sorted by time /date e.g. one merged h264 video and aac stereo audio, within an mkv container for easy storage? 

This would be a dream for me, as I'm fed up of having my family videos in a million files in the video folder, making them difficult to watch passively in succession.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2011)

goodmane said:


> Another feature request if anyone from Canon is reading: how many of you would like an option to merge all your video files on SD card to one large video file sorted by time /date e.g. one merged h264 video and aac stereo audio, within an mkv container for easy storage?
> 
> This would be a dream for me, as I'm fed up of having my family videos in a million files in the video folder, making them difficult to watch passively in succession.



Your SD card is going to have a file size limit of 4GB, same as the camera. Its a limitation of the Fat 32 format, not the camera. You cannot have one large file on your sd card and still use it in your camera.

We may see cameras go to the NTFS, but Macs can only read it, so that becomes a issue.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 6, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> although APS-C is possible, it's just as likely to share a sensor with the G series, which would have the advantage of not needing as large a lenses to feed the sensor, which makes the lenses cheaper to make thus creating a greater profit margin. I suspect also that the lens range will be large, but also EF/EF-S compatable using an expensive adaptor.


I doubt that canon will use the sensor from the G series for the upcoming mirrorless. The name of the game is to have a"larger" sensor than its competitators. So APS-C will be a good candidate. Until Canon can solve the shutter lag issue, all bets are off.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2011)

Rocky said:


> I doubt that canon will use the sensor from the G series for the upcoming mirrorless. The name of the game is to have a"larger" sensor than its competitators. So APS-C will be a good candidate. Until Canon can solve the shutter lag issue, all bets are off.



The shutter lag in point and shoots is a function of the time it takes to AF using contrast detect. A phase detect solution would have no shutter lag. 

Canon has patented a small format lens to EF mount adapter for use on a small format or mirrorless camera, so they are definitely think about a small format sensor, and a set of new lenses for interchangable lens cameras. The patent was posted on CR several weeks ago.

The fact that they actually developed and patented a adapter design says they are serious even though it may never come to pass.


----------



## lol (Jul 6, 2011)

I think there are two questions here, with two possible partial answers:

1 - how small could they make a DSLR? I have a film EOS that's much smaller than any digital, so could they shrink one down further? I think the film camera size comes down to only needing space for a thin strip of film before the back of the camera. Now we have a sensor with filter assembly on top of it, and typically a LCD display behind that. Let's say the rear LCD was ditched, and they just relied on the viewfinder for everything (possibly X100 style electronic-hybrid?). How small could that get? Would it be interesting to people? With a small prime on I think it wouldn't be that dissimilar in size to current bigger mirrorless models.

2 - if they go mirrorless, where in the range would they target? The m4/3 and APS-C sensor size is pretty much covered by existing players for example. Could Canon bring something new to that space and not come out with a "me too" product? The tiny sensor like Q I find hard to take off, as you're competing directly with compacts there, and to me I can't see why I would want one over a compact unless the price is slashed right down, but then what's the point? The rumoured small-ish sensor Nikon is more interesting, as you can get smaller lenses than current APS-C models (assuming you're not after strict DoF equivalence) without compromising too much on image quality. That would be a more logical positioning keeping both compacts and SLRs out of the way of self competition. As a wild card, could they go high end only? Go full frame, and make a Leica for the 21st century. I don't think they would have any trouble undercutting Leica pricing anyway...


----------



## Rocky (Jul 6, 2011)

lol said:


> I think there are two questions here, with two possible partial answers:
> 
> 1 - how small could they make a DSLR? I have a film EOS that's much smaller than any digital, so could they shrink one down further? I think the film camera size comes down to only needing space for a thin strip of film before the back of the camera. Now we have a sensor with filter assembly on top of it, and typically a LCD display behind that. Let's say the rear LCD was ditched, and they just relied on the viewfinder for everything....
> 
> 2 - if they go mirrorless, where in the range would they target? The m4/3 and APS-C sensor size is pretty much covered by existing players for example. Could Canon bring something new to that space and not come out with a "me too" product? The tiny sensor like Q I find hard to take off, as you're competing directly with compacts there, and to me I can't see why I would want one over a compact unless the price is slashed right down, but then what's the point? The rumoured small-ish sensor Nikon is more interesting, as you can get smaller lenses than current APS-C models (assuming you're not after strict DoF equivalence) without compromising too much on image quality. That would be a more logical positioning keeping both compacts and SLRs out of the way of self competition. As a wild card, could they go high end only? Go full frame, and make a Leica for the 21st century. I don't think they would have any trouble undercutting Leica pricing anyway...


The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.
As for the size of sensor,I think Canon need to make it big to be attractive. Otherwise we can just buy a S95 and we will have anything that a mirrorless has got except the interchangable lens.
Personally, I would like to see Canon to make something that will be a M9 competitator With a M mount. ( Canon has been making Leica competitator with Leica mount up to the late 60's)


----------



## lol (Jul 6, 2011)

Rocky said:


> The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.


Look at compact digital cameras, they also have a ton of electronics in them. I can imagine the "stuff" would easily sit in place of where the film rolls would otherwise go. The mechanics between a SLR and DSLR I think would be near enough the same. I do think the LCD on the back is one of the biggest consumers of volume, so removing that would allow bodies to get much smaller. That also removes the need for the power so batteries could be smaller too.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2011)

lol said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > The DSLR is bigger than the SLR due to the battery, memory cards, a whole bunch of electronics and motors inside the body. Plus every body wants a hand grip for the DSLR.
> ...



I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera. It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo, and many carry their cameras with them to use as a display gallery to show photos they took.

The big user of space is the mirror. EF Lenses are designed with a focus distance to account for a FF mirror. Remove the mirror, design new lenses with a short distance to the sensor, and a huge reduction in size occurs. Thats why the 35mm film point and shoot cameras were much smaller.

Once you remove the mirror and design a new set of lenses, the size of the sensor doesn't have much effect, its the lens design.

Canon could design a new set of lenses with short back focus distance that covered full frame, and make a small FF point and shoot, or interchangable lens camera. So could the others, but Canon does have a jump in FF technology. Fast and accurate autofocus is the hurdle.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So could the others, but Canon does have a jump in FF technology. Fast and accurate autofocus is the hurdle.



And so far, Canon seems to have consistently tripped and fallen flat when trying to jump that contrast-detect AF hurdle, at least in some product lines. Perhaps they would import their 'instant AF' technology from the camcorder lineup, which uses an external emitter/detector system to measure subject distance (essentially a 'coarse focus' that is then refined by the contrast AF system) and thus substantially increase AF speed.


----------



## lol (Jul 6, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera. It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo, and many carry their cameras with them to use as a display gallery to show photos they took.


It could be radical and still be mainstream. I'm not saying remove the ability to playback images on the body, I'm just saying remove it from the back. If they can come up with some kind of hybrid EVF like on the X100 for example, you could review that way.



> The big user of space is the mirror. EF Lenses are designed with a focus distance to account for a FF mirror. Remove the mirror, design new lenses with a short distance to the sensor, and a huge reduction in size occurs. Thats why the 35mm film point and shoot cameras were much smaller.


As before I was thinking in two parts, one of which was how small could you make a DSLR? Specifically one that would be compatible with existing accessories. As such, the mirror box stays in that case. I was looking at other areas where size optimisation could occur.



> Once you remove the mirror and design a new set of lenses, the size of the sensor doesn't have much effect, its the lens design.


Not entirely true... only shorter focal length lenses could get some benefit. A longer zoom or prime wouldn't get smaller just because you move the mount slightly closer to the sensor. Big sensor still means big lenses (for a given quality, FoV, equivalent f number, ignoring DoF). Look at m4/3 using various compromises to help make lenses simpler. Distortion is less corrected and they rely on software to fix it. Olympus claim a small 75-300, but that's in part because it is slower than anyone else's similar zoom.


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 6, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera. It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo,




Histogram. And to check for burnouts the histogram doesn't always reveal. ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2011)

UncleFester said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really need the back LCD, but it will never go away in a mainstream camera. It is one of the features that attracted the masses to digital cameras, they can tell if they actually captured a photo,
> ...



I took photos for 40 years before digital cameras came along in the 1990's without histograms, and I often still do. Like I said, the LCD isn't going away. its something that too many have come to depend on. I don't hate it, but with a rangefinder type camera, I would be willing to forgo it.


----------



## ronderick (Jul 7, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I took photos for 40 years before digital cameras came along in the 1990's without histograms, and I often still do. Like I said, the LCD isn't going away. its something that too many have come to depend on. I don't hate it, but with a rangefinder type camera, I would be willing to forgo it.



I think an alternative to LCD display screen would be displaying the photos and menus through the EVF. That's how my x100 does it - though having to peek into the viewfinder to check photos and menu can become painful for the eyes at times.


----------



## douflag (Jul 8, 2011)

I wonder how my 70-200 f/2.8 would look on this body. Will probably just look like I'm holding the lens.


----------



## hutjeflut (Jul 8, 2011)

frankly if it doesnt give better iso preformance and superfast autofocus preformance i cant care less as i fail to see what the advanrtages would be im already willing to trade up in body as my massive hands start getting anoyed by my 450D's small grip and im considering L lenses with USM in the future as micromotor anoyes the *BEEEP* out of me


----------

