# Patent: A Pellicle Mirror by Canon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 31, 2013)

```
<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 (Oct 31, 2013)

Is there any difference with the current Sony SLT?


----------



## mkabi (Oct 31, 2013)

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 (Oct 31, 2013)

mkabi said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2013)

Ricku said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
> ...



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 (Oct 31, 2013)

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 (Oct 31, 2013)

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 (Oct 31, 2013)

Ricku said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
> ...



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 (Oct 31, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



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 (Oct 31, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2013)

Jon Gilchrist said:


> 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. (Oct 31, 2013)

ScottyP said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



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 (Oct 31, 2013)

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 (Oct 31, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> 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!
> 
> ...



+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 (Oct 31, 2013)

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 (Oct 31, 2013)

Ricku said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Is this going to make the body smaller to compete with the mirroless systems?
> ...



Until your subject running ;D 

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


----------



## gmrza (Oct 31, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Jon Gilchrist said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Oct 31, 2013)

AvTvM said:


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


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


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 31, 2013)

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 (Nov 1, 2013)

Bennymiata said:


> 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 1, 2013)

rs said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



IIRC Sony claims only a 1/3 stop of light lost by the mirror. Apparently only a enough light to work the PDAF. The bigger issue for some was the ghosting and random artifacts that occur in some lighting situations.


----------



## Woody (Nov 1, 2013)

For those of you who think that mirrorless cameras are the future and Canon does not know what it's doing, think again.

Look at CIPA worldwide camera shipment numbers from http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/dizital.html

a) In 2012, for every unit of MILC shipped, 4.1 units of DSLR are shipped.
From Jan-Aug 2013, for every unit MILC shipped, 4.9 units of DSLR are shipped.

b) When the numbers (shipment ratio of DSLR:MILC) are analyzed on a regional level:
Japan 1.25 (2012), 1.8 (till Aug 2013)
Americas 6.75 (2012), 9.9 (till Aug 2013)
Europe 5.5 (2012), 9.6 (till Aug 2013)
Asia 3.44 (2012), 3.37 (till Aug 2013)
The rest 2.3 (2012), 3.8 (till Aug 2013)

Appears that sales of MILCs are losing steam quite rapidly in America and Europe. Even within Japan, there is a loss of interest in MILCs!

Clearly, the masses are not buying into this silly EVF thing. My one year of experience with OMD taught me the same thing. 

Hence, I think a pellicle mirror with electronically adjusted reflectivity/transmittivity is excellent! Combined that with on-sensor PDAF and we have a possible winner. My only concern is whether viewfinder blackout still occurs with this electronic adjustment of pellicle mirror reflectivity. In principle, it should be possible to switch this reflectivity quickly enough to minimize viewfinder blackout.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2013)

Please explain to me how adding a partially reflective surface into the optical path, and at an angle to boot, is going to improve image quality?

This is a bad idea. Period.

And to those of you saying how bad mirrorless is because sales suck compared to DSLR, just remember a few short years ago when people were saying that digital would never be replace film.....

Time marches on..... but how much progress have we seen in shutters and mirrors? My first SLR, an Olympus OM-1, bought used in 1975, has pretty much the same shutter as a 1DX.... yes, the shutter speed is faster and we now have "silent shutters" but it really has not changed in those 38 years...

Mirrorless offers the potential for no shutters.... and no mirrors (duh!)... a truly electronic camera... no separate focus sensors that need calibration (AFMA vanishes and the nightmare ends), a view that adjusts to conditions, zooms in to check on manual focus, and is customizable to what each user wants..... flexibility that an optical system can never have.... Are they there yet? No! But they are getting closer and how long will it be until EVF is superior to optical....

You should look a bit outside of the DSLR world to see what else is happening, particularly in low light... The latest version of night-vision goggles are staggering! Aerial surveillance platforms where you can auto-track a person walking on a dark street at night from 20,000+ feet from a plane bouncing around so much that half the crew got airsick.... I have a p/s camera that recognizes people and can auto-tag names to faces.... and in "cat mode" will take pictures of a cat, yet will not trigger on a dog ( and the opposite for dog-mode).... these are not trivial tasks.... that p/s camera has about 100 times the computing power of a 5D. That p/s camera is vastly superior to the NASA computing center that sent Apollo to the moon!

My money is on mirrorless.....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 1, 2013)

Canon had another patent a couple of years ago that made a mirror film that was thinner and not subject to ghosting.

The patent is the result of research done 3-4 years ago, some seem to think it was done yesterday. It takes years for research to turn into a patent.

The dual pixel tech has worked out pretty well, if Canon can improve the next generation of it, maybe the mirror will go away. However, the lenses won't get any smaller, and there is still the EVF that many do not like. EVF's are improving, but are still far from ideal, particularly with moving subjects. 

Then, as noted, MILC are fading out. Nikon says it overestimated the market and will concentrate on DSLR's, while Canon is still wanting a breakthrough technology before committing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sony seems to drop camera lines after 2-3 years to try something new. I'm not sure this inspires confidence in their long term viability.


----------



## Woody (Nov 1, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> And to those of you saying how bad mirrorless is because sales suck compared to DSLR, just remember a few short years ago when people were saying that digital would never be replace film.....
> 
> My money is on mirrorless.....



I am not aware of anyone saying digital would never replace film. If there were, those folks definitely belonged to the 0.001% minority. In fact, the day digital cameras appeared in the market, many folks already knew film was dead.

The landscape of interchangeable lens cameras will certainly change. But no one knows what the future is going to bring. Current MILC technology is certainly not good enough. The masses have spoken with their wallets and that is louder and far more convincing than anything you and I have to say on the web.


----------



## Timothy_Bruce (Nov 1, 2013)

Now I think I see all this coming together. 
A translucent mirror on its own makes something like the sony dslr possible, but they don't have OVF. 
In the "classic" canon dslr there is the secondary mirror reflecting light down towards the AF-sensor, so just a translucent mirror would not be possible in connecting with the current AF-systems. (The secondary mirror would be in the lightpath towards the sensor) 
But in connection with the new dual-pixel AF it all makes sense!
The variable translucent mirror provides light for the OVF and Sensor ( with its ability for good phase-detection AF). 
An can when necessary provide more or less light for one of them by cutting the light towards the other.

Outdoor sports cenario: 50% OVF 50% Sensor 1 stop light loos for Sensor but that us not a problem with good light (or today's ISO ability )
Super fast frame rate ( not limited by the mirror system) and no viewfinder darkening at all.

Low light cenario: for the capture the mirror directs all light towards the sensor or for a short time for better AF or towards the OVF for MF


----------



## Ruined (Nov 1, 2013)

This is a compromise to reduce size, it probably will reduce image quality a bit though not much. However, the target market for smaller cameras generally does not have paramount quality as the #1 concern, size is the #1 concern for said market. The advantage is that it could use existing EF-S lenses, so this could be a replacement to the Rebel SL1 for instance.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 1, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> And to those of you saying how bad mirrorless is because sales suck compared to DSLR, just remember a few short years ago when people were saying that digital would never be replace film.....


A few years ago, buyers were flocking to digital and sales proved it. Its true, some entrenched individuals at Kodak did not believe it would happen, they refused to believe in the sales figures. They put their money on film.

Check the sales figures, its a fact, mirrorless sales have tanked! Once buyers find that they have the same large lens and the little bitty camera with lousy EVF, they go for a DSLR.
That does not mean they are bad cameras, just that they are not ready to take over the market from DSLR's , and the hype turns out to be over stated.


----------



## pharp (Nov 1, 2013)

I think there is a common misconception that the only reason for making a MILC is to decrease the size - WRONG! As noted by others, there are many good reasons for ditching the mirror/pentaprism - inevitable IMHO. The problem to date, as I see it, there just haven't been any really compelling 'system' cameras available. If canon made a mirrorless 6D - size, etc being the same with a really good EVF - I think it would sell in droves. I'd buy one tommorrow.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2013)

pharp said:


> If canon made a mirrorless 6D - size, etc being the same with *a really good EVF*...



Well, much like avoiding Imperial entanglements, that's the real trick, isn't it?


----------



## pharp (Nov 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > If canon made a mirrorless 6D - size, etc being the same with *a really good EVF*...
> ...



Yep, maybe Canon will surprise. I won't buy one, but I'm really interested in seeing what the new retro Nikon looks like. They blew it with the 1 series.


----------



## hpjfromdk (Nov 1, 2013)

Have been surveying the machine translation of JP2013-218241 from Japanese into English as provided by JPO a bit...

In terms of prior art JP2013-218241 initially references JP2002-182268 which deals with a DSLR having a 45deg fixed half mirror. This patent does not deal with the half mirror as such but with the fact that a fixed half mirror does not exhibit a “mirror slab” and combined with a low noise shutter the photo taking can be made less intrusive. JP2013-218241 however uses said patent as an example of the inherent light sharing compromise between the OVF and the image sensor and states that a “modulated” mirror is a solution for this problem. As for an example of a modulated mirror JP2013-218241A refers to JP2007-102197 aka US75541551 which deals with electrochromic thin film/multilayer constructs, aimed at controlling heat transfer trough windows in houses and vehicles - in other words sun filters. By applying voltages of different polarity to the appropriate layers, the optical properties of the construct can be changed between a state with transmittance/reflectance of 0%/27% and another state with 48%/6% respectively - with one caveat though, the switch from low to high transmissivity takes about 40secs @ λ = 670nm (red/NIR) and the other from high to low transmissivity about 15secs. 

JP2013-218241 in its embodiment goes on to state that since light measurement is made on the OVF path and to ensure adequate OVF brightness at low light levels the reflection towards the finder should not be less than 60% (40% left for phase detection on the image sensor). An interesting aspect of the patent app is that the modulated mirror not only removes the mirror slab but also replaces the shutter – thus constituting a virtually noise free DSLR. The patent mentions both a still and an “animated” mode with up to 15 frames/sec. 

For those interested there is also the Canon patent app US20130002925 which also deals with a modulated mirror, or in this case referred to as “variable translucency” mirror. The technology used to achieve any level of translucency/reflectance between 100%/0% and 0%/100% respectively is based on so called “Micro blinds”, aimed at windows and automotive use as detailed in US7684105. 

Surely, - only Canon knows what is going on in their “skunkworks”, but I see some substantial challenges for this type of modulated mirror technology that need to be overcome before a camera using this principle will materialize. For JP2013-218241 would include optical state switching speed, transmissivity, durability (i.e. lifetime), environmental sensitivity, and color casts and for US20130002925 the most obvious ones would include durability (i.e. lifetime), diffraction (even though this is considered US7684105), light incident angles when applied to a 45 deg mirror.

I personally would therfore not bet on seeing a camera based on either of these patents anytime soon, and view this mostly as a “possibly applications of technologies not initially intended for use in cameras and hence preventing others from doing it first” type of patent apps..

But as we all know however, prediction is a skilled art, especially when it comes to the future..


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 2, 2013)

MILC sales numbers are low due to one reason only: rather unattractive MILCS so far. EOS-M ... Nikon 1 ... or mFT.
As soon as really good MILCs are availbale, DSLR sales will fall, MILC sales will rise. As simple as that.
Sony A7/R are the turning point, even if their sales should turn out to be disappointing. Why? Because it has been proven, that cameras with large and good sensors don't need to be large, clunky and heavy. 
As afra as lenses are concerned: probably 90% of all images are captured at focal lengths that can be build into small and light lenses. Only a small minority of photographers really NEED to use longer focal length lenses that will be large and heavy as long as glass-based optics are not replaced by something better. 

As far as the "variable transmission tech" is concerned: I would prefer Canon to look into this NOT for pellicle mirrors but for fully electronic shutters and possibly also for fully electronic lens apertures, perfgeclty round at any opening - instead of mechanical iris / blades. 

I'd love to finally get a 100% digital, electronic camera, devoid of any pre-historic mechanical ballast from the phtographic stone-age. No mirror slap. No shutter-cracking, no shutter-cocking/re-winding. No vibrations. No noise. That is my idea of "pure photography" [ (c) Nikon ;-)] ... in "pure silence". 

Imaging with light. Arranging incoming photons. Rather than wielding mechanical and chemical contraptions. Luckily we got rid of the chemical stuff. Now it's time to unload the mechanical stuff too.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 4, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Mirrorless offers the potential for no shutters....



AFAIK, there's no reason you couldn't do a shutterless traditional DSLR. Honestly, I'm surprised DSLRs even still have a shutter. It's a vestigial organ that can be made completely unnecessary by proper buffering (which is also the way you fix the rolling shutter problem in video mode).


----------



## eninja (Nov 4, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Please explain to me how adding a partially reflective surface into the optical path, and at an angle to boot, is going to improve image quality?
> 
> This is a bad idea. Period.



Um.. Technology Improvement?
Partially reflective surface: When light hits an object part of it is reflected, transmitted, and absorb by the object. You ask how adding an object into optical path improve image quality, isn't it longer lens got more elements on it than a prime lens, but we never question its optical transmission quality. 
Similarly with this scenario, adding an high light transmittivity material wont affect image quality much. if we can possible vary the reflectivity/transmittivity of material in a high quality, then i dont see any problem.

I hope I got a point. But cheers.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 10, 2013)

Done right it could be a perfectly good idea where the gains far, far outweigh the loss of a little bit of light. Even the Sony SLTs weren't _that_ bad imo.

Some people go anal over 1/3 stop of light. OK I obviously understand the significance of light in general, but if a camera this mirror thing improved ISO to compensate, I'd gladly take the very high FPS, no "mirror blackout" and if armed with a (very fast and hi-res) EVF it'd also have a live view of the exposure.
And all the above will improve, because technology always does ...

As for that bit of light loss, different lenses, different brands already can vary by 1/3 stop if not more of light anyway in their native designs. So you better check all your lenses if you're that paranoid losing light 

(cue usual elitist posts on how such "features" are a crutch and not _real photography_)


----------



## rsdofny (Nov 11, 2013)

Canon needs a WOW product badly: maturing DSLR market, smartphone undercutting all the compacts, Sony groundbreaking products like RX100, A7, etcs. I sense that simply changing color of the body of same old boring products will not cut it.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 11, 2013)

dufflover said:


> Done right it could be a perfectly good idea where the gains far, far outweigh the loss of a little bit of light.



No. Pellicle-mirrored = does nothing, a mirrorless camera will not do much better. 

Mirrorless actually combines EVF (considered as a disadvantage by many DSLR users) and all the bulk of a DSLR. Plus light loss and possible degradation of IQ due to reflections on top. That's one of the reasons, why Sony is quitting their SLT line of cameras. Dead end!


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.



Totally agree. Some kind of piezoelectric pellicle mirror would certainly tickle my fancy! I'd pick up one of those, for almost any cost, before even looking at a mirrorless with an EVF. I wonder if it is possible, though...to use some kind of electrostatically activated mirror that doesn't result in any light loss when deactivated for exposure...


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> ... Are they there yet? No! But they are getting closer and _*how long will it be until EVF is superior to optical*_....



Regarding the emphasized part above...I would say never. I think an EVF could get very close to being "as good as" an OVF, but an optical viewfinder is ultimately only going to be limited by the viewers eyes. There is going to be no limit on dynamic range, only the lens will limit resolving power, it will always work in any light level (i.e. I use my OVF to find stars when doing astrophotography...stars, which have about 0.0020-0.0025 lux), and always updates instantaneously when your scene changes. No matter how you slice it...an EVF will never be "superior" to those things. 

Given that an EVF is ultimately dependent upon the sensor for low-light sensitivity, barring some unbelievably radical change in how low light sensitivity is achieved, I don't foresee an EVF ever supporting astrophotography...even with 100% Q.E., more than half the stars in the night sky that are visible with an OVF are going to be lost to noise with an EVF. Dynamic range will never be infinite with an EVF, as the sensor's DR will never be infinite. For an EVF's pixels to be invisible to an eye with 20/20 vision, they would need to be so small that they would filter out a moderate amount of red light, and to be invisible to an eye with 20/10 vision, they would need pixels so small that they would filter out most red light.

I'll probably have no choice, at some point in the future, but to switch to mirrorless. When that day comes, I'll do it as begrudgingly as a human being can begrudge...as from a technical standpoint I do not see how an EVF will ever even be as good as an OVF, let alone superior to one. Personally, I am hoping the classic slap-happy, noisy DSLR lasts for another 50 years...after which point I'll probably be dead, and will no longer care.  ;D


----------



## Woody (Nov 12, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Mirrorless actually combines EVF (considered as a disadvantage by many DSLR users) and all the bulk of a DSLR. Plus light loss and possible degradation of IQ due to reflections on top. That's one of the reasons, why Sony is quitting their SLT line of cameras. Dead end!



No, the reason Sony quit SLT is simpler than that: poor sales. Cannot touch the sales of Canikon DSLRs. They are now going the route of MILCs... which are... surprise, surprise... not selling well outside Asia either.


----------



## Woody (Nov 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> ...I do not see how an EVF will ever even be as good as an OVF, let alone superior to one.



Well said. That is the reason I sold my entire OMD mirrorless stuff.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> as from a technical standpoint I do not see how an EVF will ever even be as good as an OVF, let alone superior to one. Personally, I am hoping the classic slap-happy, noisy DSLR lasts for another 50 years...after which point I'll probably be dead, and will no longer care.  ;D


I agree that for the applications you cite an EVF would not be the solution. However I think that we are not likely to see the abandonment of EVFs but rather further improvement.
Perfection is not really necessary to be able to achieve 98% of what a photographer needs to know before pressing the shutter.
I have been photographing a series of jobs over the last week where I dearly would have loved to pre-chimp my shots. 
I was in a variety of fast moving situations with varying light brightness and color temp that necessitated rapid shooting and chimping to ensure that the exposure was ok.For the most part I was doing well but I would have realized a whole lot less PP had I gotten closer in camera.

I acknowledge the shortcomings but like RF finders, EVFs have their uses.


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2013)

Normalnorm said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > as from a technical standpoint I do not see how an EVF will ever even be as good as an OVF, let alone superior to one. Personally, I am hoping the classic slap-happy, noisy DSLR lasts for another 50 years...after which point I'll probably be dead, and will no longer care.  ;D
> ...



Oh sure. I'm not advocating abandoning EVFs. I'm all for technological improvements when and where we can make them. I think EVFs can and will be quite useful in certain circumstances. Some EVFs in use for high end cinematography are already quite good, and excessively expensive on a per-part basis. Those costs will come down, and they service their niches quite well.

My concern is that someday EVFs will ultimately replace OVFs. 

There is this strange fervor over miniaturization and elimination of the mirror. Its like a fashion fad that just won't die. I don't quite understand it. Not one single mirrorless camera that I've ever held felt good in my hands. I feel cramped, I have to compress my hands in a weird way, and compress the camera and my hands against my face in an uncomfortable way. Miniaturization certainly has its uses in some areas...we don't want our processors to take up warehouses worth of space, so miniaturization does wonders for computing chips. A reduction in weight is useful as well, however not at the cost of having to work contortionist magic on my hands in order to hold a camera to my face. IQ aside, unless some pros have figured out the magic of one-handed photography, I cannot fathom what it is about these microscopic little cameras that has everyone so radically excited, even raving. 

Yet...that's the trend. Fad or otherwise, I do have some honest concerns about EVFs and MILCs replacing good old OVF DSLR cameras WAY too soon. I could possibly get used to a mirrorless camera for landscapes...hell, 90% of that work is done with a tripod and a remote shutter release. But wildlife? Birds? Any kind of action whatsoever? Ergonomically, mirrorless cameras (at least as they are designed today), in their diminutive size with their lackluster EVFs, are an utter disaster....


----------



## dufflover (Nov 12, 2013)

I actually disagree with that one, after a certain point. With wildlife/birding when you have a big enough lens it's the non-body arm that's got all the weight on it. Granted it still does need some proper sized grip. The body lens area itself though can be as small/thin as it wants.

I don't think the future of the cameras used for this sort of thing will be small though. Even with the new A7 and what not there are noticeable features that still reserved for "big cameras" just because they are seen as premium features.
My guess anyway ...


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2013)

dufflover said:


> I actually disagree with that one, after a certain point. With wildlife/birding when you have a big enough lens it's the non-body arm that's got all the weight on it. Granted it still does need some proper sized grip. The body lens area itself though can be as small/thin as it wants.
> 
> I don't think the future of the cameras used for this sort of thing will be small though. Even with the new A7 and what not there are noticeable features that still reserved for "big cameras" just because they are seen as premium features.
> My guess anyway ...



The camera grip is critical when it comes to hand-held wildlife and bird photography. You need both arms, and both are just as essential to properly stabilize the rig. Could you imagine trying to balance an f/2.8 300mm or f/4 600mm lens with just one arm? If you have a tiny mirrorless camera with practically no grip attached to one of those lenses, you have no real leverage with your other hand...no way to properly balance such a large setup. I often hand-hold my 600mm f/4 lens for wildlife, and speaking from experience...it is already difficult enough trying to handle it with a 7D. It would be practically impossible with, say, an EOS M. I'd rather have a 1D X, which has more area to grip in more vertical space, than something even smaller than what I deal with now.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 12, 2013)

jrista said:


> My concern is that someday EVFs will ultimately replace OVFs.



Rest assured: they will - ultimately ovf will be a niche product for folklore and history like steam engines - and for special purposes of course if some can be found, but at a very high premium.

Personally, I'd switch to an evf if it doesn't draw too much power, is nearly indistinguishable from an ovf and provides superior functionality - namely focus peaking and zebras, next to tons of other useful hints you can add to an evf.


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > My concern is that someday EVFs will ultimately replace OVFs.
> ...



I'm just hoping that "ultimately" is like 20 years down the road. Otherwise, companies will be losing my business as I stick with what I've got. No amount of features added to an EVF will ever convince me they are good enough to replace an OVF. Especially since you can slap a transmissive LCD on an OVF (like the 7D, 5D III, 1D X) and get just as many HUD features, without the detrimental effects of an EVF.


----------



## dufflover (Nov 12, 2013)

Except some of those features that really useful with an OVF can't exist when there is a typical SLR mirror, and obviously not everyone likes the "workaround" of a semi-transparent mirror.
e.g. if you want a LiveView exposure, or zoomed in view for focus, you obviously need it to be hitting some kind of imaging sensor

I doubt this will ever happen due to cost/demand, but having a combined EVF/OVF that you can switch on and off would be great though. Choose-your-own ...


----------

