# EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 21, 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/2013/09/eos-m2-shows-up-in-dpp-literature/"></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/2013/09/eos-m2-shows-up-in-dpp-literature/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>The EOS M2</strong>

The new version of DPP may have outed the upcoming new EOS M camera. It will have the sensible name M2 by the looks of it. I’m not too sure following the Leica naming scheme is a good idea.</p>
<p><strong>From under the Auto Lighting Optimizer help section</strong></p>
<p>If the shooting result is dark or the contrast is low, you can use the Auto Lighting Optimizer function to auto-correct the brightness and contrast, and obtain a more pleasant image. You can also change the settings of the image shot with the camera’s Auto Lighting Optimizer function. This function is compatible only with RAW images shot with EOS-1D X, EOS-1D C, EOS-1D Mark IV, EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 6D, EOS 7D, EOS 70D, EOS 60D, EOS 50D, EOS REBEL T5i/700D, EOS REBEL SL1/100D, EOS REBEL T4i/650D, EOS REBEL T3i/600D, EOS REBEL T2i/550D, EOS REBEL T1i/500D, EOS REBEL T3/1100D, <strong>EOS M2 and EOS M.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52203222" target="_blank">DPR</a>]</strong></p>
<p><em>thanks Jonathan</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 21, 2013)

All these mixed messages, the stress is killing me, new M, no new M, new M...

Arrrrrghhhhhhhh!

Just kidding.

But does it say if it'll be full frame and have a viewfinder and 70-200 f2.0 pancake?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 21, 2013)

Its coming, and likely designed, but the introduction timing might be in question. I suspect that long lead parts and tooling are on order or complete, assembly might be under way for sub assemblies like shutters, circuit boards, etc. Some of those things need up to a year lead time, hard tooling is a particularly long lead item. Sensor might be the one from 70D though.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 21, 2013)

True, but DPP software has a shelf life of what, 3 months, 6 months between versions?

How do we know Canon didn't start the tooling process 11 months 3 weeks and 6 days ago?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 21, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> True, but DPP software has a shelf life of what, 3 months, 6 months between versions?
> 
> How do we know Canon didn't start the tooling process 11 months 3 weeks and 6 days ago?


 
It seems likely that it started about a year ago.

Regardless of when the tooling started, release announcements are going to be determined by Marketing and not by subcontractors doing tooling or software people creating DPP. There is a development schedule, and it undoubtedly includes a production schedule. Actual announcement and release dates can be moved up or moved out based on Marketing decisions.


----------



## jebrady03 (Sep 21, 2013)

The M2 is mentioned multiple times in the DPP Help info. Searching for M2 yields this...






So, it's definitely not a single instance. It's mentioned all over the place. Definitely not an accident!
Jonathan


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2013)

Not an accident, true. There WILL be an EOS M2. But that's not exactly news, is it? 

Personally, I think we'll see it available for the holiday shopping season.


----------



## eric_ykchan (Sep 22, 2013)

Maybe Canon thought that it can release a M2 on time. Even there is a M2, it may still have disappointing specification. Again, this is Canon, no expectation means no disappointment.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 22, 2013)

Let's be honest. All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.


----------



## jebrady03 (Sep 22, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Let's be honest. All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.



awww... you were almost there. Try a little harder and it might be a tad bit funny.


----------



## Woody (Sep 22, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Let's be honest. All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.



I am not so sure about that after the release of the 70D. Dual pixel AF?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 22, 2013)

jebrady03 said:


> The M2 is mentioned multiple times in the DPP Help info. Searching for M2 yields this...
> ...
> So, it's definitely not a single instance. It's mentioned all over the place. Definitely not an accident!
> Jonathan



Yes...

And:



neuroanatomist said:


> Not an accident, true. There WILL be an EOS M2. But that's not exactly news, is it?
> 
> Personally, I think we'll see it available for the holiday shopping season.



This makes big sense from a marketing point of view, especially with a mirrorless which is aimed at the masses. In that case I don't expect it to be a model that sits beside the current M, but rather its descendant.


----------



## hampai (Sep 22, 2013)

Canon could learn from Apple when it comes to leaking rumors.


----------



## padmasana (Sep 22, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> All these mixed messages, the stress is killing me, new M, no new M, new M...
> 
> Arrrrrghhhhhhhh!
> 
> ...



Reading the tea leaves, I think it's actually medium format this time around. No viewfinder, but you get a nice black towel (with a Canon logo and red stripe border!) to drape over your head while taking the photos. Pancake as described. Same 64 point AF as 5D3 and 1Dx. Marquee feature is that the focus confirmation "beep" is now changeable to a ringtone of your choice as well.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 22, 2013)

Hmmm. Which version of DPP are you guys having? I have v3.13.0.1, which is the latest I find when searching under my 5D3 on software.canon-europe.com, and the help file have zero hits on "M2" and "EOS M2".

Sure, I can search for "EOS" to get a bunch of hits and then replace the keyword text to make it _look like_ I search for M2. 

Edit: Aha. on the www.usa.canon.com site, I can find DPP 3.13.45 (sic) and EOS Utility 2.3.25. Why don't Canon just release the b***** software to all the cameras at the same time? It's not like they make separate releases...


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 22, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Let's be honest. All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.



I want one but don't yet have one. My first (consumer) digital camera had an EVF, which I really liked. I'm very much looking forward to the day that we can leave the SLR mirror on the dustbin of obsolete technology. Many will argue that a mirror allows them to see the frame as it really is, but I can do that with my naked eye. I want to see the frame as the sensor sees it, so I have a better idea of what the resulting image will actually look like.

I may well get an M2, but what I really want is an SLR-replacement with fast AF and fast EVF refresh. The mirror assembly is a waste of space and weight, and impedes the introduction of 36 x 36 sensors to replace "full-frame." Good riddance.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be honest. All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.
> ...


+1

Mirrorless is the way of the future. Right now, the two stumbling blocks are AF and the EVF. A couple of years ago they were huge hurdles but as time marches on the performance gets better and better. People used to say that digital sensors would never be as good as film, but now look at what we can do in digital that was impossible or impractical with film.... people used to say that live-view autofocus was to slow and inaccurate, but look at what is happening with dual pixel technology.... people used to say that EVF would never replace optical viewfinders, but they are now approaching or exceeding the limits of eyesight resolution and the image on them can be adjusted to reflect what the sensor sees, not what the eye sees....

Mirrorless will be the death of AFMA


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 22, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Let's be honest. All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.


And which camera would that be? The M is a "M Mount". I am not aware of a "EF mount" mirrorless camera.

I'd have bought the M, but it is missing tethering ability. 10's of thousands were sold though.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> The mirror assembly is a waste of space and weight, and impedes the introduction of 36 x 36 sensors to replace "full-frame." Good riddance.


You can't get 36x36mm in the image circle without cutting off the corners. you have a 43mm image circle, the largest square format that would fit into that circle is 30x30mm.... but then you could go a larger format, live with faded corners on the full image, and crop to the format you desire. For example, if you wanted a 16x9 format you would crop to 37.5x21 pixels....

EDIT: Oops, meant to say 37.5x21 millimeters, not pixels....


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 22, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> You can't get 36x36mm in the image circle without cutting off the corners... but then you could go a larger format, live with faded corners on the full image, and crop to the format you desire



Precisely. I've posted this before: for pro and prosumer cameras I'd like to make the crop in post, or have manual crop selection on the body. It would be a choice, like aperture.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You can't get 36x36mm in the image circle without cutting off the corners... but then you could go a larger format, live with faded corners on the full image, and crop to the format you desire
> ...



36x36 would probably increase the camera cost quite a bit over 36x24. Would it be worth it? 

The novelty of it would probably mean the cost would go up by $1000 or more. Then people would say it's a waste because you still cant get a 36x36 image, and "why don't they make lenses to cover the sensor?" etc. So, I doubt you'll see 36x36 unless there's accompanying lenses. And even then, "why not go medium format?" would be the next question.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2013)

Etienne said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


You would need 43x43 to cover the whole image circle.... and I can't imagine that ever happening. 
I could see 38x24.... normal 36x24 cropped for photos and 38x21 cropped for video....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> You would need 43x43 to cover the whole image circle.... and I can't imagine that ever happening.



Naah, a 43mm diameter circular sensor would be perfect...no wasted image circle or sensor area. What about production cost? No waste there, either...after all, they can just ball up the excess silicon wafer and roll it out for another round of cutting, just like cookie dough. Mmmmm...wafers and cookies, I need a snack!


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> I want one but don't yet have one. My first (consumer) digital camera had an EVF, which I really liked. I'm very much looking forward to the day that we can leave the SLR mirror on the dustbin of obsolete technology. Many will argue that a mirror allows them to see the frame as it really is, but I can do that with my naked eye. I want to see the frame as the sensor sees it, so I have a better idea of what the resulting image will actually look like.
> 
> I may well get an M2, but what I really want is an SLR-replacement with fast AF and fast EVF refresh. The mirror assembly is a waste of space and weight, and impedes the introduction of 36 x 36 sensors to replace "full-frame." Good riddance.



Good job we're all different


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Naah, a 43mm diameter circular sensor would be perfect...no wasted image circle or sensor area. What about production cost? No waste there, either...after all, they can just ball up the excess silicon wafer and roll it out for another round of cutting, just like cookie dough. Mmmmm...wafers and cookies, I need a snack!



I see you needed to get in your quota of snark today.

Waste? Sure, allowing some of the silicon to go unused is certainly waste, there's no doubt about that. But then, for all of us who don't make a living out of it, it's all waste. Every camera that sits unused is wasted. Waste is particularly common for all those who get new e-toys (e.g. smart phones) frequently, either due to upgrade envy or through negligent loss/damage. Losing some silicon to a (relative) minority of pros and serious amateurs certainly requires a cost-benefit calculation. However, we're looking at 3-5 years (pulling numbers out of the aether) before pro-grade mirrorless becomes dominant; in that time, the costs associated with the wasted silicon almost certainly will have diminished.

And waste is already occurring in DSLR's: consider those who crop almost every shot (e.g. birders); they are also wasting silicon because a large fraction of their pixels rarely contribute to the final image.

So yes, there will be waste; the only question is whether it's worth the benefit of a larger sensor area, without having to replace all of your glass.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You would need 43x43 to cover the whole image circle.... and I can't imagine that ever happening.
> ...


or a beer... one of the most important things that I have learned from this forum is the existence of chocolate stout..... helps me cope with not having 128 stops of dynamic range.....


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> However, we're looking at 3-5 years (pulling numbers out of the aether) before pro-grade mirrorless becomes dominant;


 I think it will take a bit longer than that to become dominant.... a lot of pros don't upgrade every new camera... There was something recently about the 100 best pictures of the year and what camera took them and there were a lot more taken with the 5D2 than the 5D3... it will take several years to eclipse all the existing cameras that are in use.

That said, I would not be surprised if a pro-grade mirrorless came out in the next year or so... all the pieces of the puzzle are there.... wouldn't it be a shock to people if the "revolutionary" aspect of the 7D2 was mirrorless! I think it's unlikely for that camera, but it will happen sometime....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> or a beer... one of the most important things that I have learned from this forum is the existence of chocolate stout..... helps me cope with not having 128 stops of dynamic range.....



Sounds good, might help me cope with those on this forum who are sadly devoid of anything remotely resembling a sense of humor... :


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> compatible only with RAW images shot with EOS-1D X, EOS-1D C, EOS-1D Mark IV, EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 6D, EOS 7D, EOS 70D, EOS 60D, EOS 50D, EOS REBEL T5i/700D, EOS REBEL SL1/100D, EOS REBEL T4i/650D, EOS REBEL T3i/600D, EOS REBEL T2i/550D, EOS REBEL T1i/500D, EOS REBEL T3/1100D, EOS M2 and EOS M.


This would seem to imply that there will be only be 1 EOS-M camera introduced soon, not two.... Perhaps the source meant a higher end EOS-M camera (the EOS M2) and the continuation of a lower grade EOS-M camera, the current EOS M.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sounds good, might help me cope with those on this forum who are sadly devoid of anything remotely resembling a sense of humor... :



Protip: I can tell you that "sense of humor" does not translate so well on the Interwebs. That's why comedy writers on the web are so well-paid ( ;D ). I have been on both ends of this problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds good, might help me cope with those on this forum who are sadly devoid of anything remotely resembling a sense of humor... :
> ...



Thanks for sharing that pearl of wisdom. I always appreciate people who are as sage as they are jovial. 

FWIW, calling someone "snarky" translates quite universally as rude, so thanks for that (FYI, that was sarcasm).


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Naah, a 43mm diameter circular sensor would be perfect...no wasted image circle or sensor area. What about production cost? No waste there, either...after all, they can just ball up the excess silicon wafer and roll it out for another round of cutting, just like cookie dough. Mmmmm...wafers and cookies, I need a snack!



I was under the impression that "offcut" materials were recycled in plant at many fabrication facilities.... so your "just like cookie dough" comment might be more accurate than one would think...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Naah, a 43mm diameter circular sensor would be perfect...no wasted image circle or sensor area. What about production cost? No waste there, either...after all, they can just ball up the excess silicon wafer and roll it out for another round of cutting, just like cookie dough. Mmmmm...wafers and cookies, I need a snack!
> ...



Cool - I had no idea. Thanks!


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be honest. All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.
> ...



No you can't. What about when you are using a very long lens and can't really see the subject with the naked eye?



> I want to see the frame as the sensor sees it, so I have a better idea of what the resulting image will actually look like.



That would be with an OVF, not an EVF. I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.



> I may well get an M2, but what I really want is an SLR-replacement with fast AF and fast EVF refresh. The mirror assembly is a waste of space and weight, and impedes the introduction of 36 x 36 sensors to replace "full-frame." Good riddance.



The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away). The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for sharing that pearl of wisdom. I always appreciate people who are as sage as they are jovial.
> 
> FWIW, calling someone "snarky" translates quite universally as rude, so thanks for that (FYI, that was sarcasm).



Well, I didn't intend to be that rude, and maybe we understand the word "snark" differently. My search yields "snide remark" as the origin. There are various common usages, many including "sarcastic." Your reply to Don Haines struck me as snide and/or sarcastic, and still does. If you didn't intend to be snide or sarcastic then I apologize. If you know of a different meaning I'd love to hear it.



> I always appreciate people who are as sage as they are jovial.



....


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> No you can't. What about when you are using a very long lens and can't really see the subject with the naked eye?



I concede this.



> I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.


Presumably, on a pro body you'd be able to adjust the EVF to suit your needs. Also, what if it's dark? Your naked eye won't see much, but EVF can see in near-darkness now. (maybe this doesn't apply to your style of photography)



> The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).


I guess I'm more optimistic. Aren't high-end video cameras all EVF now? If so, it seems like just a matter of a few years before that tech comes to still cameras. 



> The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.



How so?


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 23, 2013)

> I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.


The Olympus OM-D E-M1 allows the user to have the EVF follow what the eye sees, or what the sensor sees. You can have it both ways....


> Presumably, on a pro body you'd be able to adjust the EVF to suit your needs. Also, what if it's dark? Your naked eye won't see much, but EVF can see in near-darkness now. (maybe this doesn't apply to your style of photography)


I have an SX-50 with an EVF.... it is terrible in poor light and not high enough resolution for the job... but it is very far from what you see now. I have used the accessory EVF for the Olympus PEN cameras and it is a world of difference... as good as optical in daylight or indoors. I have not tried it at night.



> EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).



There are already good enough EVF's out there.... they just cost more... but you can bet that price will drop. They are higher resolution than the eye can see and less than 5 milliseconds delay (that's 1/200th of a second)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> > I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.
> 
> 
> The Olympus OM-D E-M1 allows the user to have the EVF follow what the eye sees, or what the sensor sees. You can have it both ways....



Can the Olympus OM-D E-M1's EVF display the full color depth, dynamic range, and responsiveness to motion that the human eye can perceive? If so, how does the EVF transcend the capabilities of the image sensor (which are far less than the eye's capabilities)?


----------



## Woody (Sep 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can the Olympus OM-D E-M1's EVF display the full color depth, dynamic range, and responsiveness to motion that the human eye can perceive? If so, how does the EVF transcend the capabilities of the image sensor (which are far less than the eye's capabilities)?



Precisely. There is NO WAY an EVF can show what the human eye sees. As long as the EVF can 'show in the dark' what the naked eye cannot see, that already tells us the EVF processes information that falls on the sensor.

I spent one whole year with the E-M5, trying to convince myself the system is for me. Alas, while the camera has helped me capture some great moments, I came to the full realization that EVFs are not for me. I totally hated my EVF experience. I ended up selling my entire m43 system (cameras, lenses, accessories) and plunged head-log back into the safe embrace of Canon's OVF systems. The EVF seriously impairs my ability to compose because what the EVF/sensor shows is simply not what I see with my naked eyes. On the other hand, an OVF merely 'crops' my view. 

Well, to each his own.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > > I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.
> ...



I don't know.... haven't tried the E-M1's EVF yet, but I would bet it's not as good as the eye in all categories... but every time I try a newer EVF I find it better than what came before.. I'm looking forward to giving it a try.

As to the eye, it can handle bright lights and it can handle dim light.... but not at the same time. It takes time for the eye to adapt from one extreme to the other.... plus low light vision is not in colour... but that being said, once the human eye has adapted to the low light it works far better than any consumer DSLR sensor that I have seen, yet nowhere near as well as night vision goggles of as far back as 30 years ago or those found in quality surveillance cameras. I don't think there is a clear answer to the question any more.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 23, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You can't get 36x36mm in the image circle without cutting off the corners... but then you could go a larger format, live with faded corners on the full image, and crop to the format you desire
> ...



This is actually an incredibly good idea.
It would end the need for a battery grip in order to shoot portraits, you would never need to hold your camera sideways ever again. No more L brackets either. And as was being discussed in a video I saw the other day, if you're building a portfolio to sell, customers may want your picture in either orientation, so it's usually best to take one shot in each. Now you would have both at the same time.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 23, 2013)

padmasana said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > All these mixed messages, the stress is killing me, new M, no new M, new M...
> ...



Fantastic news, magnesium nitrate flash too with RT & E-TTL from the body? A bulb release? I am getting excited already!!!!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 23, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > compatible only with RAW images shot with EOS-1D X, EOS-1D C, EOS-1D Mark IV, EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 6D, EOS 7D, EOS 70D, EOS 60D, EOS 50D, EOS REBEL T5i/700D, EOS REBEL SL1/100D, EOS REBEL T4i/650D, EOS REBEL T3i/600D, EOS REBEL T2i/550D, EOS REBEL T1i/500D, EOS REBEL T3/1100D, EOS M2 and EOS M.
> ...



And no sign of a 7D mark II...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



There certainly is a clear answer to the original issue/question. That question _wasn't_ does an EVF have some advantages, e.g. low light sensitivity and ability to magnify, that in some circumstances outweigh its disadvantages, e.g. display lag, compressed and tone-curved DR (not sure, but I'd bet those little LCDs aren't even 8-bit, but only 6-bit)? The answer to whether or not an EVF can show the scene as seen by the photographer's eye like an OVF is a definitive "no."


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I want my pictures to look like they looked or would have looked to my naked eye, not like what they out-of-camera JPEG looks like, and they are very often dramatically different.
> ...



Adjusting the EVF isn't sufficient. What I can do in post is much more than can be done in the 5ms or so available to the processing pipeline in the camera, and it's very often the case that all of that post is what's necessary to get the image to look as it did to my eye. Further, the sensor can't even do what my eye can do, partly because my eye is a much larger format even than full frame and partly because my eye can do its own pre-processing (different ISO at different locations, lateral inhibition) before the data is even sent to the brain.



> > The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away).
> 
> 
> I guess I'm more optimistic. Aren't high-end video cameras all EVF now? If so, it seems like just a matter of a few years before that tech comes to still cameras.



Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink. Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.


> > The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?



The image circle isn't big enough, and some lenses already have rectangular hoods or rear windows, or both.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2013)

Thanks for the reply.



Lee Jay said:


> Adjusting the EVF isn't sufficient. What I can do in post is much more than can be done in the 5ms or so available to the processing pipeline in the camera, and it's very often the case that all of that post is what's necessary to get the image to look as it did to my eye. Further, the sensor can't even do what my eye can do, partly because my eye is a much larger format even than full frame and partly because my eye can do its own pre-processing (different ISO at different locations, lateral inhibition) before the data is even sent to the brain.


I once (20 or so years ago) overheard a conversation with a symphony conductor who was asked whether CD or LP sounded more like what he heard on the podium. His reply was that the listener doesn't want to hear what he hears on the podium, that the instruments are not properly balanced at that location; but he is accustomed to this, so he knows how to manage the performers so it will be balanced for the audience. He said the real question is which sounds more like what the audience is supposed to hear.

I see the same thing for VF's. I completely concede that EVF's do not show "reality," but that's the point: they can show the information needed for the photographer to capture the raw image that will result in a well-adjusted photo. For example, an OVF doesn't show blown highlights or clipped shadows; an EVF can. Or think of ML and its focus peaking feature. Photographers will learn to make the mental translations needed to use the EVF to their advantage. I don't claim that EVF's are ready now, but I believe it's a matter of a few short years, just as it was very few years between the arrival of the first digital cameras and the time digital overtook 35mm film.



> Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink. Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.


It would be interesting to hear the pros and cons from those folks.



> The image circle isn't big enough, and some lenses already have rectangular hoods or rear windows, or both.


I was under the impression that the maximal image circle was 43 x 43, but that the edges (outside of 36mm) are almost completely unusable. Rectangular baffles can be removed (for a modest fee, of course). But your basic point is correct: not every lens would be able to make use of this feature.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 23, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> > Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink. Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to hear the pros and cons from those folks.



The red is a specific device, which has great hype, but not always great user experiences. Some would have it that the phrase 'EPIC FAIL' comes from Red One users experiencing frequent lock ups.

I would need to see what specific beef the Red users have and in relation to what model before knowing for sure, Red have launched their new wide DR sensor, the Dragon, and it's unlikely anything outside of studio reference quality monitors would do the images justice.

I wouldn't confuse the experiences of Red users as being something that relates to users of all, or indeed any other video camera.

One thing to remember is that video is fundamentally different to stills, even although they can be captured on a DSLR or mirrorless these days.

Video is contiguous. Each recorded frame (and therefore each monitored frame) has to be accurate. Video guys don't get to pick out the best frame from their 25fps. Each frame has to be usable.

Also, generally speaking video guys wouldn't change things like focus, aperture or shutter frame to frame, again as it's contiguous, manual exposure is the order of the day, pre-focusing, clickless aperture stepping... all video things that stills guys might not get.

Basically, to compare the experience of a cinema camera user like those of the RED cameras, to folks shooting stills on an OM-D isn't that valid. The principles, expectations and requirements are entirely different.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Adjusting the EVF isn't sufficient. What I can do in post is much more than can be done in the 5ms or so available to the processing pipeline in the camera, and it's very often the case that all of that post is what's necessary to get the image to look as it did to my eye. Further, the sensor can't even do what my eye can do, partly because my eye is a much larger format even than full frame and partly because my eye can do its own pre-processing (different ISO at different locations, lateral inhibition) before the data is even sent to the brain.
> ...



An EVF shows the out-of-camera JPEG, not the raw data, nor what can be extracted from the raw data.



> Or think of ML and its focus peaking feature.



Use for manual focusing is the only thing for which I see EVFs as an advantage. For everything else, they are a massive disadvantage.



> Video cameras have EVFs because they have to, and they all stink. Even some users of RED's nearly $4000 EVF have demanded a non-TTL OVF because the EVF isn't suitable to their uses.


It would be interesting to hear the pros and cons from those folks.
[/quote]

Many of them hate the lag when shooting fast-moving subjects. I agree. I have used a rifle site mounted to my SLR to shoot video because the lag when shooting with the LCD was too great to get the shots.



> > The image circle isn't big enough, and some lenses already have rectangular hoods or rear windows, or both.
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that the maximal image circle was 43 x 43, but that the edges (outside of 36mm) are almost completely unusable. Rectangular baffles can be removed (for a modest fee, of course). But your basic point is correct: not every lens would be able to make use of this feature.



The image circle is 43.3 mm in diameter, by specification. Some are larger (telephotos, mostly) but there's no guarantee you won't get a hard vignette outside that diameter. A 36mmx36mm sensor has a diagonal of 50.9mm.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Basically, to compare the experience of a cinema camera user like those of the RED cameras, to folks shooting stills on an OM-D isn't that valid. The principles, expectations and requirements are entirely different.



That's right - it's much, much more difficult to get quality stills of fast-moving subjects than it is to get video. For one thing, loosely framed video of fast-moving subjects is often quite acceptable, and even preferred, but not for stills.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 23, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away). The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.



You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the EVF is less than ideal in one range of use doesn't make it inferior on the whole, or even unacceptable for those less than ideal uses. In virtually every circumstance other than long range action, people are going to take a good look at the scene with their own eyes, then take the picture.

If you don't like the in camera image there's nothing stopping you from adjusting things afterwards anyway.

For the few critical things a viewfinder has to do the EVF is generally better, and as a side benefit (almost more important than the EVF itself) on sensor focusing is more accurate. As mentioned, it puts an end to lens-to-camera calibration. That, is a big deal. Especially in long range action. Maybe on sensor AF isn't blazing fast at the moment but I doubt it will be long before you can track a BIF with it (on that point, with 80% of the surface of Canons new sensor performing AF it may end up far superior in that application).
Sure, things can get better, but it doesn't make sense to completely abandon the superior system just because of a few problems with one or two specific activities.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 23, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, to compare the experience of a cinema camera user like those of the RED cameras, to folks shooting stills on an OM-D isn't that valid. The principles, expectations and requirements are entirely different.
> ...



And it's much much more difficult to manually rack focus with a fast moving subject coming right at the camera in video.. the comparisons could go on. 

Video and stills are as different as chalk and cheese.

Which either belies my relatively narrow reference points for things that are different (solids, begin with 'ch', made of calcium) or is a skillful comparison of two things that have some aspects in common, but are quite different on closer inspection. I mean, you could eat chalk, and you could write on a blackboard with cheese.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The mirror assembly serves a very useful purpose, and EVFs are many, many generations away from being "good enough" for me (I'd estimate decades away). The difficulties with 36x36 sensor extend to the entire lens system as well.
> ...



It's not a superior viewfinder. EVFs are inferior in every way but one - manual focus (and, in fact, they are only superior there because our OVFs don't have split image prisms anymore). EVFs use a lot of power. OVFs use zero. EVFs have significant lag, OVFs have none. EVFs have very limited dynamic range and color gamut, OVFs are limited by your eyes. It's really not even close. And before someone says that they like a lot of information covering up their scene, remember the 7D's transmissive LCD, which could be used to display practically anything.

EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations. Other than that, you can keep them. Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 23, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations. Other than that, you can keep them. Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.



But you wouldn't want to shoot video at eye level with a DSLR. Bracing is all wrong. Form factor of DSLRs is rubbish for video.

I have a shoulder mount for my 600D and flip out screen. It sits about 6"-12" in front of my eye, perfect, means I also get to see 'around' my shot with my other eye. Nothing worse than trying to walk up or down stairs with your eyes pressed to an EVF with either a wide or tele lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > EVFs basically stink, and the only reason I want a hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder is to use the EVF for video and for manual focus situations. Other than that, you can keep them. Their only redeeming feature is that they are better than the LCD on the back of the camera because they are eye-level.
> ...



No worse than with a camcorder (palmcorder).



> I have a shoulder mount for my 600D and flip out screen. It sits about 6"-12" in front of my eye, perfect, means I also get to see 'around' my shot with my other eye. Nothing worse than trying to walk up or down stairs with your eyes pressed to an EVF with either a wide or tele lens.



I've shot exactly like that with the EVFs on camcorders for years (decades, actually). I was happy to get shoulder mounts into the dust-bin of history. Too directly connected to your legs makes for shaky video when walking.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 23, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Horses for courses.

But an OVF isn't any cop for video.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 23, 2013)

9VIII said:


> You seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Just because the EVF is less than ideal in one range of use doesn't make it inferior on the whole, or even unacceptable for those less than ideal uses. In virtually every circumstance other than long range action, people are going to take a good look at the scene with their own eyes, then take the picture.
> 
> If you don't like the in camera image there's nothing stopping you from adjusting things afterwards anyway.
> 
> ...



I don't think I would agree about "better"... at least, not yet. EVF's are certainly improving, and in some areas they are getting close, but not better yet. A review of the VF-4 by Olympus ( in DPreview) says "_Our first impressions of the VF-4 are very positive - it gives an experience that comes remarkably close to shooting with a conventional optical finder, but with the advantage of a detailed overlay of shooting information, including such things as electronic levels and a live histogram. The display lag is minimal (Olympus claims a mere 32ms), and the live view image sharp and detailed into the corners of the frame. About the only negative point is that the view is so large that spectacle wearers may struggle to see into the extreme corners.".... _  hardly the blanket condemnation that others seem to have, but certainly not better. I have tried it out in daylight and indoors in a well lit store, the performance was good, almost as good as an optical viewfinder. I did not try it in dim lighting, but past experience with other EVF's makes me skeptical as to how well it would work in poor light. I was not able to notice delay on static objects and if you panned quickly a slight delay was detectable.

This one is middle of the road... there are very expensive EVF's that are better, there are cheap ones that are outright crappy... but the point to be made is that we are now close.... give it some time and see what happens. You can't judge the future based on old designs.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 23, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > paul13walnut5 said:
> ...


My experiences with video tells me to ignore OVF's or EVF's and use live view. I am incapable of looking through a viewfinder and keeping a camera steady for video while moving.... I need to be able to see where I am going as well as what I am recording and I can't do that with a camera stuck in my face. Even when not moving, I need a tripod to keep the camera steady enough for video. For me, shoulder braces do not cut it as the camera dips every time I take a step. I applaud those steady enough to do it, but the big thing that I have learned so far from my attempts at shooting video is a great respect for the professionals and a deep appreciation for why they spend so much time setting up lighting and why they have dollies and rails and all the other specialized gear to make motion smoother.


----------



## tnargs (Sep 24, 2013)

How come it is so close to release that the company is listing it is in its software, but you (running this site) still don't have a clue about it? Why do we bother looking here if you are so clueless? ???


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2013)

tnargs said:


> How come it is so close to release that the company is listing it is in its software, but you (running this site) still don't have a clue about it? Why do we bother looking here if you are so clueless? ???



Because Canon is very good at controlling leaks....

And because if you didn't look here you would probably not know that the camera is mentioned in the software...

The real value of the site is that it brings together a community of interested people and you get to interact with the whole, not just a series of admin postings.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 24, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



OVFs are inferior in every way but... oh darn I can't really think of one.
EVFs with a proximity sensor use no power when you're not looking through it. The horrible EVF lag on my 7 year old P&S never stopped me from taking oodles and oodles of pictures with it, and human reaction time is only around 50ms at best anyway. The EVF tells you exactly where in the scene the sensor is reaching its limits and gives you boatloads of information about how to make your picture better before you take it, it's really not even close.

Your whole argument seems to hinge on the inability to see the image produced by the lens with your own eye, as though some ethereal aspect of your artistic skill is cut off by not directly absorbing the photons bouncing off the subject.


I'm not wholly against the OVF, and I agree that given the current state of on sensor AF it's still the better choice for fast action, I just think that the one thing it can do that the EVF can't is so easily compensated for that you'd be crazy not to jump on all the benefits of the EVF.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 24, 2013)

The sony idea interests me, not a fan of pellicle mirrors over the main sensor, I remember the Pansonic L-1 / Digilux 2 / Olympus E-330 had a split system in the viewfinder path, allowing live view on the back and OVF similtaneously.

What if an EVF display was also inserted in the path, with a blind, so that the mirror could stay down for focus performance, but the viewfinder could be switched between optical and electronic?

Although it seemed a convoluted system, and one that would require precise construction (I only mention this because of the issues Canon has had with the 1DX, 1D3 in terms of prism mounting) it did seem to offer all things to all people.

I had a great viewfinder on my now ancient Dimage A2. Or at least it seemed great at the time, I'm sure things have moved on (so potentially even better)

From a video point of view (and I've made it quote clear previously why it's different) it is useful to have a finder that works along similar DR and colour as the recorded image, for monitoring things like bleaching via zebra overlays, focus peaking, moire, scanning issues where tvs or monitors are in shot, audio meters, exposure settings, whether gain is switched on or not etc.

For stills some of these things carry over... Do I want to see what is there in reality, or what my camera sees?
I'm not going to be showing folk the real scene, so maybe I'd rather know how my camera is interpreting the scene so I can adjust to get it a close to my creative vision, or reality, as possible.

A split finder path would give phase detect options for those who need it, and live view for folk who don't.

Maybe thats the way things will go in the future, that OVFs become a specialist feature on the top models only.

I would suggest that for a lot of folks, for most folks outside of pro sports or nature guys, EVF's are there. 

Of course whether I'm right or wrong about that specific point, folks will have their own way of working that they prefer, and it's a free market.

I can picture scenarios where a stills guy might work quicker and smarter if they are able to review their images without taking the camera away from their eye. Ergonomically, the position when using an OVF is better for some kinds of stills, now whether that OVF is live view or EVF is another matter..


----------



## fxk (Sep 25, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> I once (20 or so years ago) overheard a conversation with a symphony conductor who was asked whether CD or LP sounded more like what he heard on the podium. His reply was that the listener doesn't want to hear what he hears on the podium, that the instruments are not properly balanced at that location; but he is accustomed to this, so he knows how to manage the performers so it will be balanced for the audience. He said the real question is which sounds more like what the audience is supposed to hear.
> 
> I see the same thing for VF's. I completely concede that EVF's do not show "reality," but that's the point: they can show the information needed for the photographer to capture the raw image that will result in a well-adjusted photo. For example, an OVF doesn't show blown highlights or clipped shadows; an EVF can. Or think of ML and its focus peaking feature. Photographers will learn to make the mental translations needed to use the EVF to their advantage. I don't claim that EVF's are ready now, but I believe it's a matter of a few short years, just as it was very few years between the arrival of the first digital cameras and the time digital overtook 35mm film.



Careful, there. That's too close to making sense.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 26, 2013)

9VIII said:


> OVFs are inferior in every way but... oh darn I can't really think of one.



I'll help - they have no lag, no limits on dynamic range or color gamut, and use no power.



> EVFs with a proximity sensor use no power when you're not looking through it.



And tons of power when you are. I sometimes spend hours looking through the viewfinder to get a few hundred shots.



> The horrible EVF lag on my 7 year old P&S never stopped me from taking oodles and oodles of pictures with it, and human reaction time is only around 50ms at best anyway.



Human reaction time is more like 200ms, and entirely irrelevant.



> The EVF tells you exactly where in the scene the sensor is reaching its limits



If that were true - which it isn't - then an EVF would have another use.



> and gives you boatloads of information about how to make your picture better before you take it, it's really not even close.



The EVF overlays are distracting and prevent you from paying attention to what's going on in the scene. Maybe you shoot a lot of boring, stationary subjects that will wait for you to read what's on the screen and decide what to do, but I don't. Most of my shots are here and gone in tiny fractions of a second.



> Your whole argument seems to hinge on the inability to see the image produced by the lens with your own eye, as though some ethereal aspect of your artistic skill is cut off by not directly absorbing the photons bouncing off the subject.



I never said anything of the sort, and that is not my argument.



> I'm not wholly against the OVF, and I agree that given the current state of on sensor AF it's still the better choice for fast action, I just think that the one thing it can do that the EVF can't is so easily compensated for that you'd be crazy not to jump on all the benefits of the EVF.



That one thing it can't do is actually many things, and its only advantage is for manual focus situations.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 27, 2013)

9VIII said:


> OVFs are inferior in every way but... oh darn I can't really think of one.





Lee Jay said:


> I'll help - they have no lag, no limits on dynamic range or color gamut, and use no power.



Actually, as was pointed out in another thread, the OVF does have lag, shutter lag, about 60ms on average and 36ms at absolute best. Even current EVF tech has that beat, and potentially by a lot.

If you're just trying to get a good mental image of what the colors in front of you are like all you have to do is open your left eye, or poke your head above the camera, which will actually be even better than an OVF since those do still adjust what you see.




9VIII said:


> EVFs with a proximity sensor use no power when you're not looking through it.





Lee Jay said:


> And tons of power when you are. I sometimes spend hours looking through the viewfinder to get a few hundred shots.



With my T3 I can stay in live view all afternoon using just two batteries.
Battery consumption does seem to be an issue for the mirrorless market as a whole, but hopefully manufacturers will catch on to the fact that people like big batteries. You can always carry more if it's a big deal to you.




9VIII said:


> The horrible EVF lag on my 7 year old P&S never stopped me from taking oodles and oodles of pictures with it, and human reaction time is only around 50ms at best anyway.





Lee Jay said:


> Human reaction time is more like 200ms, and entirely irrelevant.



If the lag in a system is significantly less than your reaction time it becomes statistically insignificant. People are also very good at compensating for small amounts of lag. You might actually be better off with a good EVF as far as accuracy goes.





9VIII said:


> The EVF tells you exactly where in the scene the sensor is reaching its limits





Lee Jay said:


> If that were true - which it isn't - then an EVF would have another use.



Just because the JPEG preview blows highlights a stop or two early you dismiss the whole concept?




9VIII said:


> and gives you boatloads of information about how to make your picture better before you take it, it's really not even close.





Lee Jay said:


> The EVF overlays are distracting and prevent you from paying attention to what's going on in the scene. Maybe you shoot a lot of boring, stationary subjects that will wait for you to read what's on the screen and decide what to do, but I don't. Most of my shots are here and gone in tiny fractions of a second.



Most of the EVF layouts that I can find are virtually identical to a traditional OVF. Very clean, extra info is off frame, just with options for more.




9VIII said:


> Your whole argument seems to hinge on the inability to see the image produced by the lens with your own eye, as though some ethereal aspect of your artistic skill is cut off by not directly absorbing the photons bouncing off the subject.





Lee Jay said:


> I never said anything of the sort, and that is not my argument.



So what is?
You continue to state that the dynamic range and color gamut you get specifically through the OVF is a critical advantage, as though there were no other way to achieve similar results. From your statements so far it seems that you take pictures of something that only appears in your viewfinder for fractions of a second and cannot be seen any other way. I really don't see a practical connection.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 27, 2013)

fxk said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I once (20 or so years ago) overheard a conversation with a symphony conductor who was asked whether CD or LP sounded more like what he heard on the podium. His reply was that the listener doesn't want to hear what he hears on the podium, that the instruments are not properly balanced at that location; but he is accustomed to this, so he knows how to manage the performers so it will be balanced for the audience. He said the real question is which sounds more like what the audience is supposed to hear.
> ...



This is an emotional argument... there is no place in it for common sense 

I think a lot of people are having a hard time getting past what EVF's used to perform like... and many have no experience with a good one. If the only EVF that I had used was the one on my SX-50, I would be sitting in the "they are crappy and nowhere near ready for the DSLR market" camp, but my experience with the VF2 EVF from Olympus tells a diferent story. It is better than the optical viewfinder was on my Olympus E-510... but I still prefer the optical viewfinder on my Canon. The thing is, I have zero expectation that optical viewfinders will improve over the years while I would be shocked if EVF's didn't.. at some point the overall package will be better.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 27, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> This is an emotional argument... there is no place in it for common sense
> 
> I think a lot of people are having a hard time getting past what EVF's used to perform like... and many have no experience with a good one. If the only EVF that I had used was the one on my SX-50, I would be sitting in the "they are crappy and nowhere near ready for the DSLR market" camp, but my experience with the VF2 EVF from Olympus tells a diferent story. It is better than the optical viewfinder was on my Olympus E-510... but I still prefer the optical viewfinder on my Canon. The thing is, I have zero expectation that optical viewfinders will improve over the years while I would be shocked if EVF's didn't.. at some point the overall package will be better.



+1. The EVFs will get there, but I'm hoping that they can do so with minimal power. I'd hate getting only 100-200 pictures on a battery.


----------



## fxk (Sep 30, 2013)

I seem to be missing something here...
I don't see the engineering to get an OVF in a M camera - isn't that point then moot?

To say either OVF or EVF is junk or perfect is to maintain a ridiculous position. Each has its weak and strong points

But for an EOS-M, it's either rear screen or (hopefully in the next iteration) an EVF. In that body size, as far as I can envision the optics and engineering, that point is moot. No OVF.

That said, lets hope Canon puts in as good a finder as is state-of-the-art at the time. Some options to turn on or off certain information (ala the rear screen) so each photog can choose what helps their photographing abilities, whether it be full live histogram, ISO, flash ready, aperture, shutter speed, local cafe menu, blowout or blocked shadow highlighting to nothing at all but the image.

As for battery life - no one likes 200 shots to a battery. (that used to be a good number, btw) Hope the OLED or other newer technology in the viewfinder can be utilized to keep power consumption reasonable.

Carrying a couple batteries is better than carrying a dozen or so rolls of film. We've come a long way.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Oct 2, 2013)

I would be pre-ordering a M2 if I could.

Would love to see an EVF for three primary reasons
- power consumption compared to LCD screen. I hope it is lower.
- use in bright sunlight.
- additional contact point for steadying the camera


I hope it is the upper left hand corner so that I can avoid nose smudges.

I expect to have the dual pixel sensor, it would be really nice if we could dial in focus speed, instant for stills and perhaps fast/medium/slow for videos.

And/or Magic Lantern hacks and brings out all their cool features.


----------

