# A very good idea???



## geonix (May 14, 2017)

Hello all

Just watched this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OIp0OHUHA

To me this should be also a good advice for Canon.

The essentials:
Take a dslr body - take out mirrorbox and pentaprism - install oled evf - keep size, weight(?) and flange distance - 

Would that be a way to go for Canon and Nikon? The one most often heared critic on the Sony A9 is its bad ergonomics, especially with long, big, heavy lenses.

What do you think?


----------



## IglooEater (May 15, 2017)

I think his thoughts are fairly common ones. He brings up using the space savings to add battery power, i think the idea is good- I've harped on MILC battery life a good deal before. However, just think exactly where the space is being saved. The mirror box and pentaprism. You can't put a battery either place as you can't obstruct light path in front of the sensor, and the pentaprism would be replaced by a display which, though smaller, would still take up most of what was taken from the pentaprism, unless the display was flat up against the diopter


----------



## geonix (May 15, 2017)

I think more battery space is not really the prime need in such a camera. The existing batteries deliver very good performance for dslrs, personally I wouldn't mind if they offer 100 shots less in a mirrorless "dslr". It can also be expected that the existing batteries will improve capacity.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 15, 2017)

let's not underestimate battery life reduction effect. here:

Canon 5d Mark IV : Battery life is rated to CIPA standards at 900 shots using the viewfinder, or 200 shots in live view mode.
I for one am not prepared cycling batteries in my Canon camera body every 200 shots. Battery grip is not a solution either.




geonix said:


> I think more battery space is not really the prime need in such a camera. The existing batteries deliver very good performance for dslrs, personally I wouldn't mind if they offer 100 shots less in a mirrorless "dslr". It can also be expected that the existing batteries will improve capacity.


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> let's not underestimate battery life reduction effect. here:
> 
> Canon 5d Mark IV : Battery life is rated to CIPA standards at 900 shots using the viewfinder, or 200 shots in live view mode.
> I for one am not prepared cycling batteries in my Canon camera body every 200 shots. Battery grip is not a solution either.
> ...


But remember that while you are in live view mode, the shutter mechanism is engaged and you are holding the shutter open..... and that really drains the battery! Mirrorless should be more efficient than live view.....


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 15, 2017)

I cannot see why Canon or any other camera manufacturer would want to do this.
Surely the whole point of a mirrorless camera is that it is smaller and lighter than an equivalent DLSR, so why would you want to keep the size of the body the same?
Isn't the problem here that for some people the size and weight of their camera is an important consideration and for others it is not. So why can't we be free to choose the system we prefer? 
I for one would not want to lose the option of having an optical viewfinder and I am prepared to carry around a larger camera body in order to retain it.


----------



## geonix (May 15, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> But remember that while you are in live view mode, the shutter mechanism is engaged and you are holding the shutter open..... and that really drains the battery! Mirrorless should be more efficient than live view.....



+1 

The more I think of it the more I like the idea. Imagine you could continue to use your EF lenses without adapter and also have a modern EVF and and really silent shutter. 

My biggest concern, which isn't that big, is the tracking AF for birds and wildlife. I just have the imperession that with those subjects a seperate AF sensor works better than AF points on the image sensor. But technological advance will eleminate that concern I hope.


----------



## geonix (May 15, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> I cannot see why Canon or any other camera manufacturer would want to do this.
> Surely the whole point of a mirrorless camera is that it is smaller and lighter than an equivalent DLSR, so why would you want to keep the size of the body the same?
> Isn't the problem here that for some people the size and weight of their camera is an important consideration and for others it is not. So why can't we be free to choose the system we prefer?
> I for one would not want to lose the option of having an optical viewfinder and I am prepared to carry around a larger camera body in order to retain it.



No, weight and size are not he whole point. Benefits of mirrorless go further. In fact, if you shoot wildlife you will have to use big lenses anyway. So the seize of the body is less important. What's important is how good the handeling and grip is. How easy you can change settings and customize buttons. And in that regard dslr bodys are great as they are. 
As long as my hands don't shrink I would like to work with cameras in dslr seize.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 15, 2017)

geonix said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot see why Canon or any other camera manufacturer would want to do this.
> ...



So what are these other benefits? In the video Matt Granger mentions that EVFs have "loads of benefits" but he doesn't say what they are.
Silent shutter, higher flash sync speed and no wear and tear on the mirror mechanism I will concede, but there are also some negatives. I have yet to find an EVF that can keep up with fast action and they always seem to be a split second behind.
Also I really like being able to look through the lens and see what the camera sees rather than an image that has been processed by the onboard computer. One day will the EVFs be so good that the photographer will not even realise that it is an image that has been generated electronically or will OVFs always have the edge?


----------



## jhpeterson (May 15, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> I cannot see why Canon or any other camera manufacturer would want to do this.
> Surely the whole point of a mirrorless camera is that it is smaller and lighter than an equivalent DLSR, so why would you want to keep the size of the body the same?


I think many camera makers are becoming guilty of the same thing that plagues the entire consumer electronics industry. That they CAN make a device so small doesn't mean they ought to when it means the item becomes less functional for most of its anticipated users. 
I think there was a good reason why most SLRs have been the size they've been the last several decades, they're generally a comfortable fit for most users' hands, with size and spacing of controls that promoted efficiency.
I, for one, don't want to see another product with overcrowded real estate sized because the designers can get away with it, but at the expense of functionality.


----------



## old-pr-pix (May 15, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> So what are these other benefits? In the video Matt Granger mentions that EVFs have "loads of benefits" but he doesn't say what they are.
> Silent shutter, higher flash sync speed and no wear and tear on the mirror mechanism I will concede, but there are also some negatives. I have yet to find an EVF that can keep up with fast action and they always seem to be a split second behind.
> Also I really like being able to look through the lens and see what the camera sees rather than an image that has been processed by the onboard computer. One day will the EVFs be so good that the photographer will not even realise that it is an image that has been generated electronically or will OVFs always have the edge?


While an OVF let's you see what the lens sees, almost by definition what the camera 'sees' has to be processed by the onboard electronics to be captured at all. 

EVF allows for direct view of effect of exposure compensation, white balance adjustments, focus aids (focus peaking), low light amplification, and potentially the overlay of any information the camera knows (GPS, compass, level, etc.) While OVF can be built to include some information, it is difficult/expensive to have that display be dynamically reconstructed to show different information.

Battery life has been addressed by latest from Sony and Olympus with bigger batteries, more efficient processing. Fuji has provided for up to 3 batteries with a grip. Panasonic has had good battery life for a while. At the same time, added processing features on dSLR's have reduced battery life there.

Size is interesting since some want small and some want larger. Big lenses need more body grip. I like lighter so I often accept limitations of m43... take off the battery grip on my E-M5, put on the pancake zoom, and it slips into cargo pant pocket! Put on a 'big' lens and the grip makes it very manageable. Yet, for winter shooting with gloves I stick to my Canon gear to avoid the 'small button' issue.

EVF lag and autofocus tracking... those who are critical need to test the latest generation mirrorless to see how good they now are.


----------



## Don Haines (May 15, 2017)

jhpeterson said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot see why Canon or any other camera manufacturer would want to do this.
> ...


Yes, ergonomics is a huge factor.... one of the reasons that a keyboard is the size that it is.....


----------



## geonix (May 15, 2017)

Maybe the biggest challenge for Canon and Nikon in the implementation of mirrorless cameras is their lens lineup. Sure they don't want to spoil their EF customers and the customers don't want to give up their lenses.
On the other hand the, advantages of mirrorless will become more and more obvious. 
Live histogram in the EVF, really(!) silent shutter (which would have been so useful to me in several occasions), higher fps (because no flapping mirror) ... 
At some time also dslr users would like to have those features. So combining the two camera types is a logical step. At least for me.


----------



## Sporgon (May 15, 2017)

As Matt said in the video, mirrors give lots of advantages. I'd imagine that to just take both it and the pentaprism out and replace with EVF would be a sales disaster. 

And the thing is, there is no need to go about it this way. I've been saying for years now, go back to an interchangeable head on these dslrs. For those that don't remember them, cameras such as the Nikon and Canon F series, and the Pentax LX had a prism that came out from the body, and could be replaced with a different type. 

Do the same thing again, more complicated I know because of all the electronics stashed over the prism, but have a pentaprism finder that works in the normal way, but can be replaced with an EVF, that as soon as it is locked and plugged in, the mirror flips up and stays out of the way, and with DPAF the cameras will perform as a mirrorless. That will keep the casual video guys happy, and the other couple of people who value being able to see a histogram in the viewfinder whilst they are shooting stills.


----------



## dak723 (May 15, 2017)

geonix said:


> Hello all
> 
> Just watched this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OIp0OHUHA
> ...



You must have missed this 29 page thread that pretty much goes over (and over, and over, and over) all the possible opinions....

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31750.msg651163#msg651163

Enjoy!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 16, 2017)

Reading this thread I had a brilliant idea!

What if you took a mirror less camera gave it a more robust weather sealed body. Made the body larger so you could have decent higher voltage batteries. Eliminate the limitations of EVF viewfinders by putting an optical one on it with TTL viewing - oh dear that is a DSLR!

Perhaps I am missing something?


----------



## Ozarker (May 16, 2017)

geonix said:


> Maybe the biggest challenge for Canon and Nikon in the implementation of mirrorless cameras is their lens lineup. Sure they don't want to spoil their EF customers and the customers don't want to give up their lenses.
> On the other hand the, advantages of mirrorless will become more and more obvious.
> Live histogram in the EVF, really(!) silent shutter (which would have been so useful to me in several occasions), higher fps (because no flapping mirror) ...
> At some time also dslr users would like to have those features. So combining the two camera types is a logical step. At least for me.



Why would anyone think Canon going mirrorless means EF lenses would have to be given up? Just because they don't work on current mirrorless without adaptors doesn't mean a Canon mirrorless would be designed in such a way that EF lenses become useless or even need an adaptor.


----------



## bholliman (May 19, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> Reading this thread I had a brilliant idea!
> 
> What if you took a mirror less camera gave it a more robust weather sealed body. Made the body larger so you could have decent higher voltage batteries. Eliminate the limitations of EVF viewfinders by putting an optical one on it with TTL viewing - oh dear that is a DSLR!
> 
> Perhaps I am missing something?



LOL, good point. I love my M5, its a terrific little camera, but the ergonomics of shooting with a DSLR are just so much better due to its larger size (fits my hands), convenient controls and OVF that is just better than the current generation of EVF's.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 20, 2017)

bholliman said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Reading this thread I had a brilliant idea!
> ...



That was my thinking! 
Mirrorless cameras give up nothing in IQ but are lacking in other departments. so it is horses for courses.

For me a mirrorless camera is useful for one or two weeks of the year, whilst a DSLR is useful for all of the year - though not the ideal choice for holidays!

Mirrorless will get better and more useful but they will have to get decent batteries and much better viewfinders before the can compete. The Sony A9 looks interesting here but no lenses that are of any real use for me!

There is a way to go - but they might get there?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 20, 2017)

Some of the big issues, EVFs are not up to pro standards, AF speed and tracking are not up to pro standards, battery life of mirrorless cameras is poor.

All of these things are being improved, but many do not want EVF, no matter what.

To me, it seems more likely that a hybrid camera will come out with OVF which can have a EVF image overlaid when the camera is in mirrorless or live view mode The ability to do either may make the camera appeal to more, and allow switching to mirror and phase detect AF when high performance is needed..

The US camera culture favors large camera bodies, many buyers purchase a DSLR over mirrorless because the large DSLR looks more professional to them. That's a well established fact. Things can change though, but, for now, mirrorless cameras are regarded as over priced point and shoot cameras.


----------



## dak723 (May 21, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The US camera culture favors large camera bodies, many buyers purchase a DSLR over mirrorless because the large DSLR looks more professional to them. That's a well established fact. Things can change though, but, for now, mirrorless cameras are regarded as over priced point and shoot cameras.



Which, it seems to me, is exactly why we will have the choice of both mirrorless and DSLRs for quite a while to come - and why some mirrorless cameras will probably keep the basic form factor and flange distance of the current DSLRs.


----------

