# Thoughts From Canon on a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 21, 2011)

```
<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/2011/12/thoughts-from-canon-on-a-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/thoughts-from-canon-on-a-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/thoughts-from-canon-on-a-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera/"></a></div>
<strong>Interview with Canon

</strong>A representative from Canon sat down for an interview to discuss the mirrorless camera possibilities for Canon.</p>
<p>A few of the key points are below.</p>
<ul>
<li>Does a mirrorless camera really need interchangeable lenses?</li>
<li>Can we make a compact or DSLR that can beat the mirrorless cameras? (they believe they have it)</li>
<li>Higher sensitivity rather than high resolution (probably refers to quality over megapixels)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>CRâ€™s Take

</strong>I donâ€™t think Canon needs a sub $1000 mirrorless camera with interchangeable lenses. I think they are more than capable of making a â€œGâ€ series camera that is higher end than the G12, which would satisfy a majority of the people interested in a mirrorless camera.</p>
<p>If Canon went out and made a niche market full frame $3000 â€œphotographersâ€ mirrorless camera, I think theyâ€™d have something worth selling there. However, Canon just doesnâ€™t strike me as a company that cares all that much about satisfying niches, they want to sell millions of cameras.</p>
<p>I think weâ€™re going to see a new PowerShot line that is priced up there with Rebels. Itâ€™ll give them the segment that doesnâ€™t want a DSLR, but wants image quality. As well as satisfying the desires of 5D Mark II shooters that want a point and shoot with great IQ.</p>
<p>I know LOTS of people disagree with me on this one. :)</p>
<p><strong>Source:</strong> [<a href="http://photorumors.com/">PR</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## smirkypants (Dec 21, 2011)

I don't. I think mirrorless is kind of gimmicky. I'm sure if Nikon shows that there's a market for it, they can enter it rather quickly. Until then, there's no sense in not waiting and seeing.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 21, 2011)

I REALLY wish this article was not a PDF. Can't copy and paste into Google Translate. I found the Impress Japan website but it's all Japanese to me  Anyone able to translate full interview (Canon portion only) or identify a web link to the interview that isn't a PDF?, so we can at least run it through the translator.


----------



## lol (Dec 21, 2011)

unfocused said:


> I REALLY wish this article was not a PDF. Can't copy and paste into Google Translate. I found the Impress Japan website but it's all Japanese to me  Anyone able to translate full interview (Canon portion only) or identify a web link to the interview that isn't a PDF?, so we can at least run it through the translator.


You can copy and paste from the pdf, although it is a bit more work... I tried it, and the googlish that came out didn't make a whole lot of sense. Best wait for human translations.


----------



## RT (Dec 21, 2011)

Rong Tian Ya's comments are really interesting. Canon is right: a mirrorless camera doesn't _need_ interchangeable lenses. In fact, Fuji demonstrated that a capable mirrorless camera with a fixed lens can be successfully marketed. I rather like that I can swap out lenses on my E-P1, but a highly capable, large sensor with a high quality fixed lens is absolutely a great idea. 

I doubt that Canon would go for a single focal length lens like the Fuji - like the admin said, Canon is interested in selling millions, not filling a niche. Something like a 12-16 MP APS-C sensor with a 16-47 (24-70 full frame equivalent) f2.8 lens could be that camera. It could be fairly compact (I'm thinking about as big as the Panasonic G3 with the kit 14-42 lens on it), and had an EVF + tilt-swivel screen, it would be a pretty awesome camera, I think. And here's a way they could make it a "system" camera: sell .6x wide angle and 1.5x telephoto adapters.

If the quality was there, that would be my dream camera, quite frankly.


----------



## mjbehnke (Dec 21, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> I don't. I think mirrorless is kind of gimmicky. I'm sure if Nikon shows that there's a market for it, they can enter it rather quickly. Until then, there's no sense in not waiting and seeing.



I agree. I think the G-series would be an awesome line-up to bump up to high end quality. It's already a mirror-less camera anyway. And I think the Mirror-less SLR will go the way of the 3D TV.. it's a fad and it will fade.

I can't see spending money on new lenses for a camera with a smaller sensor. Of course that's my humble opinion.

MB


----------



## UncleFester (Dec 21, 2011)

smirkypants said:


> I don't. I think mirrorless is kind of gimmicky.



I agree. I'm sure that was said about 35mm at some point, but I agree.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 22, 2011)

From the first page devoted to Canon, I am pretty sure the first line of the title reads "wanting to release a mirrorless (camera) in 2012." The second line has something to do about good compacts...I'm also having trouble getting anything to copy out, unfortunately :/


----------



## RF Bob (Dec 22, 2011)

Hum,,,,, I love my G11 but wish the IQ was better. Would love to have a APS-C, 12 MP, High ISO, f2.0 24-70 equivalent camera which is with out a flash and has a good view finder and high quality articulating screen 

I also would love to see a Canon VI L rangefinder remade to digital!! Yes, it must be a bit more modern. It would need just a few little lenses: 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.0, 50mm f2.0, 90mm f2.0,,,,,, or the like. Canons answer to Leica @ 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. I would buy one in a heartbeat. Too bad Canon would never make such a thing.

I don't see the need for another mirrorless interchaingable lens camera. I just don't "get" them!


----------



## elflord (Dec 22, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>I think weâ€™re going to see a new PowerShot line that is priced up there with Rebels. Itâ€™ll give them the segment that doesnâ€™t want a DSLR, but wants image quality. As well as satisfying the desires of 5D Mark II shooters that want a point and shoot with great IQ.</p>



I don't really follow -- you're saying that they don't need mirrorless, but they will make a powershot line with high image quality (and therefore a big sensor). Since this presumably won't be a DSLR, it will not have a mirror, and therefore be "mirrorless". 

Are you suggesting that Canon will make a mirrorless fixed zoom lens camera like the Fuji X10 / X100, _as opposed to_ a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera like the Sony NEX, micro 4/3, Nikon 1, or Samsung's NX cameras ? 

I agree that they won't do a mirrorless full frame camera -- at the $3k mark, it would be a pro camera, but mirrorless still doesn't have pro camera performance. So far, all the mirrorless cameras are either marketed as upmarket P&Ss, or enthusiast cameras. 

I am baffled by the flippant dismissals of mirrorless often posted on this board. While it is not clear that Canon "need" to enter the mirrorless market, it is clear that it makes up a substantial part of the enthusiast market, and more or less _is_ the new high end point and shoot.


----------



## takeapic (Dec 22, 2011)

Is this in addition to the SX240?



Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/thoughts-from-canon-on-a-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera/\"></glusone></div><div id=\"fb_share_1\" style=\"float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" share_url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/thoughts-from-canon-on-a-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera/\" href=\"http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php\">Share</a></div><div><script src=\"http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share\" type=\"text/javascript\"></script></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/thoughts-from-canon-on-a-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera/\"></a></div>
> <strong>Interview with Canon
> 
> </strong>A representative from Canon sat down for an interview to discuss the mirrorless camera possibilities for Canon.</p>
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Dec 22, 2011)

lol said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I REALLY wish this article was not a PDF. Can't copy and paste into Google Translate. I found the Impress Japan website but it's all Japanese to me  Anyone able to translate full interview (Canon portion only) or identify a web link to the interview that isn't a PDF?, so we can at least run it through the translator.
> ...



Really? I got a message that the file was protected by its security settings and cannot be copied. Apparently I'm not as clever as you. Any hints?

By the Way, on another topic, sorry to be critical of others, but I find it very annoying when people copy and paste the HTML when quoting someone else. Can I request that people please use the preview button before posting?


----------



## nazdar (Dec 22, 2011)

Yep Canon, lets make mirrorless camera with chip from Rebel camera in sleek NEX like body with articulated screen and interchangable lenses!! I would love to use it with that handy 50mm/ F1.8 immediately! I Can't stand small sensor cameras like G series. They are ok but in the end when it happend you to take great picture you always wish to have big sensor camera that time! Always. Although 600D is realy small and light but there is plenty room for something more handy  
Not to forget that videographers will start to buy this camera like hotcakes if it will get touchable LCD and decent AF which can works during videoshooting! ;o)

Only it will need some massive slab under the lensmount, like C300 has, to stand some extra lensweight when mounted on tripod.


----------



## photo_enthusiast (Dec 22, 2011)

</strong>I donâ€™t think Canon needs a sub $1000 mirrorless camera withÃ‚ interchangeableÃ‚ lenses. Ã‚ I think they are more than capable of making a â€œGâ€ series camera that is higher end than the G12, which would satisfy a majority of the people interested in a mirrorless camera.</p>
<p>If Canon went out and made a niche market full frame $3000 â€œphotographersâ€ mirrorless camera, I think theyâ€™d have something worth selling there. </p>
<p>I think weâ€™re going to see a new PowerShot line that is priced up there with Rebels. Itâ€™ll give them the segment that doesnâ€™t want a DSLR, but wants image quality. As well as satisfying the desires of 5D Mark II shooters that want a point and shoot with great IQ.</p>

I don't disagree either. I think you're 100% right. Nikon's mirrorless doesn't appeal to me. Either you do the interchangeable lenses thing for the IQ, with all the headache, or something else. Why would you go with an alternative that is slightly smaller? If you do need something smaller, you go further and get something like the G Series. The G series needs better IQ.


----------



## kmyers1us (Dec 22, 2011)

Canon is sitting pretty already with the G12, G13 coming up, and the s100.
Depending on whether size or buttons are more important, these are 2
excellent substitutes for mirrorless. They already have the IQ & fast lenses in these cameras.

I now carry an s100 in my pocket as a second while I have my 7d dressed for wildlife. With the s100 I do nice scenes and videos. If I needed more functions & control, then the g12 or new g13 would be the right choice.

Just what could Canon gain with yet another "me-too" mirrorless with interchangeable lenses?


----------



## breningstall (Dec 22, 2011)

I have to disagree with you on the question of whether a Canon mirrorless is necessary. Canon desperately needs a high quality camera in a small form factor. Neither the S100 nor the G12 are up to the task, in this regard- each has point-and-shoot sized sensors, clunky zoom operations, tediously slow autofocus, etc. A slight upgrade or a modest sensor size bump won't do the job, what is needed is to rethink the entire operation. While the mirrorless market has become a crowded field, none of the companies have gotten the basic fundamentals right. This is what is needed: 1) a high quality sensor (APS-C or better), 2) fast pancake primes, 3) an viewfinder with strong manual focus capabilities, 4) fast autofocus, at least in single servo mode, and 5) weather sealing to take advantage of mirrorless' ideal size for travel and backpacking. All of these features are in existence, none has been pulled together by a single company. I'm not worried about whether Canon comes through with a mirrorless, though. Even if they don't come out with something in 2012, I expect that one or more other companies will final release a model that fulfills the above criteria. Fuji and Pentax are rumored to have new systems in the works and Samsung and Olympus may or may not get around to release a pro version of their mirrorless lines (I hold out no hope for Sony, those lens choices are abysmal). If Canon wants to continue specializing in monster-size L lenses for pros and flimsy plastic EF-S garbage for people wanting lighter weight, that's their choice, but in that case there will quite a few Canon users (myself included) who will be devoting more of their purchasing dollars toward other brands willing to fill this need.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 22, 2011)

> flimsy plastic EF-S garbage for people wanting lighter weight, that's their choice,



Would that be flimsy plastic like these? http://youtu.be/D1tTBncIsm8

(Longtime readers, I apologize for recycling this video which many of you are already familiar with. Just making a point here.)


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 22, 2011)

Good post breningstall.

There is a market for a travel size crop sensor camera that can fit in a pocket. I'm not sure Canon is the company that will get there first however, and I think they should take the G12 and turn it into this camera.

A lot of people are just using their phones to take pictures now, so I would think that there would be a more of a market fr a higher end portable camera for those who care about the quality and different photos a real camera can take.


----------



## Jnewton (Dec 22, 2011)

Personally, I'd like to see a full size sensor mirrorless body with interchangeable lens. If the price was in the 1000-1500 dollars I'd be all over it. Something along the lines of the M9 would be great. As for it being a niche, well, maybe, but I know several people who would crawl all over such a camera. Maybe it is time for canon to explore the "niche" market. 

John Newton


----------



## unfocused (Dec 22, 2011)

> A lot of people are just using their phones to take pictures now, so I would think that there would be a more of a market fr a higher end portable camera for those who care about the quality and different photos a real camera can take.



This is what I can't get past. The majority of people are happy just using their phones. Serious enthusiasts are more likely to go for DSLRs. The point-and-shoot market is over-saturated already and being eroded by phones. So, where do these mirrorless cameras fit in? The mirrorless are as expensive as a DSLR. Are they selling them primarily to gadget freaks who just want the latest technology? 

While I would definitely go for a Fuji/Leica style APS-C rangefinder, I don't think of that as a mass consumer market camera. 

I can't shake the feeling that the Sony, Panasonic, etc. mirrorless represent a transitional technology. I've no doubt that Canon is watching the market closely and if and when they jump in, they have the resources to offer a category killer if they choose. I'd love to see what their market research shows.


----------



## BigDaddyM (Dec 22, 2011)

Personally, if Canon just greatly improves the "G" series (APS-C and a 24-70mm equivalent lens with f2.0 throughout the zoom), then they will have something awesome. I don't need high megapixels but I do want a fast lens and sensor in a small form factor.

Sony proved that most can be done. The only thing that Sony NEX-7 does not have is a fast lens (24-70) that is pancake in size. I find it silly to have mirrorless and then a massive lens.

Canon has won me in the DSLR market, but for compact, I use a LX3. I only wish that it had a APS-C size sensor and if the next "G" was that, Canon will have my money.
M


----------



## elflord (Dec 22, 2011)

kmyers1us said:


> Canon is sitting pretty already with the G12, G13 coming up, and the s100.
> Depending on whether size or buttons are more important, these are 2
> excellent substitutes for mirrorless.
> 
> They already have the IQ & fast lenses in these cameras.



Is there an imminent G13 ? I haven't heard of one and suspect it is on track for extinction because it is bulkier than cameras with much bigger sensors. 

While the S100 and G12 have better IQ than "traditional" compacts, they can't compete with big sensor mirrorless cameras that have sensors 4 times as large. Likewise, the lenses are fast if you compare them to other zooms, but not primes. 



> Just what could Canon gain with yet another "me-too" mirrorless with interchangeable lenses?



They need a bigger sensor in their G12 replacement or it simply won't be competitive. It doesn't need to be an interchangeable lens camera -- they could take a similar approach to fuji.


----------



## elflord (Dec 22, 2011)

unfocused said:


> This is what I can't get past. The majority of people are happy just using their phones. Serious enthusiasts are more likely to go for DSLRs.



DSLRs dominate in the US, but mirrorless is doing better in Japan. So it's not clear that DSLRs automatically win the high end amateur market. 



> The point-and-shoot market is over-saturated already and being eroded by phones. So, where do these mirrorless cameras fit in?



Yuppies and enthusiasts who want a more compact camera. Basically, the high end amateur market. 



> I can't shake the feeling that the Sony, Panasonic, etc. mirrorless represent a transitional technology. I've no doubt that Canon is watching the market closely and if and when they jump in, they have the resources to offer a category killer if they choose. I'd love to see what their market research shows.



They no doubt are watching the market, but if they went for a system camera, they would need to develop a camera, a new lens mount and a decent assortment of glass. Even then, it won't be a category killer to begin with because much like Sony, they will trail m43 in their lens offerings.


----------



## dealaddict (Dec 22, 2011)

i don't agreed. The fact is that the sales of mirrorless camera takes 30% of the total camera sale in Japan. And mirrorless camera is more popular in Asia. This shows that there is a market for good quality (mainly due to larger sensor) and smaller than DSLR camera. The size of DSLR is driving many people away. Like me, I shoot with Canon 5D and L lenses, but I pick up my NEX more and more often because of the size. Sometimes I just go out for dinner and I don't know if I will take any pictures, but I still would bring my NEX with me just in case, but I won't bring my 5D. Also, last time I went for a trip with my 2 kids, I want to travel light so I just bring my NEX. To me, it is quite stupid that Canon doesn't get into this market. I don't think a G12 be able to capture same quality picture as the NEX for my kids playing indoor. I agree that mirroless doesn't need to have interchagable lens, but the fact is, you can't make a all in one lens with big aperture with big sensor. If Canon can make the G13 with APSC sensor and a 24-70 F2.8 with the same size as the G12, then it will be a killer, but it seems not possible.


----------



## torger (Dec 22, 2011)

It seems unlikely to me that Canon would make a mirroless with Leice M9-like quality. Making a whole new set of high quality lenses etc.

Mirrorless will be cheap, and probably not much better than the Nikon V1/J1 toys.

In the very long term mirrorless designs will more than likely replace DSLRs (when technology allows them to be better at everything than DSLRs), so at some point a high quality system need to appear but this is not the time I think.


----------



## photosites (Dec 22, 2011)

The whole marketing hype of mirrorless cameras is the ability to have a camera with DSLR quality images at the size of the point and shoot. The closest camera to that promise the the GF3X, but that would mean to maintain that size profile, you will need to stick to pancakes or that one lens. Still the GF3X is bigger than the G12.

I have yet seen any photos comparing the NEX-5N + SEL 18-200mm vs DSLR. Would it really be that small?

If we could just take a step back from all that marketing hype that all the mirrorless camera manufacturers poured onto us and take a clear look at the true value proposition of mirrorless cameras, we would realize that this is still a highly un-established market segment. If not for their ability to use classic MF lenses, note that mirrorless lenses are often poor in quality and high in price. Now, do I want a collection of those lenses, definitely not.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 22, 2011)

Maybe Canon has something special in mind with the fixed lens idea? There's a picture of the Canonet 28 on the front page. Maybe that's a hint? Or a clue? or both? I hate it when CanonRumors teases us like this!

Perhaps Canon are planning a full frame replica of the Canonet? While the 28 (pictured) would be ok, I hope they do it properly and go with the QL17 or QL19 GIII. I wonder if they've still got the Canonet factory mothballed somewhere? They just have to dust off the cobwebs and work out how to whack in a 1DX sensor and an LCD and could be knocking these babies out in a few months. They'd sell like hotcakes!


----------



## LuckyRosco (Dec 22, 2011)

I have recently bought the Sony NEX-5N, I wanted something with better image quality than my G12 but smaller/lighter than my 5DMII & 7D. I think Canon is missing out on this Niche market. They wouldn't have to create a whole new lens line. Just use the EF-S mount and you'll have a instant line of quality lens for the new camera. They wouldn't have to make it compatible with the EF mount, because I doubt someone is going to attach a 70-200L II to something so small. 

I would just hope that the image quality is better than the NEX-5N. After comparing the camera against my 7D, the 7D beats it hands down in performance. Even with my 18-55 kit lens.


----------



## Doodah (Dec 22, 2011)

I think the single most important detail has been left out in CR guy's 3-point synopsis. Canon is contemplating releasing small mirrorless cameras in 2012 besides high-end DSLRs and compact cameras!!! The key considerations are the 3 points raised in CR guy's summary.

If one understands Mandarin, the following site provides a good translation from the original Japanese pdf article: http://forum.xitek.com/showthread.php?threadid=949600


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 22, 2011)

Well, the first thing to recognize is that EVIL/ILCs are being seen as "competition" for the market, and many of us have a vested interest in seeing no format change taking place. I do not think there is much to worry about, since professional and even consumer lenses for EF mount will not be replaced by an ILC camera.

It would be nice to have more choice, especially for people who mainly shoot just wide to medium telephoto where the lens size can be limited, in smaller bodies. I would caution that we aren't going to see much more quality in compacts without large sensors (which there isn't really any pressure to produce for this market) and large lenses; however the Nikon V1 / J1 demonstrate that you still can have high quality higher ISO shots with a smaller sensor, and even a bit more size in the lenses should allow for much greater quality than currently available in the compacts (assuming, however, that sample variation and mismatches are not going to plague ILCs as much as they do DSLRs - this seems easily tested for compacts at the factory, whereas with an ILC you don't know which lens it will end up being paired with).

One other note about the Nikon F mount adapter: An EF mount adapter for an ILC could restrict the minimum size of the ILC. The Nikon F mount space is notably smaller than EF mount (the film to flange distance is mostly irrelevant here) would either mean an adapter unit would hang below the camera, or it would restrict how small the ILC could be by a certain amount.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 22, 2011)

The questions are
- what are the advantages of a mirrorless design?
- Do I want to use one set of lenses for all cameras or am I willing to do things in parallel?

I see some advantages of mirrorless cameras and I want to use ONLY ONE LINE of LENSES.

I would like a camera which has the following three functions/application ranges:
- compact portable camera with a line of 3 or 4 pancake primes (17/24/40/80mm equiv and f/2.8 , perhaps the 40mm as f2.0) - a 17mm lens without the need to bend the light to allow a mirror to flip would be great!
- camera with good video features which can be used with my EF and EF-S glass
- "intelligent rear cap" for e.g. a EF-S 10-22 in the bag - always ready to shoot

This for let's say 1000 EUR with EF adaptor ... I don't want to sell my 40D cameras - they have great ergonomics and IQ.
7D is to expensive 60D is to plasticky for it's price, so the 600D might be a good addition to have video. But it lacks the compactness which comes with a proper mirrorless design and will be some interim solution.


----------



## ppucci (Dec 22, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> As well as satisfying the desires of 5D Mark II shooters that want a point and shoot with great IQ.



I am one 5D2 owner that would definitely buy a compact with a superb IQ without the need for it to swap lenses (like I have been considering the X100).


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 22, 2011)

> author=smirkypants link=topic=2542.msg54234#msg54234 date=1324509952]
> I think mirrorless is kind of gimmicky.


Whoever thinks that mirrorless is gimmicky is in for a surprise.
Whoever thinks that a mirrorless camera does not "need" interchangeable lenses might as well have said that cameras do not need interchangeable lenses.
The future of photography *is* mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses.
This will only change when zoom lenses outperform primes.


----------



## Woody (Dec 22, 2011)

Actually, some zooms do out-perform prime lenses.


----------



## elflord (Dec 22, 2011)

photosites said:


> The whole marketing hype of mirrorless cameras is the ability to have a camera with DSLR quality images at the size of the point and shoot. The closest camera to that promise the the GF3X, but that would mean to maintain that size profile, you will need to stick to pancakes or that one lens. Still the GF3X is bigger than the G12.
> 
> I have yet seen any photos comparing the NEX-5N + SEL 18-200mm vs DSLR. Would it really be that small?
> 
> If we could just take a step back from all that marketing hype that all the mirrorless camera manufacturers poured onto us and take a clear look at the true value proposition of mirrorless cameras, we would realize that this is still a highly un-established market segment. If not for their ability to use classic MF lenses, note that mirrorless lenses are often poor in quality and high in price. Now, do I want a collection of those lenses, definitely not.



It's true that mirrorless cameras aren't pocketable with a supertele, but then no camera is. 500gm for the 100-300mm panasonic (200-600mm equiv) doesn't seem too unreasonable. Canon's lenses in that focal length range aren't even hand holdable. 

It's true that there are some really bad lenses for mirrorless mounts. There are also some really bad lenses for Canon mounts. That's a reason not to buy those lenses, but not a reason to avoid that camera. 

There are some good lenses available for these mounts (e.g. pana 20mm f/1.7, oly 45mm f/1.8 and the oly 12mm)


----------



## gmrza (Dec 22, 2011)

elflord said:


> It's true that mirrorless cameras aren't pocketable with a supertele, but then no camera is. 500gm for the 100-300mm panasonic (200-600mm equiv) doesn't seem too unreasonable. Canon's lenses in that focal length range aren't even hand holdable.



Hence, there is a point, in terms of focal length, where the weight of the body becomes irrelevant. Many of Canon's tele and all Canon super-tele lenses are heavier than a DSLR body. Even the 85mm f/1.2 is roughly 25% heavier than a 5DmkII. Never mind a lens like a 400 f/2.8. When working with that kind of glass, trying to save weight on the camera body does not make sense, as it will do little to the overall weight of your equipment.

Thus, if my premise above holds, it probably only makes sense to try to produce quality glass to somewhere between 135mm and 200mm for a lightweight camera.

If Canon could thus build a camera with an APS-C sensor and a 15-85mm f/2-f/4 lens, I think that would cover 80%-90% of the potential applications for a lightweight camera. I know there would be cases where I would be limited by such a camera, but on the other hand, such a camera would satisfy my needs 90% of the time.

Would a mirrorless, interchangeable lens camera be nice? Absolutely. Would I think a lot longer about taking the plunge to a second system (in addition to EOS/EF)? Probably.

The flipside to this is how good a job the marketing departments of the manufacturers of CSCs do.

What I do know, however, is that I want a compact camera with a bigger sensor - preferably APS-C. I am less dogmatic about the need for interchangeable lenses. I am still waiting for something that really grabs my attention.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 22, 2011)

Woody said:


> Actually, some zooms do out-perform prime lenses.


Primes designed with technology a decade earlier, you mean.

Primes still have a compelling advantage for blur quality over zooms, as well.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 22, 2011)

gmrza said:


> Hence, there is a point, in terms of focal length, where the weight of the body becomes irrelevant. Many of Canon's tele and all Canon super-tele lenses are heavier than a DSLR body.


I think that, in order of importance, the limitations of a small sensor (which allows small glass to hit above its weight) are far more than the size of the glass. Sure, medium format glass doesn't have to perform as well as 35mm format glass, and compact cameras or lenses for small sensors must be even more finely prepared to compete with 35mm format glass - but right now the battle is mainly on the sensor side. Ask anybody who uses converted old glass; a lot of the old stuff still performs great (especially primes).


----------



## Dom (Dec 22, 2011)

Canon has a superb heritage where rangefinders are concerned, both in terms of lenses and bodies: a reincarnation of the Canon 7 would be quite something to behold â€“ although little more than wishful thinking, I suspect. However, I would love the idea of something replicating the build quality and style of the Canonet G-III 17: today a quality, fast, zoom could easily be manufactured into the space of the original f/1.7 lens.

Going back to the original post, I am one who would welcome a serious flagship PowerShot with open arms. Back in 2004 I purchased the PowerShot Pro 1 and while I acknowledge its various shortcomings, it was somewhat ahead of its time. To have an 8.3Mp CCD eight years ago was extraordinary, but the real piÃ¨ce de rÃ©sistance was the L-Series lens 7.2 - 50.8mm, f/2.4 - 3.5 zoom lens(35mm film equivalent: 28 - 200mm). 

I would rush out and buy an updated incarnation of the PowerShot Pro 1 and G12 . . . the Canonet GX sounds about right: a high IQ sensor, tilt-swivel screen, and an L-Series lens.

My Photoshop skills are not as good as they ought to be, but I have had a play at creating a mock-up â€“ I donâ€™t think camera design is a field I should get into! . . . .


----------



## Rexxer (Dec 22, 2011)

M-mount Canon please. 

What I love:

My M6
The form factor of a Leica (small, stealth, sexy)
My Leica lenses
The look of my 5D2's sensor

What I hate:

The look of the M9's sensor
The price of the M9
The reliability of the M9

I would love an M9 with Canon's chips and Canon's pricing.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 22, 2011)

Canon definitely needs something in this space. IMHO it is already a mistake that they do not have something out there. For a specific example I currently have a 5D2 and a 7D but still wanted a compact camera that is easier to carry around. Our current compact was a G11 but we recently replaced it with the X10. The X10 is a great little camera that the G11/G12 really can't compete against. It certainly does not have the high ISO of the 5D2 or the AF of the 7D but it does a very nice job for what it is. I recently took it to DisneyWorld - leaving my 5D2 + 7D behind - and it did a very nice job even in low light.

Personally, if one of my friends were to ask me for a camera recommendation and I knew they weren't interested in getting into photography - just taking pictures of their friends and trips - I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the X10 over a Rebel + kit lens.

I do not intend to replace my Canon SLR equipment (have a 1D-X on order) with a small camera - even an interchangeable lens one with a better viewfinder + high ISO, but a lot of Canon's business comes from the lower end of the market and they are quickly losing there.


----------



## RT (Dec 22, 2011)

kirispupis said:


> Canon definitely needs something in this space. IMHO it is already a mistake that they do not have something out there.
> 
> ...
> 
> Personally, if one of my friends were to ask me for a camera recommendation and I knew they weren't interested in getting into photography - just taking pictures of their friends and trips - I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the X10 over a Rebel + kit lens.



I can't necessarily agree with the first statement. The market isn't set; it's still fluid, and there are new buyers all the time. It would be a mistake for Canon to ignore or disregard the market, absolutely. But Canon doesn't _need_ to have something on the market, especially if it's just to have something on the market. I would prefer that Canon bring out a product that it really believes in and provides something new to the market and tangible benefits, rather than a me-to version of something or a half-baked product just to fill shelf space. Based on this interview, Canon seems to understand this and is going to go a different direction with its mirrorless offering.

I agree with the latter statement, though. I in fact did recommend to my brother and sister-in-law that they should get something like the X10/XZ-1 or a NEX-5 instead of a DSLR because it really better fit their needs (they admitted that they didn't want to carry around a big camera; they just wanted to take good photos of their daughter; they ended up getting the Sony A55 because they had it in their mind that "Getting a DSLR is just what you do." My sister-in-law's words, not mine). 




LuckyRosco said:


> They wouldn't have to create a whole new lens line. Just use the EF-S mount and you'll have a instant line of quality lens for the new camera.



I don't think that's really workable. Just getting rid of the mirror and keeping the flange back distance won't reduce the size of the camera much, if any. So if Canon wanted to make an interchangeable lens mirrorless camera system that had any advantage over their DSLR line, they'll have to reduce the flangeback distance. Lenses are designed to work with a certain distance to the sensor, however. Canon couldn't just cut the 44mm flange back distance on the EF-S mount and have those "legacy" lenses still work. If they cut the flange back distance, they'll need to introduce a whole new line of lenses to match, just like Sony had to do with the NEX line and Olympus/Panasonic had to do with Micro Four Thirds. In both Sony's and Olympus' cases, the sensor sizes stayed the same as their prior line (Alpha for Sony and Four Thirds for Olympus/Panasonic), but the shorter flange back distance necessitated new lenses.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 22, 2011)

I think all the current mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are "tweeners". They are neither big enough to be powerful and ergonomic nor small enough to be pocketable. So, if Canon wants to play, I think they need to make their system such that at least the kit lens and one prime can fold flat inside the body when the system is powered off, like the G-series and the S90/95/100 do. If they can't do that, then they should just released fixed zoom cameras like those two series with continuous improvements, and also release something like the EOS IX:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1996-2000/1996_eos-ix-e.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1996-2000


----------



## traveller (Dec 22, 2011)

There's a broad diversity of opinions here and in a way they're all correct. The reason for this is because what we're currently calling "mirrorless", "EVIL", "ILC", or whatever, will eventually be what we will call "cameras". Cameras exist today and existed in previous eras in many different formats and this will likely remain the case in the future. We are struggling to find a category to put these new system cameras in, because everyone wants them for something different and want different things from them. Some want small, pocketable cameras (the 'compact camera upgrader' and 'DSLR supplement' crowd), whilst others want larger, more ergonomic and capable cameras (the 'DSLR replacement' crowd). Neither of these positions is inherently wrong, but one camera (and perhaps even one system) is unlikely to satisfy both camps. 

Technology is approaching a point where even "professional" cameras will not need many of the mechanical trappings of the SLR heritage. So will mirrorless cameras replace DSLRs? Eventually, I think they will; once you've removed the need for the reflex system with ultra high resolution EVFs and on-sensor phase detect AF, why bother with a mirror - flappy or transluscent ? 

In this type of changing market, it is often those with less to lose that are able to move first, which is why I think that we're seeing the 'DSLR replacement' system camera from the likes of Panasonic and Samsung whilst the those with larger market shares in DSLRs have been slower moving. Once the 'big two' admit DSLRs are reaching the end of the road, they've given up their massive advantage in glass and also the competitve advantages that their competences in the mechanical side of cameras give them. This fear of game-change in the industry explains why Nikon went for the 1" sensor in the "1" system (cr*p name) and why Canon seems so paralysed with indecision.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Dec 22, 2011)

If we discount misinformation for competitors, then he's asking these rhetorical questions to hint at what's coming. My take:



> <li>Does a mirrorless camera really need interchangeable lenses?</li>



Their mirrorless contender will have a fixed zoom not interchangeable lenses. Faster in-camera processing of lens aberrations means it'll be easier to cram in that zoom lens and maintain picture quality.



> Can we make a compact or DSLR that can beat the mirrorless cameras? (they believe they have it)



They're attacking from both sides - DSLR for the interchangeable lens fans, compact with a zoom for everyone else.



> Higher sensitivity rather than high resolution (probably refers to quality over megapixels)





> It'll have relatively low resolution sensor and will be larger than the Nikon.



Keeping the camera small, with a zoom of around 24-70 at around f2.8 will mean no APS-C sensor; the lens will be bigger than they want. If Nikon and Pentax's small-sensored offerings do not do well then we can at least expect a larger sensor than these. Taking the hint of relatively low MP, the sensor will be based on a DSLR sensor but will be 'cropped'. How much will it be cropped? To a size that lets the camera & lens fit into a large pocket.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 23, 2011)

traveller said:


> once you've removed the need for the reflex system with ultra high resolution EVFs and on-sensor phase detect AF, why bother with a mirror - flappy or transluscent ?



So your viewfinder has no lag, doesn't suck your battery dry, works in extremely low light, and doesn't ruin your dark adaptation while doing it.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 23, 2011)

Hesbehindyou said:


> They're attacking from both sides - DSLR for the interchangeable lens fans, compact with a zoom for everyone else.


Keeping the status quo is not "attacking."


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 23, 2011)

traveller said:


> Once you've replaced the reflex system with a high resolution EVF and on-sensor phase detect AF, why bother with a mirror.


I agree 100%.
I would add Sony to your list of companies showing the way.
The next revolution will come in form of light and compact nano glass.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2011)

Why bother with a mirror? Wow....

If you try burst mode and af between frames on a A77 and 7D, that will answer your question. The day I can't by a camera with optical VF, it's the day I find another hobby. The EVF suck.... Plus, the way Sony have done it is by reducing the amount of light in by 30%, yeah, that's what we need for photo, LESS light....

Why are we so desperate to get rid of the mirror? You don't buy a 1-series Canon despite of it's size and weight and mirror and af and FF, you buy it because of all those things. The hybrids are glorified lens-caps.

For those who just don't get the advantage of a mirror and Phase-AF, there's always a NEX or a GF3, but to claim we should loose the mirror-system all together is a completely two-cans-short-of a six-pack-statement...


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Dec 23, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Hesbehindyou said:
> 
> 
> > They're attacking from both sides - DSLR for the interchangeable lens fans, compact with a zoom for everyone else.
> ...



Meh, thought the context made it obvious what I meant. I should have made it explicit I was talking about the new camera from Canon, the one designed to take on the mirrorless cameras.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 23, 2011)

LuckyRosco said:


> They wouldn't have to make it compatible with the EF mount, because I doubt someone is going to attach a 70-200L II to something so small.



... they might want to attach the 17-40 or 24-105.


----------



## traveller (Dec 23, 2011)

Viggo said:


> Why bother with a mirror? Wow....
> 
> If you try burst mode and af between frames on a A77 and 7D, that will answer your question. The day I can't by a camera with optical VF, it's the day I find another hobby. The EVF suck.... Plus, the way Sony have done it is by reducing the amount of light in by 30%, yeah, that's what we need for photo, LESS light....
> 
> ...



You're talking about current technology; at the current state-of-the-art, I agree with you. Let's not forget that plenty of these arguments were used in the film to digital transition. EVFs are only just reaching the stage where they can be considered as viable alternatives to OVFs on low to mid-range DSLR type cameras and on chip phase detect AF is currently in its first generation. As time goes on these technologies will progress until (I believe) their advantages will outweigh the benefits of current systems for the majority of users. I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, or even in the next few years, but I think that day will eventually come.


----------



## pulpok (Dec 23, 2011)

*Canon on a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera*

I own a G11 and a Sx230 as backup and for HD video clips.

What annoys me with the G11 is 

.) the whole AF system (compared to Nikon-V1)
.) Distortion at wide angle (can be undone with adobe LR)
.) IQ @ low light (eg Sensor too small)
.) the lack of a B/Bulb mode 
.) video AF (don't take many vids)

What I like with my G11:

.) metallic tripod screw thread
.) speedlight flashmount (for using DSLR grade flashes)
.) plug for external trigger (combined with bean bag or tripod)
.) IQ @ daylight (satisfies for non-professional pictures)
.) RAW (for using "extra stuff" with LR)
.) solid accu (as compared to a SX230 eg)
.) dial for EV+/-2 (menu just too tricky) 
.) ISO dial (same reason)

So if Canon decides to rig the current G serie to state-of-the-art AF and improve IQ in terms of noise and distortion then that would perfectly make sense and could be sold up to 100-200 $ more then the actual G12.


----------



## ecka (Dec 23, 2011)

I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.
I do like the idea of mirrorless cameras, but I'm against compromising the IQ and ergonomics while making them pocketable. I like to use LiveView for landscapes, portraits and macro (I'm not an action shooter really). Make it FF in a decent size body with all the buttons and wheels + nice vari-angle LCD + big and powerful battery + wireless flash control + some lens adapters - and I'll buy it.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Dec 23, 2011)

ecka said:


> I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" ... Photography is not about putting things in your pockets.



"DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" is another way of saying "high IQ camera in a pocket".

Don't worry if you don't see the attraction; most people don't see the attraction of a full frame body and massive lenses just to take snaps of each other at parties, nights out etc that'll be displayed on a computer monitor. It's a horses for courses thing.


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 23, 2011)

ecka said:


> I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.



If it's not in my pocket, it doesn't go everywhere with me. Period.

If it has to be in a bag, it makes no difference to me if it's small or big - might as well take my 5D and L-glass.


----------



## ecka (Dec 23, 2011)

Hesbehindyou said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" ... Photography is not about putting things in your pockets.
> ...





Lee Jay said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.
> ...


I'm sure that if it was possible to make a small mirrorless camera with a large sensor (APS-C) and smal f/2.8 zoom which could fit in a pocket, then it would have been done already. Don't you think? You can always make a pinhole in your DSLR body cap and call it pocketable .


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 23, 2011)

ecka said:


> I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice).



I don't see any caveat of "small lens with high IQ" - a camera without mirror box allow more variability for the lens designer: Modern (D)SLRs lenses need to shift the image behind the last lens element to allow the mirror to flip up without colliding with some parts of the lens. This means a lot more lenses and a lot more special features of glasses and shapes.

Think about the good compact cams with a 2.8 35mm which had a better quality compared to some expensive lenses and the advantage of just 4 lens groups: Great contralight capabilities and great contrast. With single layer coatings! Think about a 6 lens 4 group double gaussian lens with 30 mm focal length, 2.8 max aperture and an optimized multilayer coating, perhaps with special glass or one aspheric surface - this would outperform the best lenses today for SLRs, I am shure.

So a mirrorless would need a special bayonet, e.g. EF-XS. But if Canon adds an EF converter you will have the freedom of choice between an old style compact APS-C cam or a mirrorless cam with a 2.8 100 MACRO lens to do some table top work. And Canon should add the EF to EF-XS converter to the body for let's say 100 EUR/$.


----------



## ecka (Dec 23, 2011)

mb66energy said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice).
> ...


It' not like I don't believe you (my 50/1.8II has only 6 elements in 5 groups and it's fine), but how do you compare? How do you know that it would outperform the best lenses today? I'm sure it's more complicated than that. Digital imaging sensors are different from film. Small distance between lens and sensor results in IQ degradation of image corners, because the light is falling at a bigger angle.
I like small fast (f/2 at least) primes, but those are not small enough to be called pocketable when mounted on camera. IMHO f/2.8+ primes are not that fast (not talking about UWA or tele, just 24mm - 85mm), but if the IQ/price ratio is good, then I would buy some (while the reason of purchase would be price, not size).


> So a mirrorless would need a special bayonet, e.g. EF-XS. But if Canon adds an EF converter you will have the freedom of choice between an old style compact APS-C cam or a mirrorless cam with a 2.8 100 MACRO lens to do some table top work. And Canon should add the EF to EF-XS converter to the body for let's say 100 EUR/$.


Adapting lenses is one of the major features I like about mirrorless cameras.


----------



## elflord (Dec 24, 2011)

ecka said:


> I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.
> I do like the idea of mirrorless cameras, but I'm against compromising the IQ and ergonomics while making them pocketable. I like to use LiveView for landscapes, portraits and macro (I'm not an action shooter really). Make it FF in a decent size body with all the buttons and wheels + nice vari-angle LCD + big and powerful battery + wireless flash control + some lens adapters - and I'll buy it.



Thankfully, the products are there to keep both camps happy, and there are legitimate uses for both. My GF2 does fit (with a big bulge) in a pants pocket with the 20mm f/1.7, and fits more easily in a jacket or cargo pants pocket. Of course the GF series made some compromises (in ergonomics and later in features) to push the size down. The larger cameras like Panasonics G3 or GH series are more ergonomic.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 24, 2011)

Woody said:


> Actually, some zooms do out-perform prime lenses.


You mean that some zooms out-perform some prime lenses.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 24, 2011)

Viggo said:


> The way Sony have done it is by reducing the amount of light in by 30%


That is correct on their older Alpha series with TMT (Translucent Mirror Technology), but it's wrong on their NEX series which uses no mirror at all, unless you use the adapter with phase detection AF sensor for older A-mount lenses.


----------



## ecka (Dec 24, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, some zooms do out-perform prime lenses.
> ...


I think it's more like "some primes are really bad and most zooms are even worse than those"


----------



## ecka (Dec 24, 2011)

elflord said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the "high IQ camera in a pocket", but I don't understand the "DSLR alternative in a pocket" or "big sensor + small lens, to make it fit in a pocket" (which, I think, isn't possible without IQ sacrifice). Photography is not about putting things in your pockets. Nice small camera bag is a much better way to carry your fragile, expensive, dust and moisture sensitive photographic equipment.
> ...


Well, I doubt that Canon would start making M4/3 cameras 
APS-C sensor is a bit larger than M4/3 (like 25% larger image circle) while FF has around 4 times larger sensor area, therefore lenses must be larger too.
M4/3 are nice cameras, but I think that Sony NEX are better. However, I don't find myself comfortable with their controls, menus, accessories and style.


----------



## moreorless (Dec 25, 2011)

One observation I'd make for the fixed/interchangble lens arguement for mirrorless is the relative body and lens sales of these system. The various m43 systems, The NEX's etc bodies are selling pretty well, not aswell as DSLR's but there in the same ballpark but the same isnt true for lenses at all where Canon, Nikon and to a lesser degree Sony's conventional SLR lenses still dominate.

To me that says that the real drive in the growth of the mirrorless market isnt so much based on users who want speicalists lenses but rather those who want superior IQ to that offer on compacts.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 25, 2011)

moreorless said:


> One observation I'd make for the fixed/interchangble lens arguement for mirrorless is the relative body and lens sales of these system. The various m43 systems, The NEX's etc bodies are selling pretty well, not aswell as DSLR's but there in the same ballpark but the same isnt true for lenses at all where Canon, Nikon and to a lesser degree Sony's conventional SLR lenses still dominate.
> 
> To me that says that the real drive in the growth of the mirrorless market isnt so much based on users who want speicalists lenses but rather those who want superior IQ to that offer on compacts.


Canon should find ways to get FAST AF (like Nikon V1 ) build an APS-C sensor compact mirrorless with just 2 or 3 small basic lenses and a EF/EF-S adapter. This will get Canon on the map of mirrorless.


----------



## moreorless (Dec 25, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Canon should find ways to get FAST AF (like Nikon V1 ) build an APS-C sensor compact mirrorless with just 2 or 3 small basic lenses and a EF/EF-S adapter. This will get Canon on the map of mirrorless.



They could but its a very crowded market where as like I said I see larger sensor fixed lens mirrorless as a fertile and as yet largely untapped market.

Personally I'm supprized it took so long for any of the big guns to move beyond the typical 1/1.7″ sensor thats been in high end compacts/bridges for years considering how intense conmpetision has been. Not only does it potentially offer what I believe the majority of users are after in a smaller/cheaper package but ties the manifacturer down far less than an interchangeble lens system does.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 25, 2011)

moreorless said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should find ways to get FAST AF (like Nikon V1 ) build an APS-C sensor compact mirrorless with just 2 or 3 small basic lenses and a EF/EF-S adapter. This will get Canon on the map of mirrorless.
> ...


Canon should "upsize" the S100 give it a 4/3 sensor and throw in FAST AF at the same time. Something like that will satisfy most of the people: large sensor, fast lens, reasonable zoom range, pocketable. Hopefully, the price will be reasonable too.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 26, 2011)

I am looking for a high resolution, high ISO, full frame mirrorless DSLE with a high quality EVF. I would prefer to buy it from a company with a wide choice of excellent lenses. I would like to buy it from Canon since I already have a wide choice of their excellent full frame lenses. But first I would like Canon to copy Sony's brilliant Tri-Nav controls and incorporate focus peaking, panorama, HDR and a few goodies of their own.


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 26, 2011)

A live view only 5Dm2 would be interesting. I wonder how much thinner they could make it though?


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 26, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> A live view only 5Dm2 would be interesting. I wonder how much thinner they could make it though?


If you leave out the full frame mirror you save approximately one inch. If you hook up a pair of projection eye glasses it might make an cool street camera.


----------



## ecka (Dec 26, 2011)

moreorless said:


> To me that says that the real drive in the growth of the mirrorless market isnt so much based on users who want speicalists lenses but rather those who want superior IQ to that offer on compacts.


... as well as those who don't need the OVF, mirror, PDAF and extra price for these things they never use.
Not making it an interchangeable lens camera would be a big mistake.


----------



## Meh (Dec 26, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:



> Caps18 said:
> 
> 
> > A live view only 5Dm2 would be interesting. I wonder how much thinner they could make it though?
> ...



If it would still be FF and use an EF mount then wouldn't the flange to sensor distance have to remain the same? I believe it would and, if so, then they could not make the body any thinner by removing the mirror.


----------



## ecka (Dec 26, 2011)

Meh said:


> Bengt Nyman said:
> 
> 
> > Caps18 said:
> ...


Yes they could, the EF lens adapter would keep your lens at the right distance.


----------



## Meh (Dec 26, 2011)

ecka said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Bengt Nyman said:
> ...



True, good point. Then the real advantage of the thinner body would still be with lenses specifically designed for it that do not need the adapter. When using EF lenses it's a tradeoff between having a thinner body but having to use an adapter. Nice to have choices though.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 26, 2011)

Meh said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly ! We did it !


----------



## Meh (Dec 26, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Exactly ! We did it !



Did what? Sorry, am I missing something?


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 26, 2011)

Meh said:


> Did what? Sorry, am I missing something?


You are not missing anything. I was just celebrating that we reached a consensus.


----------



## moreorless (Dec 27, 2011)

ecka said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > To me that says that the real drive in the growth of the mirrorless market isnt so much based on users who want speicalists lenses but rather those who want superior IQ to that offer on compacts.
> ...



My point is that I think the hype and the reality of the mirrorless market maybe very different. The hype is that mirrorless is replacing the DSLR but I suspect the reality is more than its created a market of its own between DSLR's and compacts. Users who don't nesserally want speicalists lenses but do want the extra image quality/ISO performance of a larger sensor.

A "super G series" could potentially offer those users the image quality they want and the single lens they want with greater range/appature than an interchangeble system in a smaller package.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 27, 2011)

moreorless said:


> A "super G series" ,,, the image quality they want and the single lens they want ,,,


The reason why mirrorless EVF technology will be replacing the SLR in essentially all camera categories is because that technology offers superior performance, size and price. A few action sports photographers will hang on to their mirror boxes until sensor based follow focus outperforms DSLR phase detect. To try to pigeon hole mirrorless into some little camera sub-category is not going to stop its advancement through the camera ranks.
Of course all cameras competing for flexibility and IQ should have interchangeable lenses.
If anything should be pigeon holed into a low IQ camera category it is the fixed lens.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 27, 2011)

Why not go this route with ff sensor?

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/cameras/fuji-gf670-medium-format-camera.html


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 27, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Why not go this route with ff sensor? http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/cameras/fuji-gf670-medium-format-camera.html


Because the bellows is today built into the lens.


----------



## Meh (Dec 27, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > A "super G series" ,,, the image quality they want and the single lens they want ,,,
> ...



It will when there remains no compelling reason for the flipping mirror. You may not have meant it that way but your comment betrays itself in stating that mirrorless offers superior performance but immediately follow with an example where it does not (yet). It's not just action sports photographers, anyone who wants to get the best shots of anything that moves (e.g. kids, dogs, cars) will do better with a decent phase-detect AF.

But yes, mirrorless cameras don't need to be pigeon holed as low IQ cameras.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 27, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > A "super G series" ,,, the image quality they want and the single lens they want ,,,
> ...


Unfortunately, as it is now, EVF is still pretty slow in response to the change of scenery and being expensive. There is only one camea that is with the built in EVF (Fuji X100). The rest are add on EVF externally. That will make the camera bigger. Also the focusing speed of the "mirrorless" are slow, compare to the DSLR. In other word we may still need to live with the mirror for a few more years. 
As for fixed mirror equals to low IQ. I am totally disagree on it. If you look back into the history of camera, there are many camera that are with fixed lens with IQ to be better than interchangeablelens camera of the same time. Just to name a few: Rollieflex, Rolliecord, Retina etc. The IQ depends how the lens is made (and hence pricing), not whether it is fixed or not.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 27, 2011)

Rocky said:


> The IQ depends how the lens is made ,,, not whether it is fixed or not.


Of course. That's why I said flexibility and IQ.
With interchangeable lenses you usually have several superior lenses to choose from.
I consider that an advantage.
You mention Fuji X100. That may be why you do not yet share my enthusiasm for EVF. Take a look at a Sony NEX 7


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 27, 2011)

Meh said:


> ,,, your comment betrays itself in stating that mirrorless offers superior performance but immediately follow with an example where it does not.


You are misusing the word betray. I said that mirrorless already offers superior performance *EXCEPT* in case of action sports photography. I think most people understand that refers to fast moving targets, be it an athlete, a kid, a dog or a car.


----------



## ecka (Dec 27, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > ,,, your comment betrays itself in stating that mirrorless offers superior performance but immediately follow with an example where it does not.
> ...


Mirrorless with fast enough AF (CDAF or maybe something new) and EVF (with no perceptible lag) has a huge potential and I think that it will replace DSLRs in the future. Imagine 20fps continuous burst and even more while using electronic shutter (if the ghosting problems will be resolved that is  ).
EVF has some advantages already
- easy exposure and WB control due to real time image simulation;
- EVF can be used for filming;
- 100% viewfinder coverage even in low end cameras;
- focus peaking feature for manual focusing through the EVF;
- removing mirror and pentaprism makes some space for other useful things, like dedicated CPU for that super fast EVF  ;
- FF would be easily compatible with EF-S lenses (in crop mode);
- probably there are even more pros., feel free to add some


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 27, 2011)

ecka said:


> feel free to add some more


Excellent, somebody has seen the light.
Mirrorless also means:
Focus is done on the image sensor, not on a secondary sensor which is subject to location tolerances and thermal displacement. This means more accurate and reliable focus.
No mirror dynamics and vibrations during exposure.
No mirror noise.
Light measurement is done live on the image sensor.
Light measurement, aperture, exposure time and ISO settings are reflected live in the EVF image. You see a true, interactive preview of the picture before to take it.
Electronic first and second curtain shutter, coming soon to a camera near you, means no moving shutter parts, no shutter vibrations, no noise and no wear.

That was just to name a few more.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 28, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > The IQ depends how the lens is made ,,, not whether it is fixed or not.
> ...





Bengt Nyman said:


> If anything should be pigeon holed into a low IQ camera category it is the fixed lens.


The above quote is you exact word.


----------



## Meh (Dec 28, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > ,,, your comment betrays itself in stating that mirrorless offers superior performance but immediately follow with an example where it does not.
> ...



I did preface my response by saying "you may not have meant it that way" because I felt you had some good points but were stretching a bit. Unfortunately, your original comment didn't have the "*EXCEPT*" in it that you now add. 

Your exact comment was:

"because that technology offers superior performance, size and price." [notice the full stop here] You then went on to say "A *few* action sports photographers will hang on to their mirror boxes until sensor based follow focus outperforms DSLR phase detect."

I doubt most people take "a few action sports photographers" to include people who shoot their kids or dog running around the park. Some boudoir photographers might like the fast AF too, oh wait that could be an action sport too. ;D


----------



## moreorless (Dec 28, 2011)

What mirrorless may become and what it is today are two very different propositions, today I think its clear that most users who want multiple speicalist lenses still preffer DSLR's. As I said my feeling is that alot of its sucess is based on the lack of larger sensor fixed lens alternatives.

You could argue that Canon would be better served by "getting on the horse" but equally I think you could argue that by holding off there giving themselves more flexibility. Much of the tech for an interchangeble lens system can be tested and perfected on a fixed lens system afterall and it means Canon isnt tied to a certain sensor size/lens mount long term in what is still a fast changing market.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 28, 2011)

moreorless said:


> What mirrorless may become and what it is today are two very different propositions, today I think its clear that most users who want multiple speicalist lenses still preffer DSLR's. As I said my feeling is that alot of its sucess is based on the lack of larger sensor fixed lens alternatives.
> 
> You could argue that Canon would be better served by "getting on the horse" but equally I think you could argue that by holding off there giving themselves more flexibility. Much of the tech for an interchangeble lens system can be tested and perfected on a fixed lens system afterall and it means Canon isnt tied to a certain sensor size/lens mount long term in what is still a fast changing market.


Agree. until Canon can give us Fast AF on non-DSLR bodies. It makes no sense for Canon to jump into "large sensor" "mirrorless". Technically, Canon is already in "mirrorless" with the "G" and "S" series.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 28, 2011)

moreorless said:


> I think that most users who want multiple lenses still prefer DSLR's. A lot of its success is based on the lack of larger sensor fixed lens alternatives.


The fact that most high IQ cameras have interchangeable lenses is because it gives both manufacturer and user more flexibility. Imagine that most cameras had fixed lenses. The camera manufacturer would have to offer at least a dozen different versions of each camera type. Not to speak of us poor users. I would have to carry six cameras with fixed lenses to many of the events. 
If you are that enamored with fixed lenses, just leave yours on.


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Dec 28, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Until Canon can give us Fast AF on non-DSLR bodies. It makes no sense for Canon to jump into "large sensor" "mirrorless". Technically, Canon is already in "mirrorless" with the "G" and "S" series.


Don't forget the landscape and studio camera market. It needs a large, high IQ sensor with accurate, interactive preview, accurate rather than fast focus, and it benefits greatly from freedom of mirror and shutter vibrations.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 28, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Until Canon can give us Fast AF on non-DSLR bodies. It makes no sense for Canon to jump into "large sensor" "mirrorless". Technically, Canon is already in "mirrorless" with the "G" and "S" series.
> ...


It will be interesting to see an APS-C (or smaller sensor) mirrorless to be use by landscape and studio photographer.


----------



## moreorless (Dec 28, 2011)

Bengt Nyman said:


> The fact that most high IQ cameras have interchangeable lenses is because it gives both manufacturer and user more flexibility. Imagine that most cameras had fixed lenses. The camera manufacturer would have to offer at least a dozen different versions of each camera type. Not to speak of us poor users. I would have to carry six cameras with fixed lenses to many of the events.
> If you are that enamored with fixed lenses, just leave yours on.



My point was that the low sales of mirrorless lenses suggest that the majority of the market are not interested in flexability but rather image quality. If a mirrorless kit lens is good enough for them then a fixed lens that likely has a superior zoom range, better appature and more macro ability will be aswell.

They would miss out on some business but equally they may well gain some from users who don't want the hassel of multiple lenses aswell as a potentially more pocketable camera. Whats more they wouldnt end up stepping on the feet of there own DSLR business


----------



## ecka (Dec 28, 2011)

moreorless said:


> My point was that the low sales of mirrorless lenses suggest that the majority of the market are not interested in flexability but rather image quality. If a mirrorless kit lens is good enough for them then a fixed lens that likely has a superior zoom range, better appature and more macro ability will be aswell.
> 
> They would miss out on some business but equally they may well gain some from users who don't want the hassel of multiple lenses aswell as a potentially more pocketable camera. Whats more they wouldnt end up stepping on the feet of there own DSLR business


...or maybe sales are low because those lenses are not good enough. Another reason - many users are adapting cheap old manual lenses like Canon FD or M42, while others are using their expensive Leica M lenses. Could someone share some numbers on mirrorless lens adapters sales?


----------



## bobquincy (Dec 28, 2011)

After 10 years of Canon dSLRs (from D30 to Rebel Xsi) I got tired of waiting for Canon to produce a smaller/lighter system (could be mirrorless or not) and bought into a Panasonic micro 4/3 system to replace my dSLRs. I have a Canon G11 and it is a nice camera but image quality is nowhere near the Panasonic G3, it is probably just a limitation of the sensor size.

On a recent trip I used focal lengths from 7 to 175 (35mm equivalent of 14-350). It is unlikely that a fixed lens camera can offer anywhere near this range, none do yet (that I am aware of). Another lens that is in my plans is a f/1.7 or faster, no P&S offers this plus a zoom lens. Again, the G series are good cameras but can't offer the flexibility of interchangeable lens cameras.

A super G appears to be a real niche camera, appealing to a small group who want good image quality and are ok with a small zoom range and limited aperture. They will probably have to accept power zoom too. If the price is anywhere near that of a good micro 4/3 I can't see Canon selling many of these and that is why I doubt Canon will produce such a camera. I would be glad if they did though, more choices is always good!

Size and weight matter, carrying the G3 and three lenses was far less bulk than my Rebel and 2 lenses. As for myself, Canon will have to make something a lot like a micro 4/3 to get my business back, now that I have switched to Panasonic I really like it.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 28, 2011)

moreorless said:


> Bengt Nyman said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that most high IQ cameras have interchangeable lenses is because it gives both manufacturer and user more flexibility. Imagine that most cameras had fixed lenses. The camera manufacturer would have to offer at least a dozen different versions of each camera type. Not to speak of us poor users. I would have to carry six cameras with fixed lenses to many of the events.
> ...


That is exactly the reason why I have suggested Canon should upsize the S100. Give it a 4/3 sensor, FAST AF, Keep f2.0 at wide side,make it faster at tele with a better lens at the same time.


----------



## John MARK (Dec 28, 2011)

On some occasions, *shutter noise* is pretty much annoying : when trying to shoot "natural" situations at a family meeting, at a classical music concert etc.

I tried the Panasonic G3 and Sony NEX-5 and was very disappointed to hear such noisy shutters on both cameras, actually quite similar to a 60D's clicks.

So for unobtrusive shooting, I'll keep my trusty G12 until Canon comes out with something significantly better in terms of IQ AND just as silent in operation, with articulated screen of course and maybe a 6x or 7x zoom (interchangeable lenses not needed for that type of camera).


----------



## moreorless (Dec 29, 2011)

Rocky said:


> That is exactly the reason why I have suggested Canon should upsize the S100. Give it a 4/3 sensor, FAST AF, Keep f2.0 at wide side,make it faster at tele with a better lens at the same time.



For something the size of the S series I'd guess the lens would be prohibtively large with a sensor that size. They could I spose go with a prime or a shorter zoom but the G series seems better suited to upping the sensor size.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 29, 2011)

moreorless said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > That is exactly the reason why I have suggested Canon should upsize the S100. Give it a 4/3 sensor, FAST AF, Keep f2.0 at wide side,make it faster at tele with a better lens at the same time.
> ...


"G" is a betetr handling camera with a handgrip. You are right. Thta will allow the lens to stick out slightly from the body. Give it a shorter range zoom will help to keep it smaller also.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 29, 2011)

SWMBO has a G12 because she prefers the more chunky feel to the thin S100. She also stipulated that an optical viewfinder was essential


----------



## Bengt Nyman (Jan 9, 2012)

Rocky said:


> "large sensor" "mirrorless".
> It will be interesting to see an APS-C (or smaller sensor) mirrorless to be use by landscape and studio photographer.


Large sensor means full frame or larger.


----------

