# Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 2, 2012)

```
<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/2012/07/canon-mirrorless-information-cr1-2/"></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/2012/07/canon-mirrorless-information-cr1-2/" 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/2012/07/canon-mirrorless-information-cr1-2/"></a></div>
<strong>A bit of information


</strong>With Canon’s expected foray into the mirrorless segment <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/06/announcement-day-july-23-2012-cr2/" target="_blank">just around the corner</a>, a bit more information has started to flow.</p>
<p><strong>Lenses


</strong>We’re told the new camera is in fact a new mount, I think most expected this. The camera will launch with at least 2 lenses and an EF adaptor. One lens will be a wide angle “kit” lens as well as a telephoto lens.</p>
<p>No word on whether or not the EF adaptor would also adapt EF-S lenses, though I would hope it did.</p>
<p>It is also suggested that the new primes that Canon has announced and released (24, 28, & 40mm) are the <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_aps-c_compact.html" target="_blank">first in a series of small prime lenses</a> meant to work well with EOS EF and the mirrorless camera.</p>
<p><strong>Body


</strong>Information about the body itself is pretty vague. It’s still suggested the camera will use the 14mp CMOS G1 X sensor. A “good” ISO range and “average” video performance. A video focused camera could be “in the future”.</p>
<p><strong>EF Lens Adaptor


</strong>We have posted a couple of patents in the past about such an adaptor. You can view them <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/03/first-canon-mirrorless-related-patent/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/07/canon-mirrorless-related-patent/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>Northlight has posted a <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_aps-c_compact.html" target="_blank">cool little diagram</a> showing the size of the EF adaptor in comparison to the new EF 40 f/2.8 pancake.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 2, 2012)

Interested to see what actually comes out...


----------



## trulandphoto (Jul 2, 2012)

Not sure I understand the point of having the pancake be larger (with adapter) on a mirrorless than it is on a 5D. But then, I'm sure the aim is to sell the lenses with the new mount.


----------



## preppyak (Jul 2, 2012)

trulandphoto said:


> Not sure I understand the point of having the pancake be larger (with adapter) on a mirrorless than it is on a 5D. But then, I'm sure the aim is to sell the lenses with the new mount.


Well, remember that a 5D would still be twice the size of a likely mirrorless camera, so even if the lens sticks out a little more, its still more portable on the mirrorless camera.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 2, 2012)

Disappointment... :-[

BTW, Does anyone know what the crop factor would be on the sensor?


----------



## RJ_4000 (Jul 2, 2012)

I just hope the picture on Northlight is not accurate !
If it is, it looks like one won't be able to mount Leica M compatible lenses on those camera...
Well, I hope they plan an FD adapter though (still have a lot of fun with FD 80-200 4L and FD 85 1.2L with my NEX7).

Raoul


----------



## Flake (Jul 2, 2012)

The G1X is an amazing little camera, capable of image quality the equal of any crop frame DSLR and that far behind the 5D MkII, it's easily of commercial quality. The qualm I have with this mirrorless camera is why would I buy it? The G1X has a superb lens and any 'EVIL' offering would have to be at least as good to produce similar IQ, will two lenses be enough to tempt buyers away from a fixed lens which performs so well?

So there are the reservations, here's what I'd need to see to make any kind of temptation realistic:

Better autofocus - the achilles heel of the G1X, it's just too slow & basic
Better Flash control - again it's very basic
Decent close focus - because no matter how you try switching between normal & macro is a PITA
Microphone In - probably not a major biggie for many but external mics are as needed as a flash for video
Manual Zoom - I HATE the power zoom ! (I'm it will have this)

I'm sure that the range of lenses will increase and that the whole range will be covered, but I will have to see the focal range covered by the two at launch before I make any decision.


----------



## elflord (Jul 2, 2012)

Flake said:


> The G1X is an amazing little camera, capable of image quality the equal of any crop frame DSLR and that far behind the 5D MkII, it's easily of commercial quality. The qualm I have with this mirrorless camera is why would I buy it?



To begin with, one can adapt EF lenses and use the kit. Then add lenses as they are released, though one would want to see the road map to verify that this would work.

Some users with a large collection of EF mount lenses might find it appealing. Personally I prefer to use a system with a better range of native lenses.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 2, 2012)

Hope it will have FAST AF. Nikon has it, Olympus has it. If Canon does not have it it will be a big flop. Or canon can come up with a good range finder and View finder and becomes a poor man's shrunk M9.


----------



## Chewy734 (Jul 2, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Disappointment... :-[
> 
> BTW, Does anyone know what the crop factor would be on the sensor?



1.85x, I think.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 2, 2012)

Rocky said:


> Hope it will have FAST AF. Nikon has it, Olympus has it. If Canon does not have it it will be a big flop. Or canon can come up with a good range finder and View finder and becomes a poor man's shrunk M9.



...or, you could mount a Shorty McForty to a 5DIII and get a rich man's chunky X2....

b&


----------



## Rocky (Jul 2, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Hope it will have FAST AF. Nikon has it, Olympus has it. If Canon does not have it it will be a big flop. Or canon can come up with a good range finder and View finder and becomes a poor man's shrunk M9.
> ...


The major advantage of mirrorless is to make it smaller than the DSLR and eliminate the mirror bounce. Your proposal goes the opposite way.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 2, 2012)

Chewy734 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Disappointment... :-[
> ...



Along this same line. I've never known if the G1X sensor is any different than the 18mp APS-C sensor chopped down to a slightly different aspect ratio. Any of the techies out there able to offer some insight?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Along this same line. I've never known if the G1X sensor is any different than the 18mp APS-C sensor chopped down to a slightly different aspect ratio. Any of the techies out there able to offer some insight?



that pretty much nails it, AFAIK. Same sensor, from a technological standpoint, as the current 18 MP APS-C bodies (7D, 60D, T2i-T4i), just stamped on the wafer at a 4:3 aspect ratio instead of 3:2.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 2, 2012)

Rocky said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



True. But, except for body size, my proposal also solves each and every one of the problems mirrorless cameras have, and it solves them in spades.

b&


----------



## preppyak (Jul 2, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> True. But, except for body size, my proposal also solves each and every one of the problems mirrorless cameras have, and it solves them in spades.


Right, but size is one of, if not THE, main reason to go mirror less. An NEX and a 17mm pancake weight like 1/3 of your combo, and are < 1/2 the size. If you're lugging that long distances, or have limited space, it becomes a big deal.

It's like someone asking for recommendations for a wide-angle lens and you telling them to get the 85mm f/1.2. Sure, it's a beautiful lens, but, it doesn't meet the needs in any way.


----------



## Ivar (Jul 2, 2012)

All that sounds like "me too" in a crowded place. Why would anyone buy a Canon version of the same?
Mediocre high ISO, less DR than competition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2012)

Ivar said:


> less DR than competition.



DR again...what exactly is that, anyway?


----------



## zim (Jul 2, 2012)

Looks like canon are about to disappoint, I just don’t see the point unless it’s a poor man’s M9 that to me was Canon’s opportunity. 550D and a 40 pancake sounds like a better proposition and if you can’t carry that up a hill you shouldn’t be going up hills!  ;D


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 2, 2012)

preppyak said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > True. But, except for body size, my proposal also solves each and every one of the problems mirrorless cameras have, and it solves them in spades.
> ...



My point is that there are always compromises. If you want a small and cheap camera, you're not going to get one that's going to perform as well in low light as a 5DIII, you're not going to get a viewfinder like the one in the 5DIII, you're not going to be able to get as shallow a depth of field as with a 5DIII, you're not going to get an autofocus system like the 5DIII has, you're not going to be able to mount and use lenses to their full potential the same way a 5DIII can, you're not going to have flash options like you have on a 5DIII, you're not going to be able to use manual focus as gracefully as you can on a 5DIII, and on and on and on and on.

Yet, those are the exact complaints i keep hearing over and over and over again about mirrorless in general and Canon's hypothetical mirrorless option in particular.

So, at some point, you're going to have to suck it up. Either put up with a camera that doesn't come close to a 5DIII, or stick the Shorty McForty on the 5DIII and deal with a few extra ounces of weight and a few extra cubic inches of space. And, really, unless you're on an Everest expedition or a Shuttle launch, that extra weight and size is nothing more than an inconvenience. Or, admit that convenience is more important than photography and take snapshots with the toy camera and stop worrying that it's not as good as what you could have gotten with a real camera.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, after all.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Gennadiy (Jul 2, 2012)

Isn't this just the first of the 3 mirrorless cameras from Canon? This is supposed to be the cheapest one, so I don't want to get my hopes up in terms of sensor size. 
I hope the lenses are going to be good though.


----------



## traveller (Jul 2, 2012)

Two slow 'kit' lenses (let's hope that thet are at least collapsible)? Does anyone else get the impression that Canon is hoping to target their first release at compact camera upgraders rather than enthusiasts? Don't expect a body with an EVF and lots of physical controls, this one is likely to be for Powershot upgraders. 

This is fine, but if they want the enthusiast market, they need to launch a second higher spec body and they'll need at least two (native mount) prime lenses to go with it (preferably three). How about doing a Fuji three lens prime lineup with (based upon G1X size sensor):

13mm f/2
27mm f/1.4
48mm f/2.4

That would be tempting -for starters!


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 2, 2012)

This just smells like something for the mass consumer electronics market.

In that market Canon isn't late to the party. At my local Best Buy (in between Calumet, Adorama & B&H), there are no micro-4/3 cameras and barely even a Sony Nex presence. The Nikon-1 system has it's own freestanding display (just a big picture of Ashton Kutcher and a few pink plastic dummy cameras between the DLSRs & the point-and-shoots...go figure!

If Canon makes a reasonably affordable system camera that is smaller and cheaper that a DSLR, I'm sure they will have a hit. But it will need to have a "Send to Facebook" button!

I'll pass.


----------



## traveller (Jul 2, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> But it will need to have a "Send to Facebook" button!



If Canon did that, even Thom Hogan would have to kiss their a$$, he's been banging that drum for a while now... ;D


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 2, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> This just smells like something for the mass consumer electronics market.



You're almost certainly right, and that's why I'm getting a kick out of all the people here whining in anticipation of why it's not going to be as good as a 5DIII. That's not the point of the camera, and they're not the intended audience.

Personally, I don't see that the intended market is all that big, but Canon has better marketing research tools at their disposal than I do.

But you can pretty much guarantee that it's going to slot between the top-of-the-line point-and-shoots and the entry-level Rebels. It may well cannibalize both. But it's never going to compete with the xxD and above SLRs; nor will it compete with the ELPH or A-series PowerShots.

The problem that Canon will face is that most of the Rebel buyers are (intentionally or otherwise) buying into the EF system, and a lot of the PowerShot users don't want the hassle of switching lenses....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 2, 2012)

RJ_4000 said:


> If it is, it looks like one won't be able to mount Leica M compatible lenses on those camera...
> 
> Raoul



Yes, it looks like the Canon mirrorless will be much thicker than a Sony NEX.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 2, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> ...or, you could mount a Shorty McForty to a 5DIII and get a rich man's chunky X2....
> 
> b&



Isn't Shorty McForty the name of a porn actor ???


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 2, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> At my local Best Buy (in between Calumet, Adorama & B&H), ... and barely even a Sony Nex presence.
> 
> I'll pass.



The lack of Sony cameras at Camera Stores is the result of all the Sony Style stores. No-one wants to compete with a factory store


----------



## gmrza (Jul 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > less DR than competition.
> ...


Disaster Recovery

/duck & run


----------



## gmrza (Jul 2, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > This just smells like something for the mass consumer electronics market.
> ...



Without a crystal ball, or insider information, you've probably guessed about as close as is possible.

I also expect a G1X sensor, maybe based more on the tech of the 650D with integrated PDAF.

What I do see as an interesting twist is the suggestion that Canon will be launching small EF primes, with the intention of using them with an adapter on the mirrorless body. That way, Canon gets mirrorless buyers to be more likely to invest in the EF system, creating an upgrade path to an EOS body - much the same way that if I were to move exclusively to full frame, I would lose the use of one lens, since I have only ever bought one EF-S lens. I would almost say it would make sense for Canon to entirely drop the EOS 1x00D series, and replace it with a mirrorless body.

My issue is that I would like the ability to change lenses on my G series. I would like a camera that produces reasonable image quality, but doesn't need to be able to see in the dark, and that is small enough to pack into a notebook bag. I couldn't care for fast AF tracking. What is important for me is a socket for a cable release and a hotshoe for occasional flash use with my existing Speedlites or wireless triggers.
The G1X already fixes for me the issue of sensor size, but it doesn't fix the issue of not having a wide enough aperture to take portraits, or to use for street photography. Slightly better shutter lag would be a bonus.

A mirrorless system with a general purpose zoom and a couple of primes would work for me as a camera that I can carry in my bag every day, and even take along when cycling. - I would like something better than a G series that is easy to accommodate in a backpack when bushwalking or cycling, and light enough to mount on a gorillapod.

For my tastes, the G1X sensor format will give good-enough IQ in a package that is just small enough. It is going to be about compromise.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 3, 2012)

If it were the G1X 14MP sensor and the EF adaptor was good and gave full Aperture control and AF of the lens
It would be worth having in the bag as a small light highly effective teleconverter whack it on a 300f4L IS and
you have a 555mm f4 equivalent with IS thats light and highly portable / maneuverable

if its not stupidly priced it could be a winner


----------



## lopicma (Jul 3, 2012)

OK, as much as I was looking forward to this camera, I have to pass because of the "lens thing". 

WHY, WHY, WHY are they changing the mount? It doesn't matter, they are doing it, and I am NOT biting!

What a crying shame... 60D here I come!


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 3, 2012)

Putting aside that I think this whole mirrorless thing is silly, why would anyone want to pair them with a bunch of closely-spaced slow primes?

Want a reasonable mirrorless interchangeable lens body? Build it the size of the S100 and make sure the kit zoom and at least two primes of different focal lengths - each faster than f/2.8 - fit entirely inside the body when not in use. The 24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 40/2.8 are totally unsuitable to that purpose because they are EF-mount, and thus have too large a backfocus distance to make that happen.

Such a thing would sell to compact-camera upgraders if it were cheap enough (under $600 with kit lens).


----------



## maxxevv (Jul 3, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Putting aside that I think this whole mirrorless thing is silly, why would anyone want to pair them with a bunch of closely-spaced slow primes?
> 
> Want a reasonable mirrorless interchangeable lens body? Build it the size of the S100 and make sure the kit zoom and at least two primes of different focal lengths - each faster than f/2.8 - fit entirely inside the body when not in use. The 24/2.8, 28/2.8 and 40/2.8 are totally unsuitable to that purpose because they are EF-mount, and thus have too large a backfocus distance to make that happen.
> 
> Such a thing would sell to compact-camera upgraders if it were cheap enough (under $600 with kit lens).



Then you have really tiny image sensors like S100. 

Then what's the point of interchangeable lenses if the camera becomes sensor limited instead ? And you can't get image quality and contrast approaching/equaling DSLR levels ? 

Might as well just still with a compact then ?


----------



## lopicma (Jul 3, 2012)

Why does it HAVE to be smaller? Just remove the mirror mechanism. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, just sack the mirror.


----------



## bycostello (Jul 3, 2012)

just need an slr fast focus on it and i'll have one for sure


----------



## RJ_4000 (Jul 3, 2012)

Well, if you're asking why Canon should do an hybrid, then that's because you never tried one or just simply don't need it.
I own a 1DII and a few kg of Canon lenses (from 16mm to 400mm)... Most are L lenses.
But I bought a NEX7 and, man, that's very funny to use.
First : I have it with me everywhere, everyday.
Second : I can use some old jewels I own like the FD L lenses and some Voigtlander... I don't own Leica lenses though. Manual focus with those lenses is a breathe ! Faster than with my F1N !
Third : The image quality is on a par (to say the least) with the 1DII, including in low light !
Fourth : It is silent and so "unobstrusive" you can get pictures you wouldn't get with an SLR.

The EVF is a marvelous thing, after all. Now I want to zoom for focus while looking in the viewfinder of the 1DII... Unfortunately, it doesn't work 

OK, so why a Canon ? Because my best "APS-C standard" zoom is the Canon EF 16-35L (realy good on APS-C) and I miss the aperture setting (!), the focus... or just the EXIF informations ! (No to say IS on some lenses)
I guess with a Canon, this should work !

IF Canon can build a small camera with EVF and interchangeable lenses -including a full support of EF(-S)- and a faster AF, with at least an APS-C sensor, this would be a winner, in my opinion ! Isn't Canon market leader for DSLRs ?
I just want to make sure they include "focus peaking", digital focus aid zoom and so on... and, if possible, a short flange-to-sensor distance to allow to use as much lenses as possible !

Raoul


----------



## gmrza (Jul 3, 2012)

bycostello said:


> just need an slr fast focus on it and i'll have one for sure



Then, I am afraid you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I do not see any camera manufacturer bringing out an AF system which is built into the imaging sensor, which provides DSLR-class AF.

I think it is important to remember what the value proposition of a mirrorless camera is, namely size and price (okay, in some cases only size as you do get cheaper DSLRs than some mirrorless cameras).
In order for the value proposition of a mirrorless camera to work for you, it has to be small for the "value" of the "size benefit" to be enough for you to forego the quality of a DSLR. It's that simple. Where carrying a DSLR is not practical or feasible, then a mirrorless system is worthwhile.


----------



## Flake (Jul 3, 2012)

gmrza said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > just need an slr fast focus on it and i'll have one for sure
> ...



The most important benefit of a mirrorless camera is that it doesn't have a mirror! and because digital mirrorless need the sensor exposed for EVF normally they only have a second curtain shutter. Thus massively less vibrations, and massively quieter. On top of that you don't need such an enormous gap between the rear of the lens and the film plane.

Of course by losing the mirror you lose the phase detect autofocus, but you can't have everything! Swings & Roundabouts it could be a very nice camera indeed if it's allowed to be, and that will depend very much on the quality of the lenses


----------



## moreorless (Jul 3, 2012)

lopicma said:


> OK, as much as I was looking forward to this camera, I have to pass because of the "lens thing".
> 
> WHY, WHY, WHY are they changing the mount? It doesn't matter, they are doing it, and I am NOT biting!
> 
> What a crying shame... 60D here I come!



Whats the difference if lenses can be easily adapted? you could go all EF if you desired.

Personally I think that before a mopre prenium mirrorless Canon should actually look at a more compact high end DSLR ala Pentax.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 3, 2012)

A mirrorless camera body could easily 
* be small and still have a FF-sensor in it. Think of a modern day Minolta CLE. 
* have blazing-fast AF: hybrid in-sensor phase detect AF plus contrast AF ... as in Nikon 1 and Canon EOS650D 
* have an electrified Leica M-mount plus a couple of compact high-grade fixed focals and zooms with AF. 
* deliver IQ as a 5D3
* be built and sold for less money than a 5D3 

Only problem is that Canon does not want to. They still believe they can protect their DSLRs from oblivion that way.


----------



## pharp (Jul 3, 2012)

Thats the downside to having other models to 'protect' - Canon is simply not going to make a camera as good they could, for any given price point. They'll itentionally hobble it - and thats a shame, but.. It will be real interesting to see how their mirrorless offering compares to the Olympus OM-D - who, IMHO got it _almost_ right. Small tough, weathersealed w/sealed lenses, good IQ by most accounts. On the other hand, may put some price pressure on the Conrus/Metabones Sony NEX to Canon lens adapter.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 3, 2012)

lopicma said:


> Why does it HAVE to be smaller? Just remove the mirror mechanism. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, just sack the mirror.



Then what's the point? How does losing functionality add value?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 3, 2012)

maxxevv said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Putting aside that I think this whole mirrorless thing is silly, why would anyone want to pair them with a bunch of closely-spaced slow primes?
> ...



Not necessarily. The Sony has a 1" sensor in a small camera. We had full-frame film cameras with film transports that had zoom lenses that folded flat inside the camera.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 3, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> A mirrorless camera body could easily
> * be small and still have a FF-sensor in it. Think of a modern day Minolta CLE.
> * have blazing-fast AF: hybrid in-sensor phase detect AF plus contrast AF ... as in Nikon 1 and Canon EOS650D
> * have an electrified Leica M-mount plus a couple of compact high-grade fixed focals and zooms with AF.
> ...



Such a camera would have to have no eye-level viewfinder or else it would be thick (EVF optics are like telescope eyepieces in size or else they're garbage), and it would have to have twice the battery energy as a 5D3 has to operate the sensor, processing pipeline, and LCD for a useful length of time.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

Nikon Went after the Medium format with the d800. If it will succeed, Only time will tell, but they went for it.

Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design. Just give me a FF or APS-H sensor in a small, lightweight body and keeping the price sub 2000$, and it will fly off the shelves. 

Canon needs to be more brave, like in the original 1Ds days.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 3, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > A mirrorless camera body could easily
> ...



It could easily have a hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder similar to Fuji X1-Pro, just "better". [btw: no, the inferior G1-X optical viewfinder is no acceptable solution for a mirrorless]
It is not big ... it is proven to fit into a range-finder sized Fuji.
And hybrid OVF/EVF would keep power consumption down, if user does not use EVF all the time. 

And it could easily have a Canon 600EX-compatible radio-ETTL-RT-flash transmitter to act as wireless flash master, instead of a pop up flash. That would again save some size and power. 

In terms of size I would also happily settle for Fuji X-Pro1 size or even Leica M9 size, if a Minolta CLE-sized package could absolutely not be achieved without major compromises. 

Cameras with 36x24mm imaging area ("full frame") do NOT have to be big and clunky!





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_CLE

And even smaller "full-frame" 135 cameras are easily possible ... complete with 40mm/2.8 "pancake" lens ... but without interchangeable lens mount.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Nikon Went after the Medium format with the d800. If it will succeed, Only time will tell, but they went for it.
> 
> Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design. Just give me a FF or APS-H sensor in a small, lightweight body and keeping the price sub 2000$, and it will fly off the shelves.
> 
> Canon needs to be more brave, like in the original 1Ds days.



yes, exactly my thoughts! 
A Leica M9 sized mirrorless with the innards of the 5D 3 [minus flippy-flappy mirror-and prism] at the price of a Nikon D800! THAT would be innovative and worthwile ... for a change, Canon!


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 3, 2012)

pharp said:


> Canon could probably make an M9 equivalent with EVF for under 2K, but I'm not holding my breath. I just don't see them doing that. It'll have to be one of the smaller hungrier companys - Sony? They have the sensors, but then they'd need a new mount? No lenses?



The mount? Look no further: Leica M ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M_mount
The Leica M-mount patent has expired in 1999 - so it is royalty free! [Konica took advantage of this with their remarkable Konica Hexar RF http://www.cameraquest.com/konicam.htm ] 
All Canon needs to do is to add a couple of electrical contacts for AF, IS and all the other lens protocol-stuff. 
Immediately compatible with all manual focus M-mount lenses ever made - by Leica, Voigtländer, Zeiss and others! 
Fully compatible with all Canon EF lenses by means of a small adaptor. 

It would be such an obvious and good solution.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 3, 2012)

gmrza said:


> I think it is important to remember what the value proposition of a mirrorless camera is, namely size and price (okay, in some cases only size as you do get cheaper DSLRs than some mirrorless cameras).



It's obvious that you are not paying attention to what is happening with Mu-43 cameras.

1. Olympus has a *12mm f/2.0 (=24mm) that sell for $799.00* http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/805167-REG/Olympus_V311020SU000_M_Zuiko_Digital_ED.html and just started shipping a *75mm (=150mm) f/1.8 priced at $899.00* http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=olympus+75mm+f%2F1.8&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma Here are some 75mm f/1.8 test shots, from Robin Wong, Day http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-street.html and Night http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2012/07/olympus-mzuiko-75mm-f18-review-night.html

2. Schneider-Kreuznach has announced a 14mm f/2.0 Super Angelon for Mu-43 http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photoscala.de%2F&sl=de&tl=en Target price is *less than 1500 €*. They will show the lens at Photokina. They will also be announcing two more lenses.

Seems to me that the value proposition is *size only*, unless you consider the above mentioned lenses to be *bargain basement* priced. Hopefully Canon will release something that can compete in this market.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design.



At one time Leica was the pro camera of choice, Canon and Nikon also built rangefinders. But all that changed when the Nikon F arrived. Pros abandoned the rangefinder and went with SLRs. Canon switched to building SLRs, Leica added an SLR to their line-up. Time marches on!.

Not many people would buy a rangefinder or hybrid.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design.
> ...



Obviously many would buy a mirrorless camera though right? Afterall, Isnt this what the threads about?

Last time, I recall my OM-1 not being much larger that a animal cracker box, compared to how hulking DSLRs have gotten.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



The SLR design solved a lot of problems with the rangefinder design. It also created a new problem, that of size and weight.

The mirrorless design solves the size and weight problem, but it re-introduces most of the problems with the rangefinder design plus a few new ones of its own.

It won't be until there's a mirrorless design that solves the same problems that the SLR design solves that we'll see mirrorless be a viable alternative to an SLR for those who need an SLR today.

And, let's face it. While smaller and lighter is certainly better, it's something a pro can easily live with. Even a 1-series body weighs nothing in proportion to the kit as a whole, especially if you've got enough in there to qualify for Platinum CPS membership without the body.

I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and nobody who wants an ELPH wants to mess with changing lenses.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## pharp (Jul 3, 2012)

> I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and



I couldn't disagree more - ALL cameras will eventually be mirrorless, including 5- or 1- series equivalents. Mirrorless cameras with EVF have many potential advantages. Increased fps, weight, reliability, etc. EVFs [with current AF technology] aren't quite there yet, but I can certainly see the day when they replace OVF - the ability to zoom and control brightness alone should settle the issue. How nice would it be to be able shoot your 85 1.2 wide open in a dark room and be able to confidently manual focus on someones nose!! How many times have people complained that they love the results of the 65 mp-e, but the viewfinder is dark and DOF is shallow making focusing difficult. If you can get the zoom functionality of live view with brightness control in an eye level viewfinder - that'd be the end of OVF.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



We're not asking for a "Perfect" Camera design, Just for canon to pull up its pants and deliver something thats innovative for mirrorless.


----------



## FunPhotons (Jul 3, 2012)

Now that canon is finally coming out with small high quality lenses like the shorty forty I'm happy. On a DSLR its a small relatively light combo, with all the quality of the DSLR. A slightly smaller body with seriously compromised capability sacrifices too much in exchange for a minor change in weight and size.

So interestingly, Canon has somewhat cannibalized the mirror less market by offering small mirror less lenses.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 3, 2012)

pharp said:


> > I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't disagree more - ALL cameras will eventually be mirrorless, including 5- or 1- series equivalents. Mirrorless cameras with EVF have many potential advantages. Increased fps, weight, reliability, etc. EVFs [with current AF technology] aren't quite there yet, but I can certainly see the day when they replace OVF - the ability to zoom and control brightness alone should settle the issue. How nice would it be to be able shoot your 85 1.2 wide open in a dark room and be able to confidently manual focus on someones nose!! How many times have people complained that they love the results of the 65 mp-e, but the viewfinder is dark and DOF is shallow making focusing difficult. If you can get the zoom functionality of live view with brightness control in an eye level viewfinder - that'd be the end of OVF.



Sure, and someday we'll all have flying cars.

Electronic viewfinders have a looooooooooooooong way to go before they can be a suitable replacement for a good SLR viewfinder. The resolution will have to get into the several-megapickle range at the least, and we can't cram that much into the LCD on the back. And then there's the lag...basically, the refresh and response rate will have to be in the 100 Hz range or better, and now we're into crazy talk with today's technology even on a large computer display, let alone something miniaturized to the size of an eye-level viewfinder. The computers can't push that many pixels around that fast, for starters. And now you want to add light amplification into the mix? With active noise reduction, I presume?

Yeah, right. Don't hold your breath.

In the mean time, the optical viewfinder works brilliantly for what it's designed to do, and the LCD with quick view satisfies the needs of virtually all of the remaining cases. Those few remaining cases involve available-light photography of black cats at the bottom of a coal mine, and pardon me if I can't be bothered to worried about the people trying to use a camera like that.

Again, the problem that mirrorless solves is size and weight. If you're doing the types of photography today where a real viewfinder is the right tool for the job, you probably don't care much about size or weight.

b&


----------



## pharp (Jul 3, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > > I repeat: the Canon mirrorless will be a "prosumer" camera, overlapping (and likely eating into) the high end of the PowerShot line and the Rebel line. It won't ever compete with the 5- or 1-series, nor will it compete with the ELPH series. It can't -- by the very nature of the design, it's got all those compromises that prevent it from ever being as good as an SLR, and
> ...




Oh yeah of little faith - it's coming. The flipping mirror is the ancient technology that will go! The electronic viewfinder doesn't have to be anywhere near as good [resolution, noise, etc] as you suggest - as long as you can verify composition and focus - all good. And it will only get better.

I think the Olympus OM-D is the future. I'd bet a nickel that if Canon took the 5D and replaced the the mirror with a good eye level EVF - wouldn't have to be huge or spectacular, but bumped up the fps by 50% - they'd have some takers! Remember also - the human eye doesn't have a great refresh rate!


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Not many people would buy a rangefinder or hybrid.
> ...



You are the one who brougth-up the Leica rangefinder cameras ... not me  I was just trying to get the tread back-on-track


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 3, 2012)

pharp said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Exactly. "Mirrorless" means: finally all-digital, all-electronic cameras. 100% mechanics free ... mechanical shutters will go soon as well. That means less noise and less vibration on top of less size & weight.

Mirrorless is the concept that brings an end to the early days of photography - based on optical components, mechanical components and chemistry. n-degrees of digital freedom from capture to picture. oh yes, baby!


----------



## zim (Jul 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Nikon Went after the Medium format with the d800. If it will succeed, Only time will tell, but they went for it.
> 
> Canon should go after the Leica market with its mirrorless design. Just give me a FF or APS-H sensor in a small, lightweight body and keeping the price sub 2000$, and it will fly off the shelves.
> 
> Canon needs to be more brave, like in the original 1Ds days.




That’s exactly it, Canon have no balls anymore it’s not like they don’t know great camera design

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_aps-c_compact.html


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



Ahh, But Isn't a Leica range finder camera *MIRRORLESS*? ???


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Ahh, But Isn't a Leica range finder camera MIRRORLESS? ???



yes. Rangefinders are mirrorless. But the y don't count. They are anachronistic dinosaurs which were rightfully replaced by the much better SLRS way back in the 1960s. Exactly the same is going to happen to DSLRs. And if Canon is going to continue in its current ways, they may very well suffer the fate of Zeiss Ikon, Rollei and Kodak.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 3, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> pharp said:
> 
> 
> > TrumpetPower! said:
> ...



I've heard the same story about how airplane cockpits won't have windows, cars won't have windows, we'll have flat panel displays instead of windows in our homes, rear-view mirrors will be replaced with cameras and displays all for years and years and look what's happened - virtually nothing. That's for a very good reason. A camera and a display just isn't as good as a mirror or a window. A mirror uses zero power, has zero lag and has infinite dynamic range and color gamut. You will NEVER get that good with an EVF. Never. Ever. Maybe you can get close, and maybe you can get close enough for some purposes, but what's the point? What we have now and have had for years and years is BETTER that the EVF endgame so why spend money and time trying to make something that can never get as good as what we already have? Do you want to walk around with a camera on your head wearing glasses with microdisplays in them? Why not just use your eyes?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ahh, But Isn't a Leica range finder camera MIRRORLESS? ???
> ...



Ahh, but again old SLRs like the OM-1 are tiny compared to DSLR's today. A compact range finder camera with a large sensor will fit a nice market that canon isn't brave enough to tread.

Hence, the Leica market. (even possibly add AF but this is just speculation)


----------



## pharp (Jul 3, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...



I guess I've never heard those predictions, but many cars do have rear view cameras and displays now. As to your other points; mirrors have no lag - really? They are also noisy and cause vibration. The bottom line - what is a viewfinder for? To compose and focus an image - thats it, right? I really don't care if the mirror provides "infinite dynamic range and color gamut.", because my eyes don't and it isn't reflected in the recorded image! Eyes work well enough, but can be aided by technology [e.g. night vision goggles]. I personally couldn't care less if the image through an optical is 'better' - whatever that means if the electronic viewfinder can provide assistance that will improve my images, up my keeper rate AND gets rid of the mirror. 

While the current interest in mirrorless cameras seems primarily focused on reducing size and weight, there are plenty of other good reasons to dump the mirror. There is no reason that larger, FF pro cameras couldn't also be mirrorless.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 3, 2012)

pharp said:


> I guess I've never heard those predictions, but many cars do have rear view cameras and displays now.



They're only used where mirrors don't work - behind the back bumper. Wherever mirrors work, they are used because they are superior.



> As to your other points; mirrors have no lag - really?



Yes - by definition they operate at the speed of light. We're talking about the viewfinder her and the process of composing the shot, not the process of taking the shot.



> They are also noisy and cause vibration.



Which is largely irrelevant, and what MLU is for.



> The bottom line - what is a viewfinder for? To compose and focus an image - thats it, right?



And composing requires you to be able to see the scene in a quality way. EVFs crush blacks and blow out highlights so it's hard to see what you're getting in the scene, and they have lag so they aren't showing you what you're pointing at now but what you were pointing out a short time ago. That matters a lot when you are trying to follow and frame high-speed subjects.



> I really don't care if the mirror provides "infinite dynamic range and color gamut.", because my eyes don't and it isn't reflected in the recorded image!



The recorded raw image has dynamic range and color gamut much closer to that of your eye than the EVF can produce. My final images tend to look like the scene looked to me, not like the EVF shows it, which is basically the out-of-camera JPEG. See here:

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/EVF%20OVF%20View%20comparison.jpg



> Eyes work well enough, but can be aided by technology [e.g. night vision goggles]. I personally couldn't care less if the image through an optical is 'better' - whatever that means if the electronic viewfinder can provide assistance that will improve my images, up my keeper rate AND gets rid of the mirror.



My experience with EVFs is that they reduce the keeper rate, in some cases (high speed subjects in low light) all the way to zero.



> While the current interest in mirrorless cameras seems primarily focused on reducing size and weight, there are plenty of other good reasons to dump the mirror.



I've not seen any that were valid.


----------



## pharp (Jul 3, 2012)

> They are also noisy and cause vibration





> Which is largely irrelevant, and what MLU is for.



Really? *WOW!* If you really believe that - there is no point in debating this with you any further. I guess only time will tell.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 4, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Exactly. "Mirrorless" means: finally all-digital, all-electronic cameras. 100% mechanics free ... mechanical shutters will go soon as well. That means less noise and less vibration on top of less size & weight.
> 
> Mirrorless is the concept that brings an end to the early days of photography - based on optical components, mechanical components and chemistry. n-degrees of digital freedom from capture to picture. oh yes, baby!


No mechanical Component: Would you like to expose the sensor to collect dust when you are changing lens??
No optical component: How do you propose to capture the image of the object onto the sensor?? How do you see the image in detail on the LED for the EVF???


----------



## Rocky (Jul 4, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ahh, But Isn't a Leica range finder camera MIRRORLESS? ???
> ...


It is not fair to call the Range Finder a dinasaurs. They are near extinct . That is true. If you really look at the range Finder close enough, they are actually very advance. The focusing is a mechanical and optical marvel. Just think about these 5 separate components: 1. The actual focusing movement of the lens. 2. The focusing information transmitted to the camera body. 3. The receiving of the information of the camera body. 4. the focusing information translated to optical information in the view/range finder window. 5. separate frame shows up with different lens. Also please remember that #1 is different with different lens and #2 has to be keep exactly identical for different focal length. This makes the lens mount become a mechanical nightmare. That is why the lens for range finder and Range Finder Body are more expensive than SLR since the dawn of both the rangefinder and SLR in the 1930's. Range finder is being over taken by SLR is due to economics reason. In fact Ranger finder is faster in focusing than SLR if any lens shorter than 50mm is used. For 90mm and 135mm they are about the same, if the right lens is being used. As for closeup, macro, longer tele lenses, SLR are faster to be used. Range Finder is still usable but a little bit clumsy.
The advantage of Range Finder are: Smaller (not necessarily lighter), Quieter and Less vibration due to lack of mirror. In the old days, range finder and TLR are allowed in the court room and SLR are banded due to noise consideration.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2012)

Rocky said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I appreciate and agree with many of your points. Digital Mirrorless cameras [not rangefinders with digital sensor like Leica M9] will combine all advantages of SLRs and rangefinders:
* view the scene through the lens ... to me, TTL is the one single reason why SLRs replaced rangefinder cameras, despite being bulkier and burdened with moving mirrors. It was far superior to rangefinder viewfinders with a very limited scope of focal lengths to be used with it and parallax problems of all sorts and kinds!
* silent operation and no vibrations whatsoever - as soon as all mechanical, moving components are finally removed from cameras [movable mirrors and mechanical shutters] 
* smaller size and less weight
* plus all of the advantages of SLRs ... fast Phase-AF is now just possible (in-sensor) 

And all the advantages in practical use derived from this. This is why mirrorless cameras are a big thing and a "paradigm shift" in photography. Similar to TTL replacing rangefinders and digital sensors replacing chemical film.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Why not just use your eyes?



Because mankind has developed TOOLS of all sorts and kinds from the dawn of civilization ... to AUGMENT the muscles and senses given to us by nature ... in order to achieve goals that would be utterly unattainable with our bare hands, feet and naked eyes. 

Cars and all other means of transportation are "augmented feet", communication devices from bush drum to mobile phones are ... "augmented ears and vocal cords" ... glasses, lenses, scopes, night vision devices, X-ray scanners, the hubble telescope ... are all "augmented eyes" - allowing us to see things we could not see or not see as well with our naked eyes. 

The same is true for cameras: augmented eyes, augmented human brain-based memory.  

We clearly are just about to reach the next stage of image capturing devices: 
* Stage 1: cave wall + hands, brushes from plants, organic colors from dirt to blood to ocre to soot
* stage 2: mobile substrates - from rock plates to clay tablets to dried animal skin to canvas to paper, plus again human hands, various painting and carving tools, all sorts of chemical dyes
* stage 3: mobile substrate: silver-halogenide film (and other chemical crap) + optical + mechanical contraptions to capture light/images; hands are augmented to the point that they only need to "press the button". Camera and Kodak do the rest.  
* stage 4: mechanical + optical contraptions to capture light. No more substrate required! Incoming photons converted to electrons! Digital revolution! 
* stage 5: Optical contraptions still there. Mechanics all gone. Hands? Not required any longer. Not even to "press the button". Voice commands will do nicely. Plus Canon Eye Control Focus v2.0 ...  
* stage 6: Optical crap in the form of cumbersome ground glass blocks with extremely limiting features eliminated. Incoming photon stream shaped in any which way - as desired and envisionable by creative human brains. Light shaping and capture using newer technology, bypassing current optical "laws". 
* and so on. 

So now, Canon and photo industry, be brave, be bold, bring on at least phase #5 and kick-start research into phase #6 to #99!


----------



## moreorless (Jul 4, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > pharp said:
> ...



Pretty much my feelings, the SLR system is something that technology will find very difficult to replicate in terms of optical quality where as there is the potential to include the advanatges of an EVF into a DSLR with a Fuji like system. This really isnt the same as the switch from ground glass to rangefinder to DSLR, all of which used "real" optics, just in progressively more effective ways.

Now in certain cases the downgrade in viewfinder quality might be worth it for the size saving it offers but for FF DSLR's with zoom or long tele lenses I'm not seeing it in the near future given how unbalanced a system it creates.

A Leica like FF system based on wide/normal primes has more ponteital but really thats a relatively small market and I think the prefference will remain for a Fuji like system that retains a rangefinder like OVF.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2012)

moreorless said:


> ...
> Now in certain cases the downgrade in viewfinder quality might be worth it for the size saving it offers but for FF DSLR's with zoom or long tele lenses I'm not seeing it in the near future given how unbalanced a system it creates.
> 
> A Leica like FF system based on wide/normal primes has more ponteital but really thats a relatively small market and I think the prefference will remain for a Fuji like system that retains a rangefinder like OVF.



Yes, for users of long-teles or other large optical lenses, size of camera body is virtually irrelevant. Although this group is very vocal on tghis and aother photography-related forums, in reality it is a very tiny percentage of the market. I bet, 99% of all pictures made - are or could have just as well been made with lenses of 200mm or even less focal length. This probably holds true for "photo enthusiasts and pros" as well. 

Personally, I would accept an EVIL if one explicit limitation was, that I can only use it with lenses to max. 200mm angle-of-view (FF equivalent). I would not accept a system however, that limits me to max. 135mm (like Leica M). 

I also like the Fuji X-Pro1 hybrid viewfinder concept "in principle", although I do not find it well enough implemented yet on that very camera. But if Canon did it "really right" ... heck, YES! 

Speaking of viewfinders .. on EVILS I love the viefinder position on the side of the camera, rather than smack in the middle as in all DSLRs ... and the rubbing of nose on the back of the camera/main LCD. 

And if the photo industry were really customer-oriented, they would even offer the cam in a "right-eye and left-eye version", in order to reach 100% of market with as perfect a product as possible. After all, most cars are avaliable in left/right steering wheel configuration. And many car models have sigbnificantly smaller production runs than successful digital camera models!


----------



## psolberg (Jul 4, 2012)

small sensor therefore not interested. I need aps-c at the minimum. That is why I'm all but certain to go with a NEX instead because nothing matches that big nice sensor. Although I did see nikon is patenting a new set of lenses for a mirrorless aps-c format camera. now that would be top of my list since I just recently switched to a D800 from a 5DmkII and sold all my canon glass. I rather not have to buy sony glass just for the mirrorless system.

if this canon mirrorless is indeed a small g1x sensor barrely larger than micro 4/3's then it will always trail sony's mirrorless entry.


----------



## pharp (Jul 4, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Various companies have played with alternate SLR forms in the past, with little [no] acceptance, but to get the best EVF [biggest, etc] will probably require a rethink of the standard DSLR shape. Seems redundant to have an large LCD on the back and a small one in the viewfinder - how about one big eye level one? Maybe more video camera like - more in parallel with lens. Now that would take some real courage!


----------



## moreorless (Jul 4, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 4, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.



This is another point that the peanut gallery is generally missing.

A small, lightweight camera is pointless without small, lightweight lenses.

And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.

So, if you want small and light, you'll either have to go with something slower or that doesn't have as large an image circle. And probably both.

Surprise! That's exactly what I've been describing: something that bridges the upper end of the P&S range and the Rebels.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Rocky (Jul 4, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.



May be you are thinking about SLR lens. For range finder ( or mirrorless)lenses, it is different. The wide angle lenses can be made smaller (not necessarily lighter). Summicron 35mm is only 1 1/4 inches outside of the camera body. Skopar 25mm f4.0 is also 1 1/4 inches outside of the cameras body. A M4 body can be pant pocketable with either lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Well I'd disagree about the 200mm point (and even if it were true its still going to be perception that drives sales) but I think your talking more than just super tele's, even something like the 24-105 would be unbalanced on an M9 sized body for me.
> ...



YES. small wide-angle to standard lenses are important. This is EXACTLY why I would love to get a small Canon FF mirrorless body (size like Minolta CLE) with an electrified Leica M mount, call it Canon EM.  

You surely know, how really small many of those M-mount fixed focals are? All of them built for 135 image circle. Available all the way to f/0.95 not just f/2.8. I am sure, it is possible to build a 40/1.8 lens for a FF mirrorless cam which is still smaller than the EF 40/2.8 pancake. 

Zooms are a bit tougher, but some constant f/4 "kit-zoom", say a Canon "EM" 24-70/f 4.0 IS for FF mirrorless could for sure be quite small. I would even skip manual focusing gear and ring, since i never use it anyways. And 90% of users do neither. And those video guys shall go buy proper Canon camcorders rather than trying to cheapskate on our stills cameras.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 4, 2012)

That is a small fast 40mm f 1.4 for range finder only.
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt4014.htm


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2012)

Rocky said:


> That is a small fast 40mm f 1.4 for range finder only.
> http://www.cameraquest.com/voigt4014.htm



Right! And for a mirrorless a version 2.0 of such a lens would be even smaller and lighter. No rangefinder coupling stuff, no f-stop ring, as far as I am concerned, no MF gear/ring, but a hi-speed Ring-USM AF drive. 

I would love to use such a beast natively not on an anachronistic Leica M rangefinder but on a hi-end Canon FF mirrorless camera equipped with a modified 5D3 sensor [with in-sensor phase AF] with a non-Leica pricetag. 

Wouldn't that be something? Canon would sell 'em by the millions.


----------



## pharp (Jul 4, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



Agree, but I would actually forgo AF on most lenses! Never had much value in AF on wide angle or macro lenses - half my kit is MF lenses.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 4, 2012)

Rocky said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > And there are some very hard physical restrictions that come into play when designing lenses. The Shorty McForty is about as small and lightweight as a lens that covers the full 135 format image circle is going to get, and just look at all the people bitching because it's only f/2.8. If you want faster-than-f/2 in a normal prime, you're not going to get much smaller and lighter than the Plastic Fantastic. And if you want something that fast and either wider or longer, it's going to get really big and heavy right quick.
> ...



Since wide angles and middle-focal-length lenses are the smallest lenses in the kit, generally, who cares? A 70-200/2.8 isn't going to get smaller because of closer back-focus distance, and that's the one that's sizing my kit.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 4, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > TrumpetPower! said:
> ...


You should care if you want it to be pant pocketable. None of the existing normal or wide angle lens will make the camera to be pant pocketable ( not even the 40 f2.8 on a Rebel).


----------



## pharp (Jul 4, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > TrumpetPower! said:
> ...



I agree to a point. Based on SLR sales and the fact that Canon felt compelled to make such a camera - ALOT of people evidently do! I would be happy with a digital version of my old Nikon F2 kit - I had a 70-200 zoom, but rarely carried it. I think many folks would go for a _more_ compact [not NEX sized, but smaller] APS-C or FF travel kit. I think Canon/Nikon is missing the ball - P&S or most rebel users probably don't care about interchangeable lenses. The fact that conrus/metabones sold out immediately of their NEX to Canon EF adapters should be telling to anyone willing to look. Whether you want to believe it or not, there is [I believe] a large market for a more compact [probably mirrorless] prosumer 7D or 5D camera. THATS the market they should be going after, but seems unlikely since it'd cannabalze existing line. Smaller/lighter is usually better. Nikon still lists their old style MF lenses on their website - I've always wondered how well they sell. I would really go for some FD build MF only lenses.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 4, 2012)

A lot of people seems to be disappointed that the Canon Mirrorless will be a G1 X sized sensor , not the FF or APS-C that they are expecting. For me it may be a little bit over reacted. In order to make it "smaller and lighter" canon have no choice but not to use FF. As for G1 X sized sensor, the multiplication factor for the focal length is 1.85 ( based on width) or 1.7 (based on height). Is is necessary to get disappointed because it is not 1.6 multiplication factor??? For me, if Canon gives us FAST AF(or good MF, like the Leica M) and smaller lenses, I will be happy with a smaller sensor.


----------



## pharp (Jul 4, 2012)

Rocky said:


> A lot of people seems to be disappointed that the Canon Mirrorless will be a G1 X sized sensor , not the FF or APS-C that they are expecting. For me it may be a little bit over reacted. In order to make it "smaller and lighter" canon have no choice but not to use FF. As for G1 X sized sensor, the multiplication factor for the focal length is 1.85 ( based on width) or 1.7 (based on height). Is is necessary to get disappointed because it is not 1.6 multiplication factor??? For me, if Canon gives us FAST AF(or good MF, like the Leica M) and smaller lenses, I will be happy with a smaller sensor.



I guess we'll have to wait and see, but it strikes many that Canon is just late to the party, isn't offering anything really new - just a Canon branded m4/3? If thats it - OK, obviously a market for that and I suspect they'll sell many, but from the thread - I can see that absolute small size isn't the 'only' driver for many. There aren't even any public announcements of a mirrorless pro camera - but just speculation of such sure has gotten some folks riled up! They need to take a pill - it'll come if it makes sense.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 4, 2012)

This is good stuff, if canon would be more daring like it used to be, it could make a compact system with super speed primes and a large sensor for general photography. Who want to lug the DSLR around all the time when just a small mirror less and a 35mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor would be better.


----------



## pharp (Jul 4, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This is good stuff, if canon would be more daring like it used to be, it could make a compact system with super speed primes and a large sensor for general photography. Who want to lug the DSLR around all the time when just a small mirror less and a 35mm f/1.8 on a FF sensor would be better.



+1


----------



## moreorless (Jul 4, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > That is a small fast 40mm f 1.4 for range finder only.
> ...



I'd say just the reverse, adding in AF and other electrics is going to increase the size a good deal as we can see with a number of mirrorless primes that are larger than there manual FF rivals. Isnt the 

As I said I can see a (smaller)market for a mirrorless FF camera based on primes but pretty much any zoom besides an kit standard or perhaps a very wide UWA doesnt seem likely to balance well to me. 



pharp said:


> Whether you want to believe it or not, there is [I believe] a large market for a more compact [probably mirrorless] prosumer 7D or 5D camera. THATS the market they should be going after, but seems unlikely since it'd cannabalze existing line. Smaller/lighter is usually better. Nikon still lists their old style MF lenses on their website - I've always wondered how well they sell. I would really go for some FD build MF only lenses.



I'd agree but I'm not sure it has to be mirrorless, again if Pentax can make a fully sealed camera with a 100% veiwfinder the size of the K-5 I don't see any reason Canon can't.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 4, 2012)

moreorless said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't that be something? Canon would sell 'em by the millions.
> ...



I disagree. The market for a small, Canon FF mirrorless with an elecitrfied M-mount would be gigantic.

Leica is selling millions of the M9 despite its totally outdated non-digital rangefinder concept and despite its extremely high price tag.

Canon could sell millions of "Leica M9 killers" with a 5D3-like FF sensor with fast hybrid Contrast- plus Phase-AF (on sensor) and an excellent hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder at a 5D3-ish price. Especially if this mirrorless were fully backwards compatible with all those wonderfully compact and ggreat M-mount lenses (manual focus, of course). 

With M-mount compatibility, Canon would really only need this prosumer mirrorles body for a start plus 1 decent AF kit-zoom plus 2-3 AF pancake fixed-focals. That would be all it takes to remain market leader once the dust has settled, and mirrorless rules whereas bulky DSLRs are relegated to specialist tasks.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 5, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Leica is selling millions of the M9 despite its totally outdated non-digital rangefinder concept and despite its extremely high price tag.



Not true. Leica was never be able to sell more than 100,000 unit on any model, except the M3 which 200,000 units were made. 80,000 M2's were made. 50,000 M4's were made. The rest of the models are all well under 50,000 units. That is another reason why Leica is so expensive, regardless whether it is new or used.
Range Finder Camera is better than SLR for short focal length in focusing and viewing, especially in dim light situation. You actually see your object BEFORE it is in the field of your lens which no SLR can made that claim. If you have ever use one you will appreciate it. However, to be fair, rangefinder is clumsy for macro and lens longer than 135mm. You can actually buy lens longer than 500mm made by Leica and for Leica.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 5, 2012)

Rocky said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



A G1X or a G12 isn't pocketable. Heck, to me, an S100 is pretty borderline because the lens sticks out. My pocket right now has an Elph 500HS in it, which is an amazing pocket camera.

To me, if they can't get this to be as small when off as an S100 is when off, there's really no point to it - might as well take my T2i or my 5D.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 5, 2012)

Another advantage for Mirrorless is truly awesome ultra-wides with pin sharpness to the corners is possible. Less retro-focus designs. 8)


----------



## moreorless (Jul 5, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Another advantage for Mirrorless is truly awesome ultra-wides with pin sharpness to the corners is possible. Less retro-focus designs. 8)



I'v heard this alot but so far on digital the reality doesnt seem to match up, existing ultrawides on the NEX almost all perform poorly and the options on m43 are neither shorter nore cheaper than you'd expect from an SLR.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 5, 2012)

moreorless said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Another advantage for Mirrorless is truly awesome ultra-wides with pin sharpness to the corners is possible. Less retro-focus designs. 8)
> ...



Well, I was thinking about the Good contax/Zeiss lenses for m43 or leica M mount.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 5, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


Zeiss does not make lens for m4/3. They are for FF only. So are the Leica M mount lenses. If you look at the rangefinder lenses, both Leica and Zeiss are Retro-focus design for anything wider than the 28mm (FF). That is due to the sensor require close to vertical (60 degree minimum??) incident angle. After multiplication factor, you will not have a ultrawide from either manufacturer.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 5, 2012)

Rocky said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



Ooops, I meant the m39 screw mount lenses. 

I am talking in terms of FF because thats what we'd want from canon.


----------



## pharp (Jul 5, 2012)

Rocky said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



Zeiss does make leica m mount lenses [ZM] which of course can be easily adapted to m4/3 or NEX cameras. Voigtlander also makes a couple of pretty wide M mounts lenses.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/accessories.html#i_dmw_ma1_panasonic

There are also adapters for m4/3 and NEX to mount the old Zeiss Contax G lenses


----------



## Rocky (Jul 5, 2012)

pharp said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


He is looking for ultawide lenses on M4/3. Anytime a FF lens is used in a 4/3. the effective focal length will be doubled up. whether it is M39, Leica M mount, Contax G, Ef, Fl , Fd, any lens you can name will be the same effect.


----------



## pharp (Jul 5, 2012)

a 12mm m-mount Voightlander on the APS-C Sony NEX maybe isn't super wide @ 1.6x (not 2x), but not bad. Not much help with the m4/3 system though. Small sensors are just wide angle killers. Still dreaming about a compact FF landscape camera.


----------



## lopicma (Aug 9, 2012)

lopicma said:


> Why does it HAVE to be smaller? Just remove the mirror mechanism. You don't have to reinvent the wheel, just sack the mirror.



It's hard to describe the form factor I was looking for, so Samsung created it in the NX20 Mirrorless Wi-Fi Digital Camera. Granted, the Wi-Fi is "gimmicky" to me. It looks like a full frame DSLR, but doesn't have a mirror. So... it looks like Canon has taken the track of a small body for now. Maybe the next version will be based on the 5D frame and retain the EF/EF-S mount. :


----------

