# Patent: A sensor protection assembly for a small form factor RF mount ILC



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 24, 2021)

> Update on this patent translation from Canon News:
> Every now and then we post a patent application and make mistakes on assumptions with the Japanese translations.  This is one of those times, as noted to us, this patent application is not a shutter assembly but another assembly that Canon is looking at simply covering the sensor without using the delicate shutter (or in the case of cameras with global shutters).
> We will strive to do better than we apologize for the mischaracterization and reporting on the patent application.
> Canon News has uncovered a detailed patent showing what looks to be a compact shutter assembly for a small form factor RF mount camera.
> This shutter assembly is extremely small, and Canon News thinks...



Continue reading...


----------



## Tremotino (Jul 24, 2021)

Why still use a mech. Shutter for a cheap entry level ILC? Get rid of it. Forever! And save the bucks.

Maybe a professional camera may need a shutter until technology is ready but a smallish camera like this? No way.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 24, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> Why still use a mech. Shutter for a cheap entry level ILC? Get rid of it. Forever! And save the bucks.
> 
> Maybe a professional camera may need a shutter until technology is ready but a smallish camera like this? No way.


Avoiding rolling shutter in stills is one reason.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 24, 2021)

My RF 35 1.8 is lusting for that body! And please make an EF lens to RF body adaptor with tripod thread (like that of the EOS M system) for those who like to use old EF lenses in non-homeopathic doses!


----------



## landon (Jul 24, 2021)

EVF?


----------



## Quackator (Jul 24, 2021)

No EVF, no sale.


----------



## reefroamer (Jul 24, 2021)

Quackator said:


> No EVF, no sale.


I’m with you on that. But so many people today have only ever used smartphone screens that I don’t think it would really hurt sales of an entry level $799 R-body camera. I personally find it uncomfortable to hold a body/telephoto lens out in front of me to view the live screen. And not very stable either. No EVF is probably fine for the video creators, who are the fast-expanding market.


----------



## ericblenman (Jul 24, 2021)

It is used to protect the sensor when changing the lens in the new bodies. I wouldn't think that it would save much money, in which case I would like to see them keep it on all bodies going forward.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Jul 24, 2021)

It's just a new design to improve/ stop the M/s from shutter shock on R5.

R5 goes too much with it's 2-motor- driven shutter design which causes shutter shock worse than those from DSLR which is one of the main reason we upgrade to mirrorless from DSLR, meanwhile to avoid the shuther - shock.


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Jul 25, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> Why still use a mech. Shutter for a cheap entry level ILC? Get rid of it. Forever! And save the bucks.
> 
> Maybe a professional camera may need a shutter until technology is ready but a smallish camera like this? No way.


Electronic shutter necessitates more powerful and faster electronics by the nature of how it works. This cost more money and may eat up any savings from elimination of the mechanical shutter.


----------



## sanj (Jul 25, 2021)

Could this be the crop mirrorless we (some) have been waiting for? R7?


----------



## slclick (Jul 25, 2021)

Quackator said:


> No EVF, no sale.


True, I have a phone, thats enough shooting sans vf for me.


----------



## slclick (Jul 25, 2021)

sanj said:


> Could this be the crop mirrorless we (some) have been waiting for? R7?


I actually think they are running with the Siggy FP design here. Maybe it's an a7c killer? Stabs in the dark


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 25, 2021)

sanj said:


> Could this be the crop mirrorless we (some) have been waiting for? R7?


The R7 would not be small, but this might be the R series DSLR rebel replacement.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 25, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> Why still use a mech. Shutter for a cheap entry level ILC? Get rid of it. Forever! And save the bucks.
> 
> Maybe a professional camera may need a shutter until technology is ready but a smallish camera like this? No way.


Because a lot of people like to use flash.


----------



## Swerky (Jul 25, 2021)

If cheaper full frame RF mount is to be the replacement of APS-C with Canon, why would it be so? Has Canon found that APS-C wouldn't be profitable anymore? Potential Eos m users simply using the more and more advanced computational photography on their phones, with the different focal length lenses that are being added? Is it because fujifilm has got that segment covered and they don't want to compete there? While fujifilm themselves are reducing their digital imaging manufacturing. https://fstoppers.com/gear/fuji-refocuses-away-photography-570640
Does Canon see there aren't pros looking for APS-C cameras anymore? Or does it see that the possibility of producing cheaper telephoto lenses with slower aperture negates the need for an RF APS-C system?


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 25, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> Because a lot of people like to use flash.


There are plenty of options for those who want flash, and who worry about electronic shutter effects and everything else.

This would seem to be an entry level camera for low cost and small size. 

that’s a market segment that is probably large but virtually unrepresented by those who participate here.
Except for people like me looking for a compact alternative to their R5 for pocketing occasionally, travel, while having the ability to share any lens.


----------



## Tremotino (Jul 25, 2021)

Chris Jankowski said:


> Electronic shutter necessitates more powerful and faster electronics by the nature of how it works. This cost more money and may eat up any savings from elimination of the mechanical shutter.


This seems to be the only answer that makes sense to me.


----------



## jvillain (Jul 25, 2021)

ericblenman said:


> It is used to protect the sensor when changing the lens in the new bodies. I wouldn't think that it would save much money, in which case I would like to see them keep it on all bodies going forward.


Not true. They do that in some cameras but they didn't in the RP they said they did it because they didn't want people sticking their finger in the shutter and harming it. Canon saying if you can't afford a $5000 camera you must be stupid.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 25, 2021)

An R100? The Canon M100/M200 are adorably small. Most first-time camera users have never used an EVF.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 25, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> An R100? The Canon M100/M200 are adorably small. Most first-time camera users have never used an EVF.


or used an external flash


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 25, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> or used an external flash


I got the 90EX in an original M kit and love that silly little thing. I often use it to trigger studio lights optically.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 25, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> Because a lot of people like to use flash.


But would users of this entry level RF camera use flash? Would this model be a backup for R5/R6 vs RP for instance? 
Flash sync speed would be based on the sensor readout speed and not likely to be great being full frame and entry level. 
Then again, the Sigma fp L doesn't have a hotshoe and I don't think that it could control an external flash


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I got the 90EX in an original M kit and love that silly little thing. I often use it to trigger studio lights optically.


but would you be the average target user for such a camera body? ie using a base level RF body in a studio lighting environment?
I am not saying that a hotshoe wouldn't be used but used rarely and would restrict the form factor options.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 26, 2021)

slclick said:


> I actually think they are running with the Siggy FP design here. Maybe it's an a7c killer? Stabs in the dark


I concur that the Sigma fp /L are the best examples in the market for us to see what is possible for a full frame minuscule body with no hotshoe/built-inEVF but they are $1900/$2500 price respectively and $1800 for the a7C. They would be in a completely different market segment from the $800 rumour. 
L mount is close in size with 51.6mm vs 54mm inner diameter with the sama 20mm flange distance.

A mechanical shutter adds cost but provides protection for the sensor, flash sync, banding under certain lights and rolling shutter reduction in stills/video. Only the R5/R6 have sensor protection when changing lenses but now seems so basic a feature for mirrorless bodies. If no hotshoe then you don't have to worry about flash sync.
Banding and stills rolling shutter would be the remaining issues but that might be acceptable at a $800 price point. 

I'm not convinced that a mechanical shutter would be mandatory for a $800 body but would certainly be nice.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> but would you be the average target user for such a camera body? ie using a base level RF body in a studio lighting environment?
> I am not saying that a hotshoe wouldn't be used but used rarely and would restrict the form factor options.


Oh no, I wasn't contradicting the comments. Just pointing out a silly use I have for that tiny little 90EX.

I really like the M series, and got the original during the blowout sale. Ended up selling it and getting an M5, stupidly sold that (but not the 22mm/adapter/90EX etc) in anticipation of the much hyped and rumored M5 II. But that M5 II never came and I held off on the M6 II because of the choice between a viewfinder or a flash. I might not be the target market for the entry level M's but I'd think I'd be included in the higher range M's target, though obviously not enough for Canon to bring out that M5 II...


----------



## Cochese (Jul 26, 2021)

jvillain said:


> Not true. They do that in some cameras but they didn't in the RP they said they did it because they didn't want people sticking their finger in the shutter and harming it. Canon saying if you can't afford a $5000 camera you must be stupid.


A lot, if not most of the people who buy the rebel series DSLRs are usually beginners or are gifting them to beginners and children. I've taught many people who to use a DSLR and it's amazing how many of them want to touch the mirror or sensor. 
They're not stupid, they just aren't aware of how delicate those systems can be if bumped the wrong way.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 26, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> But would users of this entry level RF camera use flash? Would this model be a backup for R5/R6 vs RP for instance?
> Flash sync speed would be based on the sensor readout speed and not likely to be great being full frame and entry level.
> Then again, the Sigma fp L doesn't have a hotshoe and I don't think that it could control an external flash


On camera flash is the mainstay of the casual photographer. Note the pop up flashes on so many Rebels and lower end models. It is only on the "pro" models that the built in flash is dropped on the understanding that an advanced user would buy a flash or use OCF.


----------



## deleteme (Jul 26, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> There are plenty of options for those who want flash, and who worry about electronic shutter effects and everything else.
> 
> This would seem to be an entry level camera for low cost and small size.
> 
> ...


It might make a decent back up if you don't want flash. Entry level and low cost mean the absence of a lot of features. Flash on E shutter is possible but a huge compromise. Particularly if one is using a pop up type.


----------



## slclick (Jul 26, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> An R100? The Canon M100/M200 are adorably small. Most first-time camera users have never used an EVF.


Most first time camera users have loaded film. Remember, people are living longer than ever


----------



## Noise (Jul 26, 2021)

jvillain said:


> Not true. They do that in some cameras but they didn't in the RP they said they did it because they didn't want people sticking their finger in the shutter and harming it. Canon saying if you can't afford a $5000 camera you must be stupid.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 26, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> On camera flash is the mainstay of the casual photographer. Note the pop up flashes on so many Rebels and lower end models. It is only on the "pro" models that the built in flash is dropped on the understanding that an advanced user would buy a flash or use OCF.


Pop up flash was a simple solution that fitted around the OVF hump (and probably a box tick in the spec sheet) and would not have cost much to produce. It has always produced pretty poor light quality and was needed as the low light capabilities of the sensor were limited.

Camera phones show how small LED flashes can be but I haven't seen an implementation on a ILC before.

Going back to the Sigma (for size not price), it also doesn't have a built-in flash or hotshoe. It is certainly priced for high end.

If there is no central EVF then built-in flash would go back to the IXUS style flashes and be very limited being close to lenses. Maybe there could be 2 LED flashes (on each corner) although harder to get your fingers out of the way.
If Canon goes a little larger - as suggested in the OP - then the options expand of course but it is interesting to see what can be excluded and still have a good body with RF mount


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 26, 2021)

slclick said:


> Most first time camera users have loaded film. Remember, people are living longer than ever


An interesting question! If all the people taking photos now were the same number (or %) when film was used then I would agree with you but...

FILM
From box brownie in 1900 that sold millions to 35mm in ~1910 to now (Canon started in 1936) to Polaroid in 1948. Even if 10s (100s?) of millions of cameras were sold it still pales compared the world population numbers:
1900 1.7b
2000 6.1b
2020 7.7b (adding almost all population in 1900 since 2000)

DIGITAL
First camera phone in 2000 in Japan. First one in US in 2002. By end of 2003 there were 80m camera phones so lets say we have had 15 years of camera phone experience. Digital cameras followed the same timeline as phones. Mirrorless ILCs started in 2008. P&S compacts declined from 2010 and Kodak filed for chapter 11 in 2012.
Phone sales (almost 100% with a camera). A lot of the sales will be repeat customers but older and second hand phones moving into developing countries.
2018 1.5b
2019 1.5b
2020 1.3b
2021Q1 355m

Estimated that 85% of all photos taken in 2017 were on camera phones. It would be fair to claim that the % is even higher now. I would suggest that the majority of these users (of all age groups from age 3-95) used camera phones before film. This is especially in developing countries where film processing is relatively expensive. So everyone with a phone is a photographer now but only a limited number before year 2000.


----------

