# Patent for Moving Sensor Switch?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 6, 2016)

```
<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/mirrorless-slr.gif" rel="attachment wp-att-24206"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-24206" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/mirrorless-slr.gif" alt="mirrorless-slr" width="560" height="326" /></a></p>
<p>A patent that seems to show a switch that will move a camera from mirorrless to DSLR mode has been published.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html" target="_blank">Keith over at Northlight</a> provided the animation above and this explanation:</p>
<blockquote><p>Short back focus lenses such as EF-M allow you to put the sensor much closer to the lens, reducing body depth. However, unless you choose an EVF, there is no way to get a good optical reflex viewfinder. The patent allows you to swap between a focus screen or sensor close up to the lens.</p>
<p>Perhaps a bit clearer to see in this animation of the short backfocus reflex viewfinder design. The sensor is red and the focus screen green (other moving part is a mirror) This allows a reflex optical viewfinder to be used with any short backfocus lens.</p></blockquote>
<p>A very interesting concept indeed.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 6, 2016)

Seems like a neat way to get the worst of both worlds in one package!


----------



## gruhl28 (Jan 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Seems like a neat way to get the worst of both worlds in one package!



LOL, exactly.

If I'm understanding correctly, this would allow you to use lenses designed for mirrorless cameras on a DSLR. Why would you want to do that? I guess maybe someone wants to use Leica M lenses on a DSLR? Or use mostly mirrorless lenses with a mirrorless camera, but also have a DSLR that works with those lenses for times when a DSLR is an advantage? How large a market would that be?


----------



## TeT (Jan 6, 2016)

This is something else. Probably just covering a concept that they garnered something useful from. Practical application (from marketing sales angle) of the diagram displayed doesn't make much sense.


----------



## chmteacher (Jan 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Seems like a neat way to get the worst of both worlds in one package!



HAHAHAH!


----------



## bseitz234 (Jan 6, 2016)

If this makes it so I can have a wide-ish, fast enough prime for an APS-C sensor (mount the EF-M 22mm f/2 on my 7D), short of shelling out for the 24L, then I guess I see a purpose in it. Then again, is it really worth all the effort to make a moveable sensor so I have access to one more $200 lens? Doubtful...


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Seems like a neat way to get the worst of both worlds in one package!



I was kind of thinking the same, seems like a very compromising solution, especially if we are talking M size, APS-C type of camera. And for what? To get an OVF? I think most would take the compromise of an EVF on an M to be able to maintain the small form factor.


----------



## -1 (Jan 6, 2016)

Now we know what Canon's gonna release 1/4! ヅ


----------



## skp (Jan 6, 2016)

There has to be more to this. As shown, it seems that in order to take a photo while in OVF mode, three things would have to move 1) the focusing screen, 2) the mirror, and 3) the sensor itself. I'm not sure, but it seems that having to move all three things would probably create such a lag before the image is captured that it might defeat the advantage of the OVF. More importantly, it seems like flapping the entire image sensor into place would introduce a vibration problem millions of times worse than the mirror slap issue that engineers have fought to dampen over countless generations of DSLRs.

Based on what we've seen and heard over the past couple of years since mirrorless started taking off, I have no doubt that Canon is working one something interesting to overcome the deficiencies of electronic viewfinders in a mirrorless body, but this isn't the whole picture. Canon isn't that daft.


----------



## Click (Jan 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Seems like a neat way to get the worst of both worlds in one package!



LOL


----------



## scrup (Jan 6, 2016)

DOA,

technology is about less moving parts not more.

Work on EVF, Improved processing and Battery Life.

The mirror is not the future.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 6, 2016)

gruhl28 said:


> this would allow you to use lenses designed for mirrorless cameras on a DSLR. Why would you want to do that?



smaller flange distance would simplify lens design and reduce size

for canon it would also mean they no longer need to design 2 types of lenses, they are now being forced to design lenses for mirrorless and DSLR, that's a crazy extra cost for them that they are sure to find a solution for in the future

this isn't a weird solution at all, anyone who has given flange distance a second of thought quickly realizes that the only way to reduce the flange distance is to physically move the sensor when pressing the shutter, the mirror in DSLR takes up the spot where the sensor is in mirrorless

letting the sensor flap just like the mirror is not a new idea, I've seen several people mention it in the past


----------



## rs (Jan 6, 2016)

This is a concept well suited to a company with a large back catalogue of mirrorless lenses that wants to move into the DSLR/OVF market, and doesn't want to start from scratch with lenses.

Canon doesn't fit that description.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 6, 2016)

scrup said:


> technology is about less moving parts not more.



Not always true, one example is tray loading CD players VS slot loading.

Tray loading has much more mechanical parts, a bigger motor, more parts...yet, it is far more reliable than slot loading, the disc can't get stuck, the disc has far less chance to get scratched. Slot loading has less moving parts, but it never took off, some brands like Apple use it, but it never displaced tray loading, tray loading is still far more popular, it is far more reliable.

EVF have a major issue, they use a lot of battery life.


----------



## Bernard (Jan 6, 2016)

skp said:


> There has to be more to this. As shown, it seems that in order to take a photo while in OVF mode, three things would have to move (...)



They would be geared together to move as one, and they could also balance each other to minimize vibration, so it's not an un-solvable problem.

The illustration may be confusing. I imagine that the mirror and focusing screen would move as one (collapsing?) unit.


----------



## Steve_FR (Jan 6, 2016)

I am in agreement that this patent looks at first glance like a ridiculous Rube Goldberg contraption, but it could also be one of the most exciting recent patents from Canon.

It appears to have an EF-M focal flange distance (18mm) That would allow a DSLR with this design to use all legacy Canon FD lenses with an adapter. As well as most other legacy glass. Potentially there could also be room for a full frame sensor, and built in sensor stabilization. That's a bit of a stretch, but...if the sensor is already moving, maybe it could compensation for hand-held vibration as well. Could be a really exciting camera. EF-M lenses could be used in "APS-C" mode, and this could open up the doors for full frame EF-M lenses without adding another lens mount type to the lineup.


----------



## Wizardly (Jan 6, 2016)

Some patents you file to build. Some you file to license. Some you file to block a build.

I'm guessing this is for license.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Seems like a neat way to get the worst of both worlds in one package!



Not practical, since it would significantly change the optical path length. You would need completely different lenses for each mode.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Not practical, since it would significantly change the optical path length. You would need completely different lenses for each mode.



In current dSLRs, the optical path length to the eyepiece is significantly different from that to the image sensor, yet somehow I can still both look through the lens via the viewfinder and capture an image with the sensor, all with the same lens. Why? 






Beacuse the the focusing screen is at the same relative location in the optical path as the sensor. That's also true in the animation that Keith at Northlight prepared (from the diagrams in the patent) to illustrate the concept.

The concept is perfectly valid, but your understanding of it and the relevant underlying principles seems to be lacking.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Not practical, since it would significantly change the optical path length. You would need completely different lenses for each mode.
> ...



The only understanding lacking is yours.

Because the mirror has its own optics to correct for the changes in optical path lens. The sensor doesn't move, so for the purposes of taking a picture no additional correction is needed. If your sensor moves and changes the optical path lens, you will also have to flip in additional optics to correct for that, if you are using the same lens. That is not practical. Realistically you would need to use a completely different lens design.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 6, 2016)

Not to mention the practical limitations in ensuring that the sensor alignment is absolutely exactly the same every shot. 

There is no way that this is going to be a practical competitive camera. If you want a mirrorless camera then use a mirrorless camera. Instead of moving from one moving part to no moving parts, we are expected to think that three moving parts is an improvement. If you think microadjustment of focus is a pain with current DSLRs, this thing is going to be way way worse than that, and what is more that microadjustment will change with every shot.

Why would anyone want such a complicated arrangement?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 6, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Not to mention the practical limitations in ensuring that the sensor alignment is absolutely exactly the same every shot.
> 
> There is no way that this is going to be a practical competitive camera. If you want a mirrorless camera then use a mirrorless camera. Instead of moving from one moving part to no moving parts, we are expected to think that three moving parts is an improvement. If you think microadjustment of focus is a pain with current DSLRs, this thing is going to be way way worse than that, and what is more that microadjustment will change with every shot.
> 
> Why would anyone want such a complicated arrangement?


Would have to agree that its very risky to have two sensors that move you want the distance between the mount & sensor to be exact having worked in the film industry for too many years to mention moving parts eventually wear and attaining the accuracy required to get the maximum out of lenses or the sensor your just asking for trouble employing moving parts.


----------



## rs (Jan 6, 2016)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



This patent is for a DSLR to use mirrorless lenses. Either the focus screen is positioned at the focal plane of the short flange lens, or that is replaced with the sensor at this same position. One focal plane. If you want to use other lenses such as FD or EF, and adapter like the existing EF to EF-M would be needed.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 6, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention the practical limitations in ensuring that the sensor alignment is absolutely exactly the same every shot.
> ...



If the focusing is done on the imaging sensor then the distance between the sensor and the mount does not need to be exact. Each time you focus you compensate for the differences.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

*OMG, Canon invents the Multi-Slapper*

If this ever appears as a product, i will definitely buy it. Since i will be one of very few people to do so, and because i will not take a single shot with it, it will become an extremely rare collectors item. It will secure my old-age income, once i sell it "in perfectly mint condition" to some chinese, japanese or Russion gazillionaire collector.

Way to go, Canon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



Lol. Yes, your understanding is as correct as your statement that any camera with Digic 7 will shoot 4K video. Please describe the 'optics in the mirror to correct for the optical path length'. 

I agree that it's not a practical product, but not for the reason you suggest.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

*Canon at its innovative best ...*

Nikon launches 2 new, but still tired old mirrorslappers
Innovative Canon launches groundbreaking compact cams with the smallest sensors all around plus the world's first Full-HD video cam for vixen shootings and most importantly, patents the future of photography ... the multi-slapper!

I will have to call the EU commission and ask them to stop Canon before it is too late and they have wiped out all competitors in the entire imaging junk industry!  ;D


----------



## trulandphoto (Jan 6, 2016)

Steve_FR said:


> I am in agreement that this patent looks at first glance like a ridiculous Rube Goldberg contraption, but it could also be one of the most exciting recent patents from Canon.
> 
> It appears to have an EF-M focal flange distance (18mm) That would allow a DSLR with this design to use all legacy Canon FD lenses with an adapter. As well as most other legacy glass. Potentially there could also be room for a full frame sensor, and built in sensor stabilization. That's a bit of a stretch, but...if the sensor is already moving, maybe it could compensation for hand-held vibration as well. Could be a really exciting camera. EF-M lenses could be used in "APS-C" mode, and this could open up the doors for full frame EF-M lenses without adding another lens mount type to the lineup.



I want some of what you're consuming.


----------



## Quackator (Jan 7, 2016)

skp said:


> As shown, it seems that in order to take a photo while in OVF mode, three things would have to move (....)



No. 

In DSLR mode, just the mirror moves, like in any other DSLR.
In mirrorless mode nothing moves.

Only while switching modes, all three are moved and then locked.

This won't happen for every single shot.

It's like switching from TV to AV, if you get me.


----------



## jvirta (Jan 7, 2016)

Quackator said:


> skp said:
> 
> 
> > As shown, it seems that in order to take a photo while in OVF mode, three things would have to move (....)
> ...



So you are saying that in the DSLR mode you would take the photo through the focusing screen? :
And you also would have to turn the mirror downwards to direct the light to the sensor so there would actually have be two mechanism in the mirror, to move it away of the way of the focusing screen and the sensor when they are moving and to pivot form the center to either to direct the light to the ovf or the sensor...
And then you would have a camera with two different lengths of optical paths


----------



## DLD (Jan 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Seems like a neat way to get the worst of both worlds in one package!


Haha yes it does. Compromising both would not be very useful.

The only point I see is if Canon would before introduce a full frame mirrorless, go this way. The new mirrorless cameras would have the same mount, people could use their old dslr lenses, slowly integrate into the mirrorless until the dslr are rendered obsolete by the mirrorless.


----------



## Mistral75 (Jan 7, 2016)

Quackator said:


> skp said:
> 
> 
> > As shown, it seems that in order to take a photo while in OVF mode, three things would have to move (....)
> ...



There is no such thing as a 'DSLR mode' and a 'mirrorless mode' in this patent.

There is a framing position designated as (a) in the patent (and called "preparation of photography" in the description) and a shooting position called as such and designated as (b).






In framing position (a):

- the image sensor 108 flips down to make way for both the focussing screen 104 and the mirror 105
- the focussing screen 104 (which, in the patent, is said to include a phase difference detection device) flips down to the same plane as the sensor 108 in shooting position (b)
- the mirror 105 flips forwards
- the image on the focussing screen 104 is reflected towards the prism 106 by the mirror 105.

In shooting position (b):

- the focussing screen 104 flips up, out of the optical path
- the mirror 105 flips backwards to make way for the image sensor 108
- the image sensor 108 flips up to the focal plane to take the picture (or use the live view).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 7, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...


This only works in stills not in video where you would also rely on focus marks on the lens so back focus from mount to sensor IS critical Ive only been doing it for 35 years.


----------



## David (Jan 7, 2016)

A Pro told me that Canon is doing research about a camera that takes digital and analog pictures. By moving the sensor away this would make room for exposing the film in the back. This is the only interpretation that makes sense when watching that patent: A mirrorless digital sensor camera with the ability to shoot film via the traditional mirror.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

Mistral75 said:


> There is no such thing as a 'DSLR mode' and a 'mirrorless mode' in this patent.
> 
> There is a framing position designated as (a) in the patent (and called "preparation of photography" in the description) and a shooting position called as such and designated as (b).



Exactly. It seems several people failed to correctly understand the concept, in some cases inventing ridiculous explanations to support their misunderstanding.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 7, 2016)

David said:


> A Pro told me that Canon is doing research about a camera that takes digital and analog pictures. By moving the sensor away this would make room for exposing the film in the back. This is the only interpretation that makes sense when watching that patent: A mirrorless digital sensor camera with the ability to shoot film via the traditional mirror.


Interesting if true as Kodak will be launching a Super 8 camera in fall 2016. 

http://www.kodak.com/ek/us/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/default.htm


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 7, 2016)

Isn't this just a way of having a reflex OVF with mirror-less flange distance and thinner body ? I think someone has designed this purely for the purpose of winding up the likes of AvTvM, and the rest of the "mirror-less is the future" brigade ! Although it doesn't show it very well in the diagram I guess that this design could have a body that is about the same thickness as a traditional 35mm film SLR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> David said:
> 
> 
> > A Pro told me that Canon is doing research about a camera that takes digital and analog pictures. By moving the sensor away this would make room for exposing the film in the back. This is the only interpretation that makes sense when watching that patent: A mirrorless digital sensor camera with the ability to shoot film via the traditional mirror.
> ...



It might be true that Canon is looking into a combined digital/analog camera, but that's not evident from this patent. The patent is all about adding TTL viewing capability to a mirrorless design, there's no provision for capturing images with anything other than the digital sensor. Although perhaps such a provision could be added...


----------



## Mistral75 (Jan 7, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Isn't this just a way of having a reflex OVF with mirror-less flange distance and thinner body ? I think someone has designed this purely for the purpose of winding up the likes of AvTvM, and the rest of the "mirror-less is the future" brigade ! Although it doesn't show it very well in the diagram I guess that this design could have a body that is about the same thickness as a traditional 35mm film SLR.



Yes for the reflex with OVF and mirrorless flange distance, not so sure for the thinner body: you still have a mirror and you add a focussing screen in front of it.

The advantage of such a device is to reconcile optical viewfinder and phase-detection autofocus on the one hand, lenses with a short-registered mount on the other hand, i.e.* to only need one range of lenses for both mirrorless and reflex cameras*. The price to pay is a huge mechanical complexity:

- three flipping devices that shall be perfectly synchronised,
- two flipping devices (sensor and focussing screen) that shall be perfectly adjusted to stop at the very same vertical position,
- a flipping sensor, the movements of which shall be perfectly damped.

Not to mention a phase detection device that shall be perfectly transparent since located on the focal plane...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 7, 2016)

Mistral75 said:


> The advantage of such a device is ...* to only need one range of lenses for both mirrorless and reflex cameras*.



Why can't you do that by just making a mirrorless body with the same flange distance as an SLR body?

With DPAF you don't even lose phase detect.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Mistral75 said:
> 
> 
> > The advantage of such a device is ...* to only need one range of lenses for both mirrorless and reflex cameras*.
> ...



Because then you lose one key advantage of mirrorless, thinner body due to short flange focal distance lenses.


----------



## Mistral75 (Jan 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Mistral75 said:
> ...



Indeed. Remember the late Pentax K-01, shown below without lens.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Mistral75 said:
> ...



However, this proposal doesn't offer a thinner body anyway, hence my questioning of the suggested advantage above. If the goal is to only need one range of lenses, it would be much simpler to make an SLR-body without the mirror, or make a small mirrorless body plus a glassless adapter.

This contraption would let you use both types of lenses on one body, but it wouldn't eliminate the need for both types of lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Your suggestion allows MILC integration with current dSLR lenses without the need for an adapter. The patent describes a solution that allows integration with MILC lenses. Currently, the present invention has no real place in the Canon system. But in several years, if there is a shift such that the market is dominated by MILCs instead of dSLRs, this patent becomes a way for people to maintain one key advantage of dSLRs, the ability to look directly through the lens. 

This is merely Canon planning for one possible future direction of the industry.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I think it does actually: the sensor is effectively lying flat in the bottom of the mirror box until it flips up to deploy, so it's not adding to the overall size of the mirror box, and of course 35 mm slrs had the same size box. Not sure how the AF would work when using the OVF. 

Seems a convoluted system but it does overcome the main disadvantage of a mirrorless system - it adds a mirror


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your suggestion allows MILC integration with current dSLR lenses without the need for an adapter. The patent describes a solution that allows integration with MILC lenses.



But without the 'one key advantage of mirrorless, thinner body due to short flange focal distance lenses.' 



neuroanatomist said:


> Currently, the present invention has no real place in the Canon system. But in several years, if there is a shift such that the market is dominated by MILCs instead of dSLRs, this patent becomes a way for people to maintain one key advantage of dSLRs, the ability to look directly through the lens.



I suspect that any advantage of looking directly through the lens will be eaten up by whatever lag is involved in moving the sensor to shooting position after framing and focusing. Shrug. 

It's a dog, and I'll eat the diagram if it ever comes to market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Your suggestion allows MILC integration with current dSLR lenses without the need for an adapter. The patent describes a solution that allows integration with MILC lenses.
> ...



Obviously. But right now, long flange lenses are the majority, and those wanting to use them on a mirrorless body must use an adapter. What about if short flange lenses become the majority? Those wanting a TTL option can't use an adapter (at least, not one without optics and the probably negative consequences associated with that). As is often the case, those in the minority need to make compromises.




3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Currently, the present invention has no real place in the Canon system. But in several years, if there is a shift such that the market is dominated by MILCs instead of dSLRs, this patent becomes a way for people to maintain one key advantage of dSLRs, the ability to look directly through the lens.
> ...



Presumably everything would be yoked together and driven by one motor, the lag would likely be no different from that of most current dSLRs (although I wouldn't expect a 12 fps version!).

But I agree, this is pretty unlikely to ever see the light of day as a product.


----------



## jrista (Jan 7, 2016)

I would be seriously concerned about misfocus with a design like this. The sensor becomes a mobile part on a hynge...you could have focus distance issues as well as sensor tilt issues. I would also be concerned about sensor shake issues. Because of the scales we are talking about for the image focused at the focal plane, it only takes micrometers before you have an issue. 

I think the concept is interesting...a dual-mode camera that can operate in either use case. I like my OVF for many things, and thus far have not been totally happy with the best available mirrorless EVF options for anything involving quick action (the Samsung NX1 EVF was one of the best so far, but still not quite ideal.) I think the design here is fundamentally flawed unless they have some way of being EXTREMELY accurate with sensor placement and rigidity when the sensor is up in imaging mode.

I hope Canon keeps working on the concept, though. Would be interesting to see more patents with more viable solutions to the problem.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 7, 2016)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19310.msg362533#msg362533

Some people ridiculed my idea of a pivoting sensor, and we have Canon patenting an idea with a pivoting sensor.


----------



## Mistral75 (Jan 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Your suggestion allows MILC integration with current dSLR lenses without the need for an adapter. The patent describes a solution that allows integration with MILC lenses.
> ...



If the solution described in this patent were to be adopted:

- those who want a thinner body and are prepared to use an electronic viewfinder would buy a classical, thin mirrorless camera

- those who prefer an optical viewfinder would buy a camera built according to this patent, which wouldn't be thin but would not be thicker than a conventional DSLR

- the main benefit would be for the camera maker who would only have one range of lenses to maintain and develop instead of two.

It's clearly a (convoluted) solution meant for a world dominated in volume by mirrorless cameras but in which some people would be prepared to pay a (substantial) premium to keep on enjoying an optical viewfinder.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Of course. With too little to go on (just a patent), I imagine I'd lean towards the optical adapter than this solution, but again: shrug



neuroanatomist said:


> Presumably everything would be yoked together and driven by one motor



It would have to, but I don't think they could move position it as quickly as they do a mirror: the contents of the tray are significantly more sensitive.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 7, 2016)

jrista said:


> I think the design here is fundamentally flawed unless they have some way of being EXTREMELY accurate with sensor placement and rigidity when the sensor is up in imaging mode.



Well as long as they get perpendicularity fairly accurately, location isn't as critical IF final focus is achieved by the sensor after it is positioned.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 7, 2016)

Mistral75 said:


> - those who prefer an optical viewfinder would buy a camera built according to this patent, which wouldn't be thin but would not be thicker than a conventional DSLR



Oh, I see what you were getting at. I didn't even consider the abandonment of SLRs and SLR lenses, and I doubt Canon is either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Mistral75 said:
> 
> 
> > - those who prefer an optical viewfinder would buy a camera built according to this patent, which wouldn't be thin but would not be thicker than a conventional DSLR
> ...



Two letters: FD

Plus, EF lenses would still work with the same adapter used to mount them on a MILC.


----------



## jrista (Jan 7, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19310.msg362533#msg362533
> 
> Some people ridiculed my idea of a pivoting sensor, and we have Canon patenting an idea with a pivoting sensor.



Aaand...we are ridiculing Canon's idea of patenting a pivoting sensor.  Not sure that strengthens your idea any. 

It's a bad idea. The sensor plane needs to be so precisely positioned to get sharp images, I honestly don't know how well it could be implemented in a way that wouldn't potentially result in a tilted sensor. I mean, a large enough particle of dust or some particulate stuck in the path of the sensor frame when it flips up could cause problems. 

It's also something else to wear out in the long run. On top of the shutter, on top of the mirror assembly, you would also potentially have failing sensor assemblies.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 7, 2016)

jrista said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19310.msg362533#msg362533
> ...



The less mass the sensor has the easier (and quicker) it would be to do it. I would think this would be a small sensor, probably aps at the very largest. And if you think of this as a small sensor you can see how shallow (thin) the body could be. Not that a shallow body is always the be all and end all of course.


----------



## jrista (Jan 7, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > kphoto99 said:
> ...



I think APS-C is still much too big. APS-C is still on the larger side of sensors...the vast majority of sensors in the world are smaller. I could see it working with a very tiny sensor, 1/3" size or smaller. I wouldn't want to use a DSLR that had a sensor that flipped up and down. It's difficult enough tuning each lens to focus ideally on the focal plane with a fixed sensor DSLR...the added potential error for tilt and added potential for vibration with a moving sensor? 

I think the idea is interesting, but I don't think flipping the sensor up and down like that is the right solution. 

If I really wanted mirrorless, and I do want mirrorless....I want it for the benefits it has to offer. Smaller bodies, potentially smaller lenses, etc. The only real benefit of flipping the sensor up like this is it would make a DSLR compatible with mirrorless lenses, which require a shorter flange focal distance. That could certainly be useful if you have a lot of mirrorless lenses you might want to adapt (and for a given system, that might only be viable with in-brand lenses...like EF and EF-M)...not sure if it's more than an interesting idea right now, though.


----------



## Mistral75 (Jan 7, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Mistral75 said:
> 
> 
> > - those who prefer an optical viewfinder would buy a camera built according to this patent, which wouldn't be thin but would not be thicker than a conventional DSLR
> ...



This is definitely not something for the short- to mid-term. But it could well happen that, in ten years from now, may be less, DSLR cameras would be in the same minority position as rangefinder cameras today, those rangefinder cameras that once ruled the 135 format.

If so, people still wanting to shoot with a TTL optical viewfinder would have to pay a substantial premium, as those who want today to use a digital rangefinder camera have no other solution than to pay Leica prices for their camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

jrista said:


> If I really wanted mirrorless, and I do want mirrorless....I want it for the benefits it has to offer. Smaller bodies, potentially smaller lenses, etc.



That's fine, but I suspect Canon believes there might be consumers out there who have a different opinion than you...and that seems like a reasonable belief.


----------



## jrista (Jan 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If I really wanted mirrorless, and I do want mirrorless....I want it for the benefits it has to offer. Smaller bodies, potentially smaller lenses, etc.
> ...



At the moment, Canon believes the *concept* has merit. A patent isn't a product on a shelf. I suspect the idea will evolve before it actually becomes a product, because I think a lot of people would have issues with the design as currently done.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> This is merely Canon planning for one possible future direction of the industry.



I agree 100% with you. Only a company as ingenious and innovative as Canon can plan for the mirrorless future with a ... Triple-Slapper! Canon has found such a magnisifecent way around the Fuji X1-Pro hybrid viewfinder patents! And to avoid that dreaded, simple rougly 3cm wide aluminum ring wit electrical wire-through to bridge the different flange distance between mirrorslappers and mirrorless cameras ... called "adapter" for 10 bucks production cost and 120 bucks sales price. 

Oh and yes, as someone here has already aptly oted, the genial patented Canon design has room to further evolve: Canon could possibly put a couple more moving elements smack dab in the middle of the lightpath ... on hinges ... powered by mighty motors, coils and springs and braced by 5D mirror dampers that fall off ever so often! Maybe the viewfinder prism itself could tilt and/or rotate also by 180 degrees around the rear LCD in perfect sync with the sensor flipper and the focus screen flapper? 

Canon Multi-Slappers will rule the future of photography, that's for sure! I am all excited! I'll buy the first one with serial number 000001. It will be auctioned off at Westlicht next to some cludgy old Leicas for a gazillion bucks only a 100 years from now. My great-grandchildren shall bring toasts to my amazing foresight! 

P.S. The ill-conceived and ill-received Pentax K-01 was an almost sane concept in comparison.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I have no idea how practical it would be to implement the patent, but perhaps there is another way of looking at the goal ...

What if there were not many EF-M lenses, or cameras to use them on, but you wanted to give people the option of EF-M cameras as well as EF-S/EF cameras and at the same time you wanted to be able to concentrate on developing one line of lenses in future, or you even wanted to gradually switch people over to EF-M cameras altogether without requiring them to immediately buy new lenses?

I see other posts doubting you could implement the patent with an APS-C sensor, but if you could, this might be a sensible way for Canon to avoid developing EF-S lenses in future - just develop EF-M lenses which can be used on any APS-C camera (EOS M line and APS-C DSLRs). The APS-C DSLR line cameras (using the patent) could use EF-M lenses, EF-S lenses and EF lenses (but "cropped" as now, given the sensor size), while the EOS M line could remain mirrorless for those wanting the smallest/thinnest/lightest option.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2016)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Agreed, and there seems to be general agreement that this design would not make a viable product.


----------

