New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?

Started May 10, 2012 | Discussions
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,472
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to danijel973, May 12, 2012

danijel973 wrote:

T3 wrote:

danijel973 wrote:

My main system is 35mm Canon and I would never buy an EVIL that uses EF lenses. It's just crazy, they are too big for that. The lenses have to be max. Leica M size.

You don't buy EF lenses to use on a mirrorless camera. You use your existing EF lenses on a mirrorless camera because you happen to already have those lenses.

But why would I want to do that? I already have a 5d to use with those lenses when I don't mind the bulk and weight. But buy a tiny body and then couple it with a EF 17-40, that's so crazy.

You still don't get it. I have a 40D, 60D, and 5D. And I still see the value of using an E-PM1. Why? Because there are times when some of us do mind the bulk and weight. And heck, sometimes, you just do things because it's there, it gets the job done, and it works. It's called mental flexibility.

I think you're just being a bit inflexible with your thinking. I think a lot of us just see all these lenses and bodies as tools in our tool box, and we want to feel free to pick and choose and combine these various tools as we see fit. It's like a grown man's Lego set. A rigid kid might cry and scream, "Wah! No, you can ONLY use this piece with that piece! It's crazy to do anything else! Wah!" Meanwhile, the rest of us just say, "Chill out, kid, I can put any piece together with any other piece I want."

Besides, I never said anything about the 17-40/4L. Why? Maybe it's because I already have an m4/3 lens to cover that range. I mentioned the Canon 85/1.8 and the 28-75/2.8 because I don't have those lenses for m4/3. I own these lenses for the EF mount, I have an EF-to-m4/3 adapter, it would be useful for me to be able to put it on my E-PM1, so I did it. Simple.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,472
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to T3, May 12, 2012

Also, no matter how "crazy" you might think it is to be using big EF lenses on a small mirrorless camera is, consider this:

I was talking to a Nikon user who was talking about the popularity of Nikon's 1 System. I told him I couldn't understand why it was popular and doing well. He mentioned that a lot of Nikon DSLR users will go out and buy a body like the D800, then throw a V1 body into the purchase as well. Then, they'll go out and shoot with the D800, but have the V1 and an adapter in their pocket or in their bag. They'll shoot with the D800, but then they'll if they feel like it, they'll stick one of their Nikon F lenses on the V1 and do some shooting with that, too. Not a big deal. The advantage is that now they have two bodies to shoot with, but without the weight and bulk of carrying two DSLRs! Some Nikon users are also sticking their V1's on their big telephoto lenses. In fact, he mentioned that the V1 was particularly advantageous with a telephoto lens because of its 2X multiplier. Of course, the telephoto is securely mounted on a tripod, and the V1 is just hanging off the end. But again, the point is that now you have two bodies that you can use with your lenses, but one of those bodies can practically fit in your pocket! It just adds an extra degree of flexibility.

I now can envision the same thing happening when Canon introduces their own mirrorless camera. Canon DSLR users will head out with a bag full of full size DSLR gear, but they'll also have a Canon mirrorless body and an adapter slipped into one of the bag's pockets. And they'll have the flexibility to stick any of their lenses on this slim, side-pocket camera body. You can call it "crazy", but a lot of us just see it as an added degree of flexibility and a cool new tool to add to our tool box.

T3 wrote:

danijel973 wrote:

T3 wrote:

danijel973 wrote:

My main system is 35mm Canon and I would never buy an EVIL that uses EF lenses. It's just crazy, they are too big for that. The lenses have to be max. Leica M size.

You don't buy EF lenses to use on a mirrorless camera. You use your existing EF lenses on a mirrorless camera because you happen to already have those lenses.

But why would I want to do that? I already have a 5d to use with those lenses when I don't mind the bulk and weight. But buy a tiny body and then couple it with a EF 17-40, that's so crazy.

You still don't get it. I have a 40D, 60D, and 5D. And I still see the value of using an E-PM1. Why? Because there are times when some of us do mind the bulk and weight. And heck, sometimes, you just do things because it's there, it gets the job done, and it works. It's called mental flexibility.

I think you're just being a bit inflexible with your thinking. I think a lot of us just see all these lenses and bodies as tools in our tool box, and we want to feel free to pick and choose and combine these various tools as we see fit. It's like a grown man's Lego set. A rigid kid might cry and scream, "Wah! No, you can ONLY use this piece with that piece! It's crazy to do anything else! Wah!" Meanwhile, the rest of us just say, "Chill out, kid, I can put any piece together with any other piece I want."

Besides, I never said anything about the 17-40/4L. Why? Maybe it's because I already have an m4/3 lens to cover that range. I mentioned the Canon 85/1.8 and the 28-75/2.8 because I don't have those lenses for m4/3. I own these lenses for the EF mount, I have an EF-to-m4/3 adapter, it would be useful for me to be able to put it on my E-PM1, so I did it. Simple.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Wellington100
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,473Gear list
Like?
Re: I think you're all clueless
In reply to Bob Meyer, May 12, 2012

Bob Meyer wrote:

None of you have a clue about what Canon will do. All this pointless bloviating accomplishes nothing. Wait a few weeks and see.

Errr, the OP invited a good bloviate on this thread, which you are busy popping....Downerrr

Canon certainly has the resources to build a competitive camera. The fact that Nikon didn't doesn't mean Canon will follow the same path.
--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).

-- hide signature --

S100 (MIA), S6500, S5, F300, F200, F70, F11 (Retired), F31 (deceased), Z5, V10, D40, EX1

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
4thnebula
Senior MemberPosts: 1,429Gear list
Like?
Canon is so late to this party...
In reply to Steve Zeiger, May 12, 2012

that MHO is that they would have to come up with some top quality bodies and lenses at competitive prices (to u43rds) to not take enough market share of mirrorless.

Unfortunately, I don't see Canon get into u43rds unless they can find some way of taking over (like purchasing Pany Camera division-pr closely partnering). I would be pleasantly surprized.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
danijel973
Contributing MemberPosts: 630Gear list
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to T3, May 13, 2012

You just don't get it, do you? Lenses are half the bulk of the lens/camera system. The only reason to go m34 is to reduce the bulk, which you're certainly not going to do if you don't get the smaller lenses. If you keep the old lenses you might as well keep a body that goes with them, it won't make much of a difference.

 danijel973's gear list:danijel973's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Olympus PEN E-PL1 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
danijel973
Contributing MemberPosts: 630Gear list
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to T3, May 13, 2012

T3 wrote:

danijel973 wrote:

You can look at it that way, but you can also say that they are introducing their new generation of tiny lenses to owners of all the Panasonic and Olympus m43 bodies out there, which increases their market tenfold. Making their own mount is like making your own OS to go with your application instead of just writing the app for win and mac.

Again, you're missing the whole picture.

I never do that, but people who do have an annoying need to project it outwards.

 danijel973's gear list:danijel973's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Olympus PEN E-PL1 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
danijel973
Contributing MemberPosts: 630Gear list
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to technic, May 13, 2012

technic wrote:

I think both of you ignore that it is not for Canon to decide, but for Olympus and Panasonic.

I don't think it is, because 43 has always been an open standard. Olympus certainly didn't mind Panasonic and Sigma joining, and Panasonic is a huge player, at least as big as Canon.

But the issue is moot, since Canon entering the m43 paradigm is as likely as snow in hell.

 danijel973's gear list:danijel973's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Olympus PEN E-PL1 Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ulfric M Douglas
Senior MemberPosts: 3,857
Like?
Reducing bulk? Nah.
In reply to danijel973, May 13, 2012

danijel973 wrote:

... The only reason to go m34 is to reduce the bulk, ...

I keep hearing this, and I own both DSLRs and m4/3rds cameras and lenses.
At no point did I puchase any m4/3rds equipment for reasons of reducing bulk.
Figure that out?

The first m4/3rds camera I got purely for cost-effective EVF : manual-focus of old lenses, that was the Lumix G1 and a very good job it still does.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Aleo Veuliah
Forum ProPosts: 14,455Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon is so late to this party...
In reply to 4thnebula, May 13, 2012

Yeah, late ... but that can be good, they have seen what others have made on mirrorless, like Nikon with the Nikon 1 System

-- hide signature --

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.

 Aleo Veuliah's gear list:Aleo Veuliah's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Nikon 1 V3 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Art_P
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,016Gear list
Like?
Money speaks
In reply to amalric, May 13, 2012

Both Panasonic and Olympus could use extra cash, so far Oly hasn't accepted any offers... too many strings attached?

If Canon really wanted to join 4/3, it might just take the right offer- x million Yen to sign on, no strings in the board room. They could make it up just on saving development costs.
Such a deal could leave Nikon as the bit player, boost Oly/Panny sales initially

If Canon carved it's own niche, say slightly larger bodies (w EOS ergonomics and menus?) and larger/faster lenses, there would be room for all three w less direct competition... One beautiful system, but perhaps not the one that Olympus envisioned.
Ah well, back to reality... don't rally expect to see it happen.
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

 Art_P's gear list:Art_P's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
amalric
Forum ProPosts: 10,393
Like?
Predominance...
In reply to Art_P, May 13, 2012

is not only a matter of financial agreements, but of market share.

I don't think that Oly and Panny like to share patents even among themselves. See how long it took Oly do develop fast CDAF lenses.

In fact both might aims at predominance in ILC cameras by the end of the decade, and as unlikely as it seems now, they might have decided to marginalise the old market leaders by then.

I keep thinking that if Fuji had applied for m4/3 patents, it migh have avoided the Achilles' heel if the X Pro 1, sluggish AF.

Let's see if Canon solves it: an enabling technology might require time and experience, not only money.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TrapperJohn
Forum ProPosts: 10,027Gear list
Like?
But that will never happen
In reply to jcharding, May 13, 2012

Canon is a market leader. In a market that's looking increasingly antiquated, but they are a market leader. To adopt someone else's system is admitting defeat, that someone else designed a better system, and Canon will never do that. Not as long as they are in their lofty position, anyway.

Olympus/Panasonic won't allow it, either, and since they own the patents and copyrights regarding M43, their approval is mandatory. If they wouldn't accept Pentax who was small enough not to threaten either player (that would have been a win-win situation), they certainly won't let the 900 pound gorilla dominate the market they created.

 TrapperJohn's gear list:TrapperJohn's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jtan163
Contributing MemberPosts: 923Gear list
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to technic, May 13, 2012

Even if Canon don't go MFT, going MFT like sized sensor might be enough - at least for MFT users.

Presumably the lenses would be smaller and lighter than your APS-C or FF lenses like an MFT lens should be, and presumably they'd be MFT mountable with an adaptor.

I just can't fathom why there are so few fast-ish telephotos in MFT and hopefully Canon might design an adaptable fast tele.

If they were clever they'd design their new mount such that it was very easy to adapt including AF performance to MFT, and thereby be able to sell their lenses into the MFT market.

 jtan163's gear list:jtan163's gear list
Olympus C-740 UZ Nikon D7000 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,068
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to danijel973, May 13, 2012

danijel973 wrote:

technic wrote:

I think both of you ignore that it is not for Canon to decide, but for Olympus and Panasonic.

I don't think it is, because 43 has always been an open standard.

Four Thirds has never been 'open', nor a 'standard'. It has always been controlled by Olympus, protected by Olympus patents and the details of things such as protocols unpublished unless you conclude a deal with Olympus and pay a licence fee. The protocols are even encrypted to stop them being taken up by non licence fee payers.

If it was a 'standard' there would be an independent standards body overseeing it, rather than one company.

If it was 'open' then the standards documents would be freely published and anyone could learn the details of the specifications and protocols without entering into a licensing agreement.

Olympus certainly didn't mind Panasonic and Sigma joining, and Panasonic is a huge player, at least as big as Canon.

Olympus needed independent lens vendors, their lack makes the system much less attractive to consumers, and since they had taken steps to make their protocols hard to hack, they more or less had to licence them. Even then the strategy backfired, Sigma never made any purpose made FT lenses, they just adapted APS-c ones (and that continues with their new mFT lenses) which meant they were always heavily compromised. And Tonkina and Tamron never even bothered, so while all the APS-C brands have three independent brand lenses available (full AF) Four Thirds only has one.

As for Panasonic, had not a major player come in, the system would be dead by now, and Olympus knew that.

But the issue is moot, since Canon entering the m43 paradigm is as likely as snow in hell.

Indeed, not even Fujifilm, a Four Thirds licensee, bothered to use the Four Thirds 'standards' when it produced its mirrorless IL system.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,068
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to jtan163, May 13, 2012

jtan163 wrote:

If they were clever they'd design their new mount such that it was very easy to adapt including AF performance to MFT, and thereby be able to sell their lenses into the MFT market.

Their new mount will almost certainly use the EF protocols extended to allow better CDAF, in a smaller mount with a closer register. I very much doubt whether Canon cares at all about the mFT lens market. My guess is that it is more likely to go for a shorter register (as Sony did) which means that the lenses will not focus on infinity on an adapter on mFT, because this will give their system more flexibility.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barry Fitzgerald
Forum ProPosts: 29,888
Like?
Canon have big fire-power..
In reply to Aleo Veuliah, May 13, 2012

It won't matter yes very late but Canon have the muscle to make it stick and I'd be afraid..very afraid if I were another camera maker.

Like Canon or not (and I'm no fan of Canon) they've been around in the business for a long time, they have the top spot for cameras..they know how to do it as well if not better than anyone else.

It would be very unwise to write them off

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tim in upstate NY
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,120Gear list
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to bobn2, May 13, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

My guess is that it is more likely to go for a shorter register (as Sony did) which means that the lenses will not focus on infinity on an adapter on mFT, because this will give their system more flexibility.

. . . Would you clarify what you're saying here? I'm not sure what this statement means.

 Tim in upstate NY's gear list:Tim in upstate NY's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 26,068
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to Tim in upstate NY, May 13, 2012

Tim in upstate NY wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

My guess is that it is more likely to go for a shorter register (as Sony did) which means that the lenses will not focus on infinity on an adapter on mFT, because this will give their system more flexibility.

. . . Would you clarify what you're saying here? I'm not sure what this statement means.

The lens register is the distance between the lens mount   flange and the sensor surface or focal plane .

The lens mount is the mechanism into which the 'lens' attaches to the camera in an interchangeable   lens system.

The lens mount flange is the flat ring shaped surface of the lens mount which defines the location of a lens when mounted on a camera.

The sensor is the electro-optical assembly that records the levels of light that make up an image in a digital camera.

The focal plane is the plane of sharp focus for a properly mounted lens focussed on infinity and will normally be coincident with the surface of the sensor.

An interchangeable lens system is one in which the lenses may be interchanged by the user.
A lens is an optical assembly capable of forming an image.

An image , in the optical sense, is a two dimensional representation of an object or scene.

Focus is the state at which light emanating from a point on the object/ converges to a point at the focal plane.

An object , in an optical sense, is some physical entity, which might be part of a scene and is represented in an image.

So, it is likely that Canon will go for a shorter register than did Olympus (or was it Panasonic?) when designing the micro Four Thirds system, as Sony did when they designed the E-mount for the NEX system. The advantage of a shorter register is that it allows more flexibility, particularly in the range and designs of lenses that may be mounted upon the mount designed to that register.
--
Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tim in upstate NY
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,120Gear list
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to bobn2, May 13, 2012

bobn2 wrote:

So, it is likely that Canon will go for a shorter register than did Olympus (or was it Panasonic?) when designing the micro Four Thirds system, as Sony did when they designed the E-mount for the NEX system. The advantage of a shorter register is that it allows more flexibility, particularly in the range and designs of lenses that may be mounted upon the mount designed to that register.

. . . This is the part that I wasn't very clear about. So the problematic performance of the NEX with wide lenses isn't a liability?

 Tim in upstate NY's gear list:Tim in upstate NY's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
T3
T3
Forum ProPosts: 17,472
Like?
Re: New Canon Micro 4/3 on the horizon?
In reply to danijel973, May 13, 2012

danijel973 wrote:

You just don't get it, do you? Lenses are half the bulk of the lens/camera system. The only reason to go m34 is to reduce the bulk, which you're certainly not going to do if you don't get the smaller lenses. If you keep the old lenses you might as well keep a body that goes with them, it won't make much of a difference.

I just took my Canon 85/1.8 off my Canon 60D and placed it on my E-PM1. I just reduced my bulk. No question about it. LOL, sorry danijel973, you fail. Clearly, if you reduce the size of the bulk from your body, but not the lens, you're still reducing bulk. You seem to be one of the few people in the world who still thinks that a mirrorless body results in no reduction in bulk.

And as I've mentioned previously, many of us think that this is simply an additional point of flexibility in our camera gear collection. Those of us who are capable of flexible thinking understand this. Clearly, you don't understand this! LOL

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads