Just posted: Hands-on preview of the Canon EOS 100D/SL1

@Donnie,

Perhaps it has to do with your predictions about Sony and Panasonic ILCs versus a DSLR offering "a familiar form factor" below. You didn't seem to care about Canon's own offering for ILC with the same form factor: EOS-M. So, it had to be logical to assume that Canon is now offering redundancy in that SAME price class (as a matter of fact).

No rational person would use a Sony body to AF Canon lenses and track a moving subject.

μ4/3 is now irrelevant due to this small SLR body. If an EOS M successor can track sports subjects better and is smaller, OK. NEX is useless. Why? It won't AF Canon lenses. Who will willingly carry two different systems at a special stage?!

If this SLR tracks subjects OK I'll buy a body to carry.

Your tone is insulting and your choice of characterizations has lowered the quality of the discussion.

@T3:
"As for comparisons to the Sony A55, keep in mind that there are a lot of consumers who really won't even consider a Sony DSLR. They would rather stick with a Canon or Nikon DSLR. So to these people, it really doesn't matter how small a Sony A55 is. They want something that size, but in a Canon or Nikon body."

Trust me, I'm well aware of the follow the crowd mentality. But that wasn't the point of bringing up my Sony A55, rather the size comparison to SL1.

@EinsteinsGhost - Here's the size comparison, according to camerasize.com:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#448,238

Canon Rebel SL1 is 6% (7.6 mm) narrower and 1% (1.3 mm) shorter than Sony SLT-A55.

Canon Rebel SL1 is 18% (15.3 mm) thinner than Sony SLT-A55.

Canon Rebel SL1 [407 g] weights 17% (85 grams) less than Sony SLT-A55 [492 g]

Some of these numbers may not seem that significant on paper (a few millimeters here, a few millimeters there), but cumulatively I think the difference will be much more noticeable when a consumer actually holds these cameras side-by-side in real life.

But at any rate, you certainly can't blame Canon for making a camera similar, or smaller, in size to the A55. It's just smart business!

@T3:
"Canon Rebel SL1 is 6% (7.6 mm) narrower and 1% (1.3 mm) shorter than Sony SLT-A55.

Canon Rebel SL1 is 18% (15.3 mm) thinner than Sony SLT-A55"
And just as I said, the SL1 is barely smaller than the A55. The major difference in size comes from a lack of grip (depth) and a combination of shallower eye-cup assembly plus lack of articulating LCD in the SL1. It also eliminates stereophonic mic to save size. Is it worth it? Not to me. We're not talking about major differences here. Take a look at this top view:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.377,238.51,ha,t

The A55 has a more protruding view finder cup, and of course articulating LCD adds to the depth, and so does the traditional DSLR-like grip that is rather flat on SL1. These are what add to the extra mm.

I'm sure Canon will find buyers. However, many complained that Sony A55 was a bit too small, so Sony bumped up the size of its replacement a little (Sony A57) while the lesser model, Sony A37 retained smaller dimensions.

I'm sure there were many consumers who bought an A55/A35 because it was more compact than, say, a Canon Rebel. But now Canon has remedied that discrepancy with the Rebel SL1. So regardless of whether the SL1 is much smaller than an A55/A35, the same size, or barely smaller, I would expect the SL1 to siphon sales away from the Sonys. But, heck, Canon could just sell SL1's to their existing customer base, and they'd still probably outsell the Sonys.

Rallyfan, that is one of the most discombobulated comments that I have ever read. It makes almost no sense at all. I had to read it several times to understand that you are saying that because Sony NEX cameras are not the best cameras to use with Canon lenses, that mirrorless cameras are inherently inferior to DSLRs. Sorry, dude, but that just doesn't make sense. And, you say that it logically follows, from the fact that the the SL1 is smaller than Canon's other DSLRs, that MFT is irrelevant. These kinds of comments are manifestly absurd and do not really deserve any reply. Yet, you make these comments that no one could take seriously, and then say that MY tone is insulting and that my characterizations have lowered the quality of the discussion. All that I did was point out the SUBSTANTIVE, INHERENT advantages of mirrorless cameras, which had been overlooked in a couple of earlier posts. How does that lower the quality of the discussion? Who would take you seriously, anyway?

@T3:
"I would expect the SL1 to siphon sales away from the Sonys."

Can you tell the difference?
http://camerasize.com/compact/#448,375,ha,r

Perhaps you might want to attach kit lens too (and that isn't the smallest/lightest NEX):
http://camerasize.com/compact/#448.377,375.360,ha,t

@EinsteinsGhost- When I said "the Sonys", I was obviously referring to the A55/A35 Sony DSLRs that we had been discussing-- not Sony NEX. Besides, not everyone wants a mirrorless camera. Just take a look at Amazon's "Best Sellers in Digital SLR Cameras" (Amazon puts MILCs into this list along with DSLRs) and you'll find that the highest-ranked MILC is the Panasonic GH3, currently at #48. There are 47 other DSLR bodies, DSLR kits, or combos that outsell the best selling MILC product on Amazon. Next highest selling MILC is the Nikon 1 J3 at #69. I didn't see any Sony NEX on that list.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941/ref=zg_bs_nav_p_1_p#1

So in a conversation about DSLRs, and about comparison of the SL1 to the Sony A55/A35 DSLRs, particularly a conversation that now includes the SALES of these cameras, bringing Sony NEX into the mix is even less relevant because A) it's not a DSLR and B) its sales are far below those of DSLRs.

@T3:
"When I said "the Sonys", I was obviously referring to the A55/A35 Sony DSLRs that we had been discussing-- not Sony NEX. Besides, not everyone wants a mirrorless camera."

You should try to be more specific because as you may have noticed, the comparison is largely being made to mirrorless cameras (and you have been involved in those, including in this latest post of yours). Obviously, now you acknowledge that SL1 has no size advantage over mirror-less cameras. It does, over DSLRs.

Now, looking at Sony's DSLR/DSLT models, as I told you, Sony A55 was (and for me, is) a great success. However, it was criticized for a few things that revolved around its size and weight. It was deemed to small and light by many. I disagreed with them (as you might note, I disagreed with the person below about lens size versus body size). Obviously, the DSLT/DSLR form factor has its appeal. Going smaller will work if noticeably smaller, as NEX is to Sony SLT. Not by stripping features (an SL1 issue)

"Obviously, now you acknowledge that SL1 has no size advantage over mirror-less cameras. It does, over DSLRs."

And it only needs to have an advantage over other DSLRs. Because the reality is that the ILC market is still dominated by DSLRs, as the Amazon sales rankings clearly show. MILC sales are still just a small blip on the radar in most parts of the world. The other reason why the SL1 doesn't need to have a size advantage over mirrorless cameras is because Canon has a separate path for that: they are developing their own mirrorless cameras. Duh!

But the other thing the SL1 does is that it will siphon off those people who are sitting on the fence between a MILC and a DSLR. These are people who like an optical viewfinder and would prefer to be in Canon's popular DSLR ecosystem, but also like the advantages of having a smaller ILC camera. These people don't necessarily need a DSLR that has a "size advantage over mirrorless cameras", just a more compact DSLR.

IMO, MILC is going to be a niche market, appealing to a few who want smaller systems and a few enthusiasts who simply enjoy the pleasures of a flexible system. DSLR market is primarily run by the same perceptions that made SUVs hot sellers in the 1990s. I recall that "cross overs" were a fad, and "toys". Now, where are those SUVs, when CUVs are in fashion? What happened?

MILC market needs to overcome a few technological challenges (fast PDAF, for example) and more importantly, perceptions. It will take a few years to change that. The oldest of these systems is may be 5 years old (MFTs).

As far as SL1 is concerned, I couldn't care less about its existence. Obviously, Canon sees a point to it. My point is primarily to address the perception of how there is a camera that can now dramatically change the size aspect of a DSLR. Given what I have seen, and own, it is a laughable proposition to me.

@EinsteinsGhost - you keep digging yourself a deeper hole. Now you're claiming that DSLRs are just a passing fad, akin to SUV's? Wow. Sure, someday, MILCs will probably surpass DSLRs in popularity. But not because DSLRs were a "fad". Sometimes, things are popular because they are the best solution at a given time in history. I think that's definitely been the case with the SLR, film or digital. How long that continues to be true remains to be seen, but as long as the SLR continues to evolve (certainly, the evolution from film to digital SLR, then evolving into a video and movie-making tool, were important recent evolutions), I think this is a "fad" that still has many years of life left in it.

@T3:
"you keep digging yourself a deeper hole. Now you're claiming that DSLRs are just a passing fad, akin to SUV's?"

Well, you just demonstrated your ability to comprehend a response to your own ideas. You were trying to sell current sales numbers to predict continued domination. I presented facts from auto industry, sales of SUVs versus cross overs in the 1990s. The question was, what happened?

The only evolution that DSLRs are seeing are in sensor, and in many cases, maximum efforts to combine video and compacting the size. When you see DSLR technology "evolve" to have sensors that are better at on-sensor phase detection, how exactly does it make a case for the future of mirror based systems? Got a clue?

Your analogy regarding SUV sales is so weak in so many ways. Firstly, SUV sales are still very strong:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/21/suv-sales-continue-to-soar-despite-high-gas-prices

That should be your answer to "what happened?" Hahaha. Got a clue? Obviously not.

Secondly, even if they did ever decline, there certainly wouldn't disappear (like a lot of "fads"). All this would apply to DSLRs. In fact, in many segments of the market, it would probably still dominate for a very long time to come. Thirdly, I wasn't even trying to "make the case for the future of mirror based systems!" My comments about DSLR technology evolving were (obviously) making a case for the future of DSLR technology!!! Got a clue? Clearly not. Hahahaha.

Keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. You're clearly no Einstein! :))

...so big/heavy lens is pulling camera which has essentially no grip...
Thats sound like real wonder of ergonomics aimed on handheld photography for pros....enthusiast will focus on shooting with this camera on big heavy tripods....

simply because it's very difficult to make lenses smaller.
in general, smaller lenses mean cheaper and lower quality.

@emtx - clearly you don't know how to properly hold a camera. When using larger/heavier lenses, you have your left hand underneath the lens to support its weight. Therefore, there is no issue of "big/heavy lens...pulling camera." It's no different than if you had a big 70-200/2.8 lens mounted on a 5D MKII. Even in that situation, the lens is very big and heavy, and would "pull" the camera if you were not supporting the lens with your left hand! Learn how to hold a camera! Hahaha.

As for your claim that the camera has no grip, that's clearly false. It has a much deeper grip than an OM-D!

@T3
Thank you for educating me - I would never figure out in my life how to hold a camera with big lens without you. I would dare oppose to you, that is no difference to 5D mkII. (THERE IS and BIG ONE!) Its about proportion, balance and easy handling of the whole gear in hands. If you try to shoot more than 10 snapshots on warm, sunny Sunday afternoon walk you might feel it.

Considering OM-D thats mirrorless and not DSLR so out of class to compare.

@emtx,

I agree with T3. I would rather shoot with a lighter system all day long than a heavier one. I see absolutely no point to adding weight to camera body, every time a larger and heavier lens is used. There is a reason why attempts are made to trim down the weight of camera bodies.

@emtx - EVERY camera/lens combination, regardless of the "proportion", has a center of balance. I've used a Canon 100-400L IS with small Rebel bodies with no problems. Just use proper camera/lens holding technique.

And if you want another example of disproportion, I also currently use Canon EF lenses on my tiny Oly E-PM1 body, using an EF-to-m4/3 adapter. The E-PM1 is TRULY a camera with NO GRIP, and is MUCH lighter and smaller than an SL1. But I still have no problem using it because I have my left hand supporting it at its center of gravity. So why do I use EF lenses with an E-PM1? Because it gives me a very compact, minimalist camera rig, while still allowing me to use my existing Canon EF lenses. And there are times when m4/3's 2X multiplier is advantageous.

The point is: learn how to hold a camera! If you know how to properly place your hands, virtually any camera/lens combo can be handled well, even if its a Canon 85/1.8 EF on an E-PM1 (which I was using today).

@EinstensGhost
I travel around 2000km a month with my gear (2 bodies, 4 primes,+). I definitely understand point of weight. One reason of buying K5 was compactness and quality.
@T3
I understand you. I shot with FF, D300s, K5 and anothers. I do support my camera with left hand and I like smaller unobtrusive equipment. However, I have 2 projects on street when being fast to change lens and take a picture in difficult conditions require that I can set camera while doing basic composition, fine compose and shoot. In that particular moment grip and reasonable weight distribution helps a lot.
I shoot on film MX (same as OM-D) with manual 80-200mm lens. Its not stabilised and its possible to get sharp picture. I am definitelly takes more time, energy and you become visible.

Sorry for English.
Maybe bit simpler:
Point I am after is, that its strange for me to make "smallest" DSLR, omit the grip, while this "smallest" is smaller cca 2mm - 1cm and 80grams from another DSLR, while having big lenses.

@emtx - so by your logic, Canon shouldn't make a small DSLR like the SL1 because someone else already makes a small DSLR? LOL.

Plus, you still think that the SL1 has no grip, and you're still wrong! It does have a grip. In fact, it has a better, deeper, more sculpted grip than your Pentax MX or the OM-D. What hypocrisy to falsely complain about the SL1 not having a grip, while your own MX has no grip at all! As dpreview describes the SL1's grip: "The handgrip, with its offset shutter button and lip running across to the lens throat, is surprisingly good for such a small SLR." And, "The textured grip is deep enough to provide a solid hold of the camera." Meanwhile, your MX's "grip" is just a flat slab of nothing! Clearly, you're not a very good judge of camera grip design! LOL.

@ T3

Dear you are fanatical Canon user, defending this product even if you are offending by drawing conclusion of not knowing how to hold camera or hypocrisy.

Watch out for telling me that I am hypocrite. I just told you, I am able to hold and make a still with 30+ years camera with nor grip so you arrogantly stop teaching me. Me personally have a brilliant camera by all means.

To compare 30years old M analog and brand new DSLR is idiocy, probably you are fond of in order to get any kind of stupid argument.

So here is another one. K 30 - is cheaper, have great ergonomics, great handling, almost same size and sensor beating 7d from Canon.
If you wanna complain about lenses - well you can buy Sigma f2.8 which in latest test was better than Canon lens.

Enjoy your Canon fanatism.

emtx, you're simply talking crazy, my friend. If your 30 year old flat-slab, no-molded-grip Pentax MX were to be introduced today, it would be ridiculed for its complete lack of ergonomic design. And yet THAT is the camera that you praise!? LOL. One of my first cameras was a Nikon FE2. Great camera for its time, but by today's standards it has practically no ergonomics and definitely no molded grip. Meanwhile, the SL1 does have a far better designed grip than these ancient flat-slab SLRs (which is clearly visible if you just look at a picture of the SL1!), and I'll trust dpreview's hands-on confirmation of the SL1's good grip design (especially for such a compact camera).

As for the K30, in the context of size in this discussion, we can't ignore that the K30 is a larger camera and a whopping 250g heavier than the SL1. Are you mentioning the K30 to distract us from the other ridiculousness that you've already written? I guess so. Hahaha.

@kaiser soze

Your observations about Sony and Panasonic ILC cameras are correct, but my point is that Canon's new Rebel SL1 shows the inherent strength of the DSLR design, which is its ability to evolve. ILCs and DSLRs will coexist alongside each other quite easily because they appeal to different customers, but one is not likely to replace the other, at least not within our lifetimes. Bottom line being that Canon is offering potential new ILC and DSLR buyers a new choice for the same money as the Sony and Panasonic offerings in a form factor that is already familiar and therefore comfortable to its established legions of loyal customers as well. My first impression of the Rebel SL1 is that it will be a major sales success. Why? Because I'm thinking of buying one or two SL1 bodies with fast prime lenses for myself, and I don't usually buy small cameras of any kind.

@veroman- You shouldn't compare the SL1 to the K-01. The K-01 was a major failure because A) it had no built-in viewfinder, B) it offered no provision to add a viewfinder and C) it had a weird and unfamiliar design. As a result, a lot of people wouldn't even consider the K-01. Plus, the weird, avant garde Marc Newson design was a turn-off to people who just wanted a more compact camera that still was, and still looked like, a conventional DSLR. But the lack of a viewfinder alone was enough to kill off the K-01. Canon, on the other hand, was smart to just make the SL1 a mini DSLR, with all the conventional things you'd expect on a DSLR (including a conventional DSLR viewfinder).

T3 - you might be right about viewfinder. I hope they will fix it. Just image quality is great from K1 / better than from EOS 650.
I do not comment on design - you might not like it, but its plain good. Considering avant-guarde = this does not exist anymore.

Not only desperate ! but stupid marketing .

In another form it was sugested that it would make a good campanion to a 5D so that EF lenses could be shared - perhaps if they had a 35mm but as a 5D owner I wouldn't Buy !
This camera will only be bought as a "ONLY CAMERA "with a packaged zoom and I suspect that most Camera salespersons would offer a FUJI X /Sony NEX or a real camera like a D7100 as an alternative ( even a greater cost )!

Don't be so sure it'll not be used as a second body. I'm considering it for use alongside my 7D as an alternative to a compact. I prefer the lens sharing over buying something like the NEX or Panasonic G series.

As well they should. Their buyers don't really want or need mirrorless cameras and this SL1 is a good idea overall. I'd like to see the SL2 with a 12mp sensor that has even better low light capability and improved DR over Canon's 18mp sensor.

C

maybe they decided that the guy who wrote the memo didn't really think it through or have the lens/existing customer base to make it a viable proposition.. Things look different when you have the volume customer base like canon seem to do.

I like it, I have Canon lenses I can use on it. I already have an Olmypus EPL-2 but have not bought any other lenses as I don't want to invest in another lens series and actually I bought it as my P&S camera, but this product from canon could really work for me and I guess i'm not the only one.

I could not care less about a "vari-angle" rear screen, I am only interested in aan optical viewfinder, that's it.

If it's a decent price (i.e. cheapee than a 650 or 600d) itz will be replacing my main camera (500d) in the next replacement cycle..

The ignored the Memo as it was invalid.

My girfried has a old Minolta Dynax Dslr and hates it for being too clumsy and heavy. She likes the mirrorless stuff for being light and compact, but also likes to use the viewfinder.

So this is what she has been waiting for, already one 100D has been sold !

No other brand can compete with Canon or Nikon in DSLR, no matter how big or small their cameras are. It is laughable that Oly even tried. On the other hand Canon and Nikon will sell everyday DSLR they make irrespective of the size.

The 40mm is nice gem but not ideal as a solo APS lens, for me and I suspect for many others.

If the SL1 was released 2-4 years ago, it wouldn't attract nearly as much negativity, since NEX and m43 didn't hit their stride back then. Same goes for the EOS M. See a pattern?

I understand the motivation behind a tiny DSLR, and that category certainly will have an audience.
The problem is that other manufacturers (Olympus, Panasonic, Sony) have tried the small DSLR route before, and all three dropped that route in favor of mirrorless cams. Whether the 100D's approach is different enough to succeed where similar cameras haven't remains to be seen.

completely agree with you there Franklin
When Pentax came out with K-01, i thought Canon should be right behind it since it really doesn't take much for the likes of Canon to do something like K-01...

and sure enought, 13 months later , Canon is out with SL1.

yes, i love it, its exactly what i would like paired with sigma 30mmf1.4

It's tempting to bash Canon Rebels right out of the gate because there aren't a lot of whiz-bang features on them. But in the instances where I've used one, I've always enjoyed shooting with them. Everything generally works as it's supposed to and works well. Plus I think Canon has the best color reproduction out there with its images.

Lawrtencew, I agree with you, not that the 40 is useless - and especially not since it's also great on full frame - but that I'd like just one other pancake in the 16mm to 24mm range as well, to yield a wide angle for the new APS cam. With that and the 40mm, it would make a great kit for traveling with minimum size and weight. The APS zooms are OK and would be useful, but would be just a hair awkward and counterproductive on this shrunken DSLR.

"I understand the motivation behind a tiny DSLR, and that category certainly will have an audience.
The problem is that other manufacturers (Olympus, Panasonic, Sony) have tried the small DSLR route before, and all three dropped that route in favor of mirrorless cams. Whether the 100D's approach is different enough to succeed where similar cameras haven't remains to be seen."

Yep they all moved on and now Canon has an open slot. It's great timing. Some people still prefer OVF's (a lot of people) and Canon has it's own market to court (bigger and more dedicated than any other market bar Nikon). I think you can't compare what Canon release vs. what the little guys released in the past. This one will sell, no question. I already want one.

C

Canon needs a new Marketing Director - they are not in tune with the people - ask Nikon users they had the same problem a few years ago - made a change - and are now doing very well most of the time !
I would love Canon to make a go of it but they are NOT !

Wow, you must live in a very interesting country than. One where an average car is a Nissan micra, and in a film age everyone shot large format.

Cause here where I live - and I obviously must be wrong - an average car is roughly in the same size of the average car 50 years ago, heck: I'd say that Ford Focus is much larger than a Ford T being manufactured 100 years ago, and the cameras were smaller during the film age than they are now - this Canon 100D is probably the first modern SLR-type camera that reminds me in a size of an old good film cameras. My Olympus OM-4 was truly magnificent tiny camera, for years of digital progress NOONE could make an SLR in that size.
And that was full frame... 100D still isn't, so I suppose, depending on a point of view - you can say that my older camera is still smaller than anything "modern".

So... I must be wrong. Everything gets smaller and smaller... everyone shoot mirrorless, and everyone drive Nissan Micra. Amazing world we live in, don't we?

The sensor in the D3200 is a Nikon sensor it still significantly out preforms the Canon 18mp sensor.

lol more than 7 cameras have used that same 18mp sensor.

@JDThomas: Oh I know that not all of them are - the bulk of the recent sensors have been though.

As for Canon I doubt those are exactly the same sensors - it's very likely that there are numerous small technical changes to that 18mp over the years no one but the engineers at Canon know about. We know for example they have continually put their focus on video quality which is quite good.

In the end I think it's right that those of us who are critical of image quality give Canon a hard time for seemingly standing still. Realistically though a well exposed and shot image will look fantastic on those 18mp sensors. Heck I have old Rebel XTi images that I still marvel at how good they really can be.

We all know they will sell, but that does not make it a good camera. We enthusiastic people care about the quality of the product