JackM
Veteran Member
Interesting idea but we are talking about premium image quality cameras that fit in your pocket.
Huh? I would think putting the lens closer to the sensor would give a smaller image circle...?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Would a new Canon Mirrorless ILC System replace the EOS System?
- Thread starter Peter Nelson
- Start date
wouldn't a cost of MF sensor - coupled with an awkward ergonomics -
be a prohibiting factor?
as to a possible way of adopting EF lenses:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=38909112
otherwise you'd have incompatible flange distances problem,
jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~
Maybe I was not that clear. My thesis is:
1. Mirrorless is the future
2. For Canon the issue is that they have a lot of customers with EF lenses. It would be dangerous to spoil them. (As Olympus is doing (again), Nikon seems to postbone the issue by introducing something between compacts and m43)
Thus they need a solution that includes all the EF lenses out there. So there are three things that have to be improved:
1. AF speed of CD AF (will happen soon)
2. Compatibility of EF lenses (= a PD AF solution has to be found, e.g. AF PD on chip or an adapter which includes an AF system. It is rumored that Sony introduces such an adapter. If every Sony/Minolta AF SLR lens can be used then on NEX cameras with full AF speed, this would be a very smart move by Sony.)
3. View finder quality (will happen soon or maybe has already happened)
The real challenge for Canon is 2. and 2.
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
1. Mirrorless is the future
2. For Canon the issue is that they have a lot of customers with EF lenses. It would be dangerous to spoil them. (As Olympus is doing (again), Nikon seems to postbone the issue by introducing something between compacts and m43)
Thus they need a solution that includes all the EF lenses out there. So there are three things that have to be improved:
1. AF speed of CD AF (will happen soon)
2. Compatibility of EF lenses (= a PD AF solution has to be found, e.g. AF PD on chip or an adapter which includes an AF system. It is rumored that Sony introduces such an adapter. If every Sony/Minolta AF SLR lens can be used then on NEX cameras with full AF speed, this would be a very smart move by Sony.)
3. View finder quality (will happen soon or maybe has already happened)
The real challenge for Canon is 2. and 2.
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
JackM
Veteran Member
I disagree. There is a connection to the subject that an optical viewfinder (TTL or otherwise) provides that I've never seen in an electronic VF or LCD screen, and I just can't fathom it ever being there. An OVF is an elegant mechanical solution that enhances enjoyment of the shooting experience, and requires no power.
I don't think anyone here is saying the EF system needs to go away. A compact premium quality MILC system could exist alongside it.
Do you have some data or technical details on this? Again I can't fathom it. My experience shooting sports with a 1DIIN and 7D makes me think contrast detect AF is a long way off. Phase detect is another elegant solution that is based on a mechanical measurement. CD is computational, based on measuring the contrast of a portion of the scene then moving the lens and doing this over and over until the contrast is maximized. At least that's my understanding.
true
The question of what you want and of what you get is a different thing. My assessment is more based on business considerations. And I lined out that EVF still need to be improved. Though, I didn't see the latest EVFs.
I heard this argument before. Ah yes, it was in the 80's when AF was introduced. Some people said that AF will never replace manuel focusing and manuel lenses. Indeed, you still can by manuel Zeiss lenses, but that's not the point. AF is all over and optical view finder will be a special interest niche as manuel lenses are today. That said, I agree that an OVF is a pleasure to use (if you have FF camera at least).
It was said above and it's a fear some people have. Take a look at Olympus. They started a new system with 43. Now it seems that they concentrate on m43. Would you buy an expensive 43 lens today? I wouldn't because I won't be able to use this lens on new cameras. I bet Olympus will give up 43 in favor of m43. Now let's assume Canon introduces a mirrorless APS-C system with a new mount ...
But let's go one step further and let us assume that mirrorless is the future (for mass production cameras at least). In this case Canon (as well as the others) has to find a way to bring together EF lenses and CD AF - or to upset its customers (as Olympus is currently doing). Canon has abondon the FD lens mount, of course they could do this again.
Never bet against Moore's law, I'd say. At the begining of this century many people said that it is long way until digital will replace analog cameras. It turned out that the way was not that long. I make a guess: It will take not longer then two years until we have a CD AF camera that is as fast as your cameras. Actually, it might be that the rumored Panasonic Pro GF or even the Sony NEX 7 is (nearly) at this point. At least, I wouldn't be surprised.
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
JackM
Veteran Member
It would be a bad business decision to do away with OVFs. Canon and Nikon would have to agree to do it together, because whichever one does not will win a lot of converts!
AF solves a very specific and widespread problem - how to focus on a moving subject. EVF solves no photographic problem other than, ha ha, improving manual focusing accuracy when using magnified live view. That is a very small use case.
I suppose you can say EVF also solves the problem of how to build a camera with no reflex mirror and still have a through-the-lens viewfinder. But I would still rather have an OVF in that case, a la the Fuji X100 or Leica. Parallax error and all.
Furthermore AF has not replaced MF. There is still a requirement to manually focus in several cases. You're just thinking of the cases where if AF fails, you delete the picture and abandon hope of capturing that shot, which is how most amateurs and point-n-shooters shoot. Enthusiasts and pros still love MF. I like this disclaimer on Phil Askey's M9 preview:
"Before the M8 review I had no experience of rangefinder photography, something I considered relegated to history. During the review process (and thanks to input from those who had used rangefinders before) I gradually began to ‘get’ the advantages, being better ‘connected’ to the subject thanks to the huge bright viewfinder, and being forced to focus manually, always select the aperture, and think more about the shot. Not to mention in the case of the M8, the look from those gorgeous prime lenses (amazingly sharp at the point of focus fading smoothly to silky bokeh). Hence not long after posting my review I bought an M8 for myself (along with a bunch of lenses), and ever since (and unconsciously) all of my personal favorite photographs have come from the M8.
Obviously M series ownership isn’t for everyone, nor is rangefinder photography. But if you’re serious about photography and you get the chance, even if you’d never considered it before, you really should try it."
You can still buy Pentax and Leica MF lenses too, and others. If Leica becomes the only provider of MF and OVF, I guess I will have to save up for one!
That's not a good comparison. Seeing your subject with your own eye and feeling a manual focus ring are two very different things.
The 100% coverage VF in the 7D is a pleasure to use, albeit not as pleasurable as FF. 7D's VF is a lot bigger than the Rebel's.
Olympus has probably conceded the race to Canon and Nikon (and Pentax). They simply can't compete with the AF, IQ, and features. So they are trying to carve a niche for themselves in m4/3.
If they do they can still compete in the traditional DSLR market, and they have the resources to support both systems.
True but I don't see that happening any time soon. Witness all the new and very expensive EF lenses that have been introduced lately. My 70-200/2.8 Mark II quickly comes to mind.
The best solutions to most problems are usually simple and mechanical. Phase detection is that. It is basically an automated rangefinder. It measures the amount of front or back focus at once, and moves the lens by that amount. Contrast detection is iterative and implemented in software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus#Phase_detection
Don't think so, given that the quality of EVF is improved.
Misunderstanding, I wasn't probably clear enough. The AF qustion has nothing to do with EVF/OVF. I only wanted to show an example where people refused new technology (AF in the 80's) and claimed that it never will replace the traditional one (mauel focus).
And many others two. I use a Samyang 14mm on a 5DII. (Though, you actually don't have to focus much.) But that's not the point. EVF on ILCs will be the future and systens with OVF will be niche products as manuel lenses are today.
Sure they are different. But people refusing new technology because the new tech changes the experience of photography is an old story.
Can't comment on this. 40D sucks compared with 5DII
Not the point. The point is that Olympus is going to abondon the 43 mount. Such a step is very risky. As a customer who buys in a system you have to trust the system maker to support the system for a long time. Without this trust it makes no sense to buy into a system.
Don't think so. It wouldn't be a wise business decision. Sooner or later they would have to stop one system. And it would be the SLR system.
I don't see this too. But I see the preasure to go mirrorless. There are different options to do so:
1. A new system that is not in competition of the other products (EF system). It seems that Nikon goes this way with a new system that has a smaller sensor (2.7x). But this approach of course doesn't really answer the question: How to transform a mirror based system to a mirrorless one without losing your customers.
2. Make a new system that gets in competition with the existing one. The Sony way. In this case the question riases where the future will be - Axx or NEX? Should I buy an expensive A-mount lens that can't be used on a NEX? Well, it seems Sony found a good solution: an adapter with translucent mirror and PD AF system.
3. Keep the traditional mount but remove the mirrorbox. In this case you keep compatibilty, but your cameras will be larger than they had to be. And you still have to solve the AF problem.
Don't think so. Best solutions are not mechanical. Mechanical solution are more expensive to produce, you have always to fight with tolerances and they break more easily. (I'm talking about mass market, not e.g. Leica.)
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
rhlpetrus
Forum Pro
Not for some time, but eventually yes, all cameras will be mirrorless. The main issues still are VF quality and AF, especially continuous/predicitive. Also, for pinpoint AF accuracy, like an eye on a shallow DoF portrait (weddings).
So, yes, ML will climb the food chain slowly, it's already competing well with the entry-level dslrs, next the APS-C better bodies, later the pro lines. My bet: less than 10 years to complete the takeover.
Nikon is supposed to launch a small ML entry-level line soon, but that's to fight m43, not to replace its dslrs line, for now. Sony is almost gone, a higher level body (A77) in APS-C format is about to be announced (even though it's not a pure ML system, yet). Let's see how it does.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
So, yes, ML will climb the food chain slowly, it's already competing well with the entry-level dslrs, next the APS-C better bodies, later the pro lines. My bet: less than 10 years to complete the takeover.
Nikon is supposed to launch a small ML entry-level line soon, but that's to fight m43, not to replace its dslrs line, for now. Sony is almost gone, a higher level body (A77) in APS-C format is about to be announced (even though it's not a pure ML system, yet). Let's see how it does.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
JackM
Veteran Member
I think this is the point where we agree to disagree.
Yep, agreed. But that's fine, isn't it. Life would be boring if we all had the same opinion.
However, I'm curious to see what the Canon mirrorless answer will be. A smaller sensor system (like Nikon) or somrthing in the APS-C area (like Sony).
If Nikon really comes out with a 2.7x system they would occupy a territory where nobody is yet. Guess this is the intention. But where will Canon go (probably end of next year)?
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
However, I'm curious to see what the Canon mirrorless answer will be. A smaller sensor system (like Nikon) or somrthing in the APS-C area (like Sony).
If Nikon really comes out with a 2.7x system they would occupy a territory where nobody is yet. Guess this is the intention. But where will Canon go (probably end of next year)?
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
JackM
Veteran Member
I think Nikon and Pentax are being sent on fools' errands with their tiny sensor MILCs. They're DOA if you ask me. I don't see how they can possibly appeal to anyone already into DSLRs.
If Canon comes out with anything less than m4/3 size, I'll just get an S95. I think they could dominate Sony in the APS-C arena, or blaze a new trail with FF and really make something special. It would be the first digital alternative to Leica.
...but only IFF implemented well (with OVF etc.), a price point well below L.
would not go amiss too
jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~
It's only the size that might attract DSLR owners. But I think at least Pentax is not really trageting the DSLR user. (And I don't think they will be overly successfull with their concept.)
With Nikon I understand the business reasoning behind it.
You have 4 sensor levels at the moment: FF, APS-C, m43, small sensors in compacts. There is a performing gap between m43 and small sensor in compacts, there is a whole in the offerings line. Fill the gap, own a new market - this might be the strategy of Nikon.
Now let's assume that Nikon get's the same iq out of their 2.7x sonsor as m43 out of their 2x sensor. (It's at least possible.) Because of the samller sensor the Nikons could be even smaller than the m43s. If Nikon does the other things right (e.g. AF, UI) than this might be an appealing package - at least for me.
If iq is not on par with m43, Nikon screwed it.
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
With Nikon I understand the business reasoning behind it.
You have 4 sensor levels at the moment: FF, APS-C, m43, small sensors in compacts. There is a performing gap between m43 and small sensor in compacts, there is a whole in the offerings line. Fill the gap, own a new market - this might be the strategy of Nikon.
Now let's assume that Nikon get's the same iq out of their 2.7x sonsor as m43 out of their 2x sensor. (It's at least possible.) Because of the samller sensor the Nikons could be even smaller than the m43s. If Nikon does the other things right (e.g. AF, UI) than this might be an appealing package - at least for me.
If iq is not on par with m43, Nikon screwed it.
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
JackM
Veteran Member
That could be appealing if the IQ is there and the lenses are high quality, fast, and small.
That is the crux right there. If it's not, then the Nikon will face serious competition from the Canon S95, Panasonic LX5, Olympus XZ-1. I think those cameras already fill the hole you're speaking of.
...and s95 doesn't even have a afterthought, slap-on toy VFs of
the other two
jpr2
--
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~
The crop factor of the S95 is somewhere in the 4.7x region.
We have the following "crop factiors" today: 1x, 1.5 / 1.6x, 2x, and 4.7x. You see the whole in the line? (Left away 1.3x)
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
We have the following "crop factiors" today: 1x, 1.5 / 1.6x, 2x, and 4.7x. You see the whole in the line? (Left away 1.3x)
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
Forgot to add:
Looking at the crop factors and considering the performances of the different sensor sizes, it is to be expected that a 2.7x camera is far better than a S95 etc.
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
Looking at the crop factors and considering the performances of the different sensor sizes, it is to be expected that a 2.7x camera is far better than a S95 etc.
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
JackM
Veteran Member
I see the hole, but I'm not sure it needs filling. The Nikon would have to be significantly better than the S95/LX5/XZ1 (which are quite good) and on par with m4/3, and physically smaller than the m4/3 cameras. If the Nikon doesn't trounce the IQ of the S95/LX5/XZ1, the small size of those cameras will be appealing.
Agreed. I think Nikon (and Canon) could be able to do so. But we have to wait and see. It seems there is an announcement on Aug. 24.
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
--
********************
http://www.freude-am-licht.de
********************
reimersdk
Forum Enthusiast
This is probably the most interesting thread - for years
I'm a bit surprised that no one mentions the problem related to
the uwa and wa lenses of the 'M-like' design. For a long time
the debate was about the technical ability of a FF-sensor to react
properly to the light hitting it at angles far from 90 degrees.
Has this problem been solved?
I would seriously consider buying a CL- or M4-2-like body with
canon 5DII type sensor and electronics.
--
5D=R12 and 550D=R13
I'm a bit surprised that no one mentions the problem related to
the uwa and wa lenses of the 'M-like' design. For a long time
the debate was about the technical ability of a FF-sensor to react
properly to the light hitting it at angles far from 90 degrees.
Has this problem been solved?
I would seriously consider buying a CL- or M4-2-like body with
canon 5DII type sensor and electronics.
--
5D=R12 and 550D=R13
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum