Why Thom is wrong...

Started Sep 25, 2013 | Discussions thread
Beach Bum Senior Member • Posts: 1,055
Re: Except...

Erik Magnuson wrote:

Beach Bum wrote:

What advantage does removing the mirror from CaNikon bodies give them if they continue using the same mount?

Changing the mount only helps with making cameras thinner.

I don't believe this offers much size or weight savings. It just makes the camera cheaper and less functional, IMO.

Either you think there are functional advantages to an EVF or your don't. Most of the people in this thread are arguing about more advantages than than body thickness.

Again, you have the same flange distance, which means the bodies are still going to be large.

You mean large like the SL1? So far, smaller bodies than that have not proven to be a market advantage. Why is the A3000 the largest NEX? But if you insist, Canon could also create an EOS-M based body with an EVF and EF-S lens compatibility instead of an EVF Rebel.

If they change the mount, will they have market penetration for a camera/lens system that's not compatible with their existing DSLRs?

Why would it be incompatible? At least Canon doesn't have to worry about screw-drive AF lenses.

I'm asking a serious question here. What kind of changes can they make if they remove the mirror but maintain the same mount?

They could remove the SLR hump and move the EVF to the side. I doubt they would though.

And what point is there in going to mirrorless if you have no major size/weight changes, aside from money savings?

Money savings is enough - I think you overestimate size as a factor (very little of the difference would be weight.) But they would do it either for cost, features (like FPS), or for a more integrated video experience (e.g. eye-level video.)

I don't think I overestimate size savings at all. The thin body is going to hit the big time at some point in the future, and I don't believe CaNikon can pull this off with their current mounts. The EOS-M uses a different mount that's not compatible with their existing DSLRs. Why would anyone want to buy this mount from Canon when they can buy a mirrorless camera from a more established mirrorless manufacturer?

My point is, I don't think either Canon or Nikon can use any of their existing DSLR lenses on a thin bodied mirrorless camera. To create a thin body, they'd need a new mount which is not compatible with their existing DSLRs.

For this reason, I see a problem for CaNikon and mirrorless. Their existing designs are not really compatible with sleek-bodied mirrorless, which I believe is the future. Why do you think both Canon and Nikon tried (and failed) to enter the mirrorless market with a new mount (with a shorter flange distance). If they could incorporate their current DSLR lenses into a mirrorless camera that was size competitive, why would either of them create a new mount? Simple answer. They wouldn't. They would have tried to use their existing lenses (and mounts).

The reason sleek bodied mirrorless cameras haven't hit the big time yet is that the stars haven't aligned. But they will. Poor advertising and lack of knowledge among the general public not only of how good they are, but even of their very existence, is holding them back.

Once the general public is more informed, they'll catch on.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow