Canon mirrorless

[sj2]

... it might be a 1/1.5" sensor.

If it were 1/1.5", they would just label is 2/3".

 

[mfbernstein]

I'm still reckoning the 1.5" sensor is a typo but I would truely love it if I was proved wrong.

First, why would they say 1.5" for a 1/1.5" sensor? The standard nomenclature for that size is 2/3".

Second, f/16 is an extremely unusual minimum aperture for a 2/3" sensor. Most only go to f/8. A very few go to f/11. On the other hand, on a sensor a little larger than m4/3, f/16 is a fairly common minimum aperture.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[mfbernstein]

--I have long argued that such a small zoom camera with larger sensor was possible and expected that Pany would been the first to introduce one using a lens similar to that in the TZ models only with greatly reduced range with m4/3 sensor. The early TZ1 has a f2.8 lens and covered from 35-350mm range. The same lens with m4/3 sensor size would be about 35-85mm effective reach.

It really isn't as simple as that.

Think about the problems the sony NEX had due to the short register distance and the angle which the light was hitting the corners of the sensor. That's with a sensor to lens distance of what, 18mm?

You can use microlenses to deal with light coming in at odd angles. Sony should have, but didn't. A non-interchangeable lens camera moreover would have an easier time than the NEX or M9.

The other thing is that Sony doesn't do a collapsing zoom. The Panasonic 14-42X gives some indication of the savings that gives you.

Bascially if they manage to get a f2.8 lens an a 1.5" sensor (bigger than m4/3 AFAIK) into a body the size of a G series camera I will be very shocked and impressed and parting with $800. I just really don't see it happening though.

Why? $300 more than a NEX 5N.

Or to look at it the other way, who's going to pay $800 for a camera with a compact-sized sensor? The Fuji X10 is already pushing it at $600, and you can bet Canon expects lower margins and much higher volumes than Fuji.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[mfbernstein]

I asked Canon if they were going to make a micro 4/3 and they said any new announcements would be on their web site under products. They, ducked the question so who really knows?

m4/3 is a joint Panasonic-Olympus effort. The odds of Canon joining it are just about nil. For starters, why would Olympus and Panasonic grant potentially their biggest competitor access to the standard to compete against them head-to-head?

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[Dheorl]

First, why would they say 1.5" for a 1/1.5" sensor? The standard nomenclature for that size is 2/3".

It wouldn't be the first time a camera maker has broken with tradition when it comes to sensor sizes.

You can use microlenses to deal with light coming in at odd angles. Sony should have, but didn't. A non-interchangeable lens camera moreover would have an easier time than the NEX or M9.

Yes, you can, but still that all adds money and I assume there is a limit of what micro lenses can solves. A sony needs then at 18mm. How much closer would you have to put it for the camera to end up being pocketable and would microlenses still cope? I dunno, ust speculating.

The other thing is that Sony doesn't do a collapsing zoom. The Panasonic 14-42X gives some indication of the savings that gives you.

Yes, it takes a 63mm lens to a 27mm lens (2.3x smaller).

Apply that to a canon EF-s 17-55 f2.8 lens and you still have a lens that is 45mm long and a diameter of 83mm. Not to mention the normal sized lens costs £1.2k

So once you add on the say 15mm to sensor, 5mm for electronics and screen, you're up to 65mm. I'd hardly call that pocketable.

Why? $300 more than a NEX 5N.

Because to get a lens that speed is insanely expensive compared to the $800 price tag, not even taking into account making it smaller like you're expecting.

Or to look at it the other way, who's going to pay $800 for a camera with a compact-sized sensor? The Fuji X10 is already pushing it at $600, and you can bet Canon expects lower margins and much higher volumes than Fuji.

Depends on what else they have planned for it. Including a high quality EVF would justify a higher price to many people I'm sure.

For a 1.5" sensor at that price I can't see how it can be anything but SLR esque shaped body, just without the ability to swap lenses, not the pocket camera you seem to be dreamng of.

 

[kenw]

They don't take anything away from their still strong DSLR sales, and maybe improve their 'G' sales with this (if indeed it is a G series).

That may be exactly what they are thinking, and that line of thought has doomed a number of companies in the past. The maxim they are failing to get is "better to steal your own lunch and still have something to eat than let someone else take it and leave you hungry." Often these "protect existing product lines" strategies are self defeating. But Canon is big, and so they probably can risk waiting a bit.

--
Ken W
See plan in profile for equipment list

 

[mfbernstein]

First, why would they say 1.5" for a 1/1.5" sensor? The standard nomenclature for that size is 2/3".

It wouldn't be the first time a camera maker has broken with tradition when it comes to sensor sizes.

Maybe, but this would simply be misleading.

Yes, you can, but still that all adds money and I assume there is a limit of what micro lenses can solves. A sony needs then at 18mm. How much closer would you have to put it for the camera to end up being pocketable and would microlenses still cope? I dunno, ust speculating.

The point is that if you only have one lens to worry about, you can correct much more easily.

The other thing is that Sony doesn't do a collapsing zoom. The Panasonic 14-42X gives some indication of the savings that gives you.

Yes, it takes a 63mm lens to a 27mm lens (2.3x smaller).

Apply that to a canon EF-s 17-55 f2.8 lens and you still have a lens that is 45mm long and a diameter of 83mm. Not to mention the normal sized lens costs £1.2k

But there's no indication that the G1X has a constant zoom. The specs only mention f/2.5 at the wide end. The long end is guaranteed to be slower.

So once you add on the say 15mm to sensor, 5mm for electronics and screen, you're up to 65mm. I'd hardly call that pocketable.

The G12 is 50mm already. 55mm would hardly be a huge step up.

Why? $300 more than a NEX 5N.

Because to get a lens that speed is insanely expensive compared to the $800 price tag, not even taking into account making it smaller like you're expecting.

Again, a variable speed zoom is much more likely. Sigma has a 17-70/2.8-4.5 that's fairly small and quite cheap, even if you add a $30% Canon surcharge.

Depends on what else they have planned for it. Including a high quality EVF would justify a higher price to many people I'm sure.

I'm doubtful. The price is a bridge too far for P&S upgraders, and the sensor is too small for most enthusiasts.

Moreover, they've said on several occasions that the believe in larger sensored compacts. I doubt they meant going from 1/1.7" to 1/1.5".

For a 1.5" sensor at that price I can't see how it can be anything but SLR esque shaped body, just without the ability to swap lenses, not the pocket camera you seem to be dreamng of.

Don't know about a pocket cam, but something in the same league as the GF3 + 14-42X lens would be about what I'd expect. In other words, similar in size to the current G12.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

 

[Dheorl]

Maybe, but this would simply be misleading.

I'm not saying canon are calling it a 1.5" sensor. I'm saying they MIGHT be calling it a 1/1.5" sensor and there is a typo on the report.

The point is that if you only have one lens to worry about, you can correct much more easily.

Any reasoning behind this though. You still have a whole range of focal lengths to correct for (although not quite as large a range as the sony NEX range)

So once you add on the say 15mm to sensor, 5mm for electronics and screen, you're up to 65mm. I'd hardly call that pocketable.

The G12 is 50mm already. 55mm would hardly be a huge step up.

How did we suddenly loose 1cm with no reason as to where this decrease in space might come from?

Again, a variable speed zoom is much more likely. Sigma has a 17-70/2.8-4.5 that's fairly small and quite cheap, even if you add a $30% Canon surcharge.

That lens alone is $470. Not taking into account a) as you mention the certain canon surcharge and b) if the panasonic x lens is going to be used as an example it will be about 4x as much. So we have a price of about $2000. You'd have to knock of alot for the fact is doesn't have a lens mount and is fixed to get it down to even the $800 mark.

I'm doubtful. The price is a bridge too far for P&S upgraders, and the sensor is too small for most enthusiasts.

There's lots of people I've heard of moaning you can't get a compact camera these days with a decent viewfinder and would be willing to pay heftily for it. People flocked to the X10 and it has quite a few problems.

Don't know about a pocket cam, but something in the same league as the GF3 + 14-42X lens would be about what I'd expect. In other words, similar in size to the current G12.

So you're expecting canon to be able to make a camera with a bigger sensor and a faster lens and make it smaller than what it already an incredibly impressive lens when it comes to size mounted on a very small ILC? All for only $800?

Like I say. If they manage it I'll be the first to buy one. But with the specs of a 1.5" sensor and a lens starting at f2.5 I just don't see it happening and still being pocketable.

 

[dmanthree]

A camera with a large sensor and a fast and pretty long zoom for $799? I think they're describing a camera with a 1/1.5 (yes, a 2/3") sensor.

Anyway, I don't like the name, either. Too close to my GX1.

Wah, wah, wah.....


--
-------------------------------------------------
'Hit Refresh if pix do not appear. Flaky ISP at work.'

 

[Bob Meyer]

It's not likely to be all that compact (the current G series cameras a pretty chunky) and 28mm just isn't very wide. I'd rather have an S100 as a compact and an m43 as a serious camera than this G1X.

 

[martyvis]

Anyway, I don't like the name, either. Too close to my GX1.

I think X just stands for a number, which could be 3, but is more likely to 4 or even something bigger. (I have heard that the G-series skipped 8 because of Asian superstition, and probably will skip 13 because of a Western (mainly US) superstition.)

 

[eques]

For a camera with a nearly APS-C sized sensor with a f2.5 lens to fit in any sort of pocket canon would have to do some serious witchcraft. If they do manage it, which I seriously doubt, it's going to cost an absolute bomb. Either that or it's going to be an XS-1 style camera, i.e. looks like a standard DSLR but you can't take the lens off. Essentially something for all the people who buy a consumer grade DLSR and never use anything but the kit zoom.

If you'd followed the link you would have already seen that:
1) The lens is fixed (not interchangeable)
2) The price is $800
3) The sensor is repeatedly mentioned as being 1.5".

This is in a press release, which is to say, reliable information.

Where did I say anything about it not being fixed lens? Infact I even said "i.e. looks like a standard DSLR but you can't take the lens off". If you can't take the lens off I would have said it counts as fixed lens.

If all the stuff there is accurate then it's going to be XS-1 esque but trading zoom length for zoom brightness and sensor size. Basically not in a million years is something priced at $800 with a effectively APS-C sized sensor and f2.5 lens going to be able to fit in a pocket. I'd be surprised if they could even manage to get a sensor and glass the required size out for $800 for those specs to be true. Think about how much even an entry level DSLR and f2.8 zoom costs.

I'm still reckoning the 1.5" sensor is a typo but I would truely love it if I was proved wrong.

They must mean 1/1.5" which would be slightly larger that the 1/1.7" sensor found in that class of camera. It would give slightly shallower DOF with a fast zoom lens. If they put microlenses on the sensor, they could get a way wtih a short registration distance and maybe keep the whole thing pocketable.

That is still quite a bit smaller than u 4/3.

Honeslty, if you are going to pay more than $500.00 for a camera, I can't understand why you wouldn't want and ICL camera.

TEollhp

1/1.5 = 2/3 - so you would expect Canon to advertise a two thirds sensor.

A relatively small camera with the above specifications could be very attractive: use the uFT for UWA, tele and macro and very low light purposes and have the Canon for all the rest. - Peter.

 

[eques]

I'm still reckoning the 1.5" sensor is a typo but I would truely love it if I was proved wrong.

First, why would they say 1.5" for a 1/1.5" sensor? The standard nomenclature for that size is 2/3".

Second, f/16 is an extremely unusual minimum aperture for a 2/3" sensor. Most only go to f/8. A very few go to f/11. On the other hand, on a sensor a little larger than m4/3, f/16 is a fairly common minimum aperture.

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

Sorry, should have kept on reading - my post is superfluous. But it is nice we agree. - Peter.

 

[ennemkay]

If you'd followed the link you would have already seen that:
1) The lens is fixed (not interchangeable)
2) The price is $800

OK, agreed so far

3) The sensor is repeatedly mentioned as being 1.5".

No, its mentioned once (the source of this info is from the Wells Fargo website, and Bruno posted the text from that page in his second post on the thread). True, if it had been mentioned more than once it would make the typo theory less likely.

This is in a press release, which is to say, reliable information.

Its not a press release. Its a news article roundup of off the record info.

You'd never see " It is said to have a shallow depth of field" in a press release, thats no different than saying "allegedly".

+1

 

[Mike Fewster]

Canon makes millions selling S95/G12 point/shoot, I don't blame canon for not getting into the mirror-less camera for the fear or destroying their own golden goose.

I believe that Kodak had a similar attitude about 15 years ago

Having say that, how big is a 1.5" sensor exactly ???
and what is the equivalent crop factor?

All I know is that its bigger than Nikon V1, but smaller than APS-C (Sony NEX).
It seem like it might be the SAME SIZE as M4/3???

Thre is no standard for APS-C. Canon APS-C has always been maginally smaller than the Sony/Nikon APS-C , So the description could fit the exicting Canon APS-C size.

--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia